Barbie, Don't Blame China
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 09. 5.07
Poor Barbie is disconsolate as her dream house is emptied and her furniture recalled by Mattel for lead paint remediation. We hope that when she refurnishes she will do it with a bit more style and shop local. She will find it a bit more expensive, but perhaps it wouldn't hurt to go minimal and try living with less. And don't go blaming the Chinese for the required makeover; Professor Shih-Fen S. Chen of the Richard Ivey School of Business notes that:
The reality is that U.S. importers have failed to install a quality control system and reject any outsourced product that does not meet the benchmarks. We are not talking about a few random errors in production that escape the eyes of quality control managers, but about a colossal failure of the outsourcing firm that let 19 million pieces of unsafe toys slip into the marketplace.
He continues:
if we really need to find someone to blame, don't blame China for U.S. toy makers' failure to protect consumers. Let me explain why:
First, U.S. firms outsourcing products from China pocket most of the savings on production costs as profits. A recent study sponsored by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation's Personal Computing Industry Center at the University of California Irvine found that it costs only $4 to assemble an iPod in China, using parts and components from South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, etc. Apple keeps $80 in the total price of $299. If subcontractors in China must split the blame for quality failure with Apple, their fair share should not exceed 5 per cent (i.e., $4 divided by $80).
Second, most buyers rely on product brands rather than country names in making their choice decision. They purchase a Chinese-made Barbie not because they value the country name, but because they trust the product brand. Thus, the liability for breaching consumer trust should be assigned to the party who brands the final product, regardless of its country of origin.
Third, U.S. manufacturers take full credit for the success of an outsourced product if their subcontractors happen to deliver high quality to consumers (as they do in most cases). Has Steve Job ever said that "a subcontractor in Taiwan makes my iPhone" or Phil Knight told anyone that "shoemakers in China assemble the Air Jordan line"? If not, is it acceptable that U.S. toy makers scapegoat a subcontractor for their failure in screening out unsafe products?
My answer is "no". The party who takes full credit for product success must bear full blame for product failure - it's as simple as that. ::Globe and Mail
Why don't we focus on the real issue of outsourcing all the crap that we feel we "need" but aren't willing to pay a higher price for. Then we wonder why companies in North America keep letting employees off...
There needs to be a balance at import/export...but remember every time you buy something made in China...that means less is made in U.S.A or Canada.
Quality control is one thing...but not truly supporting your own economy is another!
P.S...stop buying crap toys that have a 1 month lifespan before your kid gets bored!
Once again Treehugger perpetuates the myth that the only costs in bringing a product to market are the costs involved in manufacturing that product. Please stop using this sort of fuzzy math. Why is it that Treehugger can factor in the additional environmental costs of a product but seems to have such a hard time when considering the costs of designing, marketting, etc of a product?
With that said ultimately the company that has its name on the product will be the one that should bear responsibility for said product. Ultimately this happens at the checkstand when the consumer decides against purchasing a Barbie or other toy from Mattel. Problem is most of the other toys are made in China too.
This is a plan by Red China to poison our little girls to the point of infertility so they can exact their plan of world domination
If I buy a product, I don't give money to a manufacturer or to a brand, I give my money to a shop. The shop has the responsibility that the product is worth the money I am paying. The shop will rely on garantuees by brands and manufacturers. But this is not my problem as a consumer. If something is wrong with the product the shop should solve the problem.
Any company that imports a product with lead in it should be as responsible as if they made the product domestically.
But it doesn't help that the Chinese government is basically looking the other way on these issues.
The good professor is a master equivocater. "It's not the producer's fault if he produces toxic products." My BS meter is pinging like crazy. It IS the producer's fault for making toxic products, and they should be subject to any number of penalties. (The recent suicide by a senior manager at one of these outfits was a good start, too bad more Americans don't follow the Asian stereotype for accepting responsibility...) But it is his customer's fault - in this case Mattel - for letting those products get to market.
Or, wait a minute, is it stupid and consumeristic American society that beats a trail to WalMart paying attention only to low prices that is to blame? It's a perfect self-licking ice cream cone: we want what we want when we want it for the lowest price possible, pretty soon all that's available is cheap crap from a supply system that just doesn't give a flying frog fart about anything except profits. Stupidity, thy name is America.
Not that the problem of lead paint in children's product isn't VERY serious, but it should be noted that of the 19 million recalled Mattel toys, only a fraction of those were for lead paint (quality issue), while the bulk of the recall was for the safety issue involving small magnets (design issue). Mattel is ultimately responsible for both problems, but only one (lead paint) can be blamed on the Chinese factories. The press has consistently lumped these together, and they are very different problems, each requiring a very different solution.