Do you get what you pay for?
For example, one beauty blogger found that using Crisco on her skin worked just as well as an expensive face cream.
Like many of you, I’m a proponent of quality over quantity. I’d rather buy one good coat that will get me through three seasons and last for years than replace a poorly made, cheap one every year.
But it’s important to consider that expense is not necessarily an indication of quality. And even when the more expensive item is of higher quality, it might not be the best buy.
The following are five examples that illustrate that the more expensive option isn’t always worth the extra expense.
Kitchen gear. While researching this post, I happened upon countless articles advising people to spend big on a quality chef’s knife. That’s exactly what I was planning to do a couple years ago, until I read a Cook’s Illustrated review on chef’s knives. (For me, Cook’s Illustrated is the final word in cooking. They’ve never steered me wrong.) They tested brands that varied widely in price, giving the highest rating to a $30 Forschner Fibrox knife, noting that “knives costing four times as much would be hard-pressed to match in performance.” I can attest that it’s a good one.
Food writer Mark Bittman says that in most restaurant kitchens, chefs use an 8-inch, plastic-handle stainless alloy chef’s knife that costs $10 at a restaurant supply store. Bittman also shows readers how they can equip a basic kitchen for $200.
It seems that despite the standard advice of “investing” in a chef’s knife, the pros use and recommend the cheaper ones.
Prescriptions. There are a few exceptions to the rule, but in general, generic medications are equivalent to their brand-name counterparts. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, generics can be sold at a substantial discount because generic manufacturers don’t have to pay investment costs to develop the drug. The FDA requires generic drugs to have the identical purity, quality, strength, and stability as their brand-name counterparts.
The prescription drug commercials we see on TV would have you believe that their brand-name drug is superior, but the FDA says it isn’t so.
Cameras. Haje Jan Kamps from Photocritic.org wrote about why he doesn’t need an expensive camera:
All I’m saying is that at my level (and, I wager to say, at the level of many other photographers), the 450D (and any equivalent low-level SLR cameras) are plenty good. The problem with photography is that it’s simply too tempting to splash a lot of money for everything and then end up bankrupting yourself on the wrong things.
I used to have a bad habit of thinking that I needed the newest and most expensive stuff for both established and new hobbies. It’s tempting to get top-of-the-line equipment, but most of it is unnecessary unless you’re a professional. A pricey camera won’t make you a better photographer.
Note from J.D. Roth of Get Rich Slowly: April is absolutely correct. A better camera does not equal better photos. Lenses are much more important. And most folks would be much better served by paying a couple hundred bucks to take a photography class at the local community college.
Skin care. Ever heard of Crème la Mer? It’s the ridiculously expensive face moisturizer touted by various celebrities. And by ridiculously expensive, I mean $125 for one measly ounce of the miracle cream.
One beauty blogger decided to pit Crème la Mer against Crisco (yes, you read that correctly -- the big, blue tub of vegetable shortening). It turns out that everyone from beauty experts to doctors recommend Crisco as a serious skin moisturizer, and in the blogger’s trial, there was minimal difference between the La Mer side of her face and the Crisco side. A 16-ounce tub of Crisco is about $3.50. A 16-ounce jar of Crème la Mer is $1,350.
I can’t say I’m going to try this one myself, but it shows that there are cheap and effective skin care alternatives that work just as well as the ones that cost a fortune.
Wine. In Evolved Primate, a Psychology Today blog, social psychologist Daniel R. Hawes discussed an experiment where wine tasters rated the same wine differently depending on what they thought it cost.
…when tasting the same wine, the participating wine tasters systematically reported superior taste for the wine that came out of the $90 bottle, in contrast to the wine that came from the $10 bottle.
The study suggests that we perceive the quality and likability of a wine relative to its price.
In the article “Expensive wines doesn’t always mean they’re better,” wine critic and author Matt Kramer wrote that a more expensive wine is better than a less expensive one to a degree, but not to an extreme degree, and price is determined by many factors:
… there’s no “right price” for a wine. If you can get people to pay a high price, because of quality, public relations, high scores, marketing muscle, or just plain luck, well then, you’ve found the right price. It’s that simple -- and that complex.
My favorite wine is Brunello di Montalcino, but it’s expensive and therefore a rare treat. I have to wonder how I’d fare in a blind taste test, though. Is it truly the taste of the wine I enjoy, or the feeling of indulging myself and the memories of the little trattoria in Florence where I had my first glass?
- Bing: Best wines under $25
Good news: Consumers aren’t morons
Even though consumers may perceive expensive products to be of higher quality, that doesn’t mean we’ll buy. A Cornell study found that although a more expensive product may generate a more favorable view, it doesn’t necessarily mean consumers will buy it.
Cornell behavioral economist Ori Heffetz was surprised by the results, expecting larger effects:
More expensive products might be perceived as more attractive -- which could increase demand -- but they are also more expensive, which our study showed decreased demand.
In other words, I may think a $1,350 jar of moisturizer is superior to a tub of Crisco, but that doesn’t mean I’m blowing the rent on face cream. Score one for consumer sensibility.
What are some more examples of when the expensive product isn’t the best option or the highest quality? What is the cheaper solution that works better?
Related reading at Get Rich Slowly:
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
ABOUT SMART SPENDING
LATEST BLOG POSTS
Nearly half of family caregivers spend more than $5,000 a year, plus caregiving affects their jobs and retirement plans.
- America's most counterfeited products
- Driver survey: Men irked by phone talkers, women by lane cutters
- 5 reasons to take the company buyout (and 5 not to)
- Tired of Fed-watching, saver? Check out these banks instead
- New software targets credit card thieves at gas pumps
- Thinking of holiday shopping? Do a reality check first
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
BLOGS WE LIKE
MUST-SEE ON MSN
- Video: Easy DIY smoked meats at home
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'