Lunchbox
Did Campbell's Soup obliterate your desire to buy things from them when their ads make fun of Progresso Soup? (and vice versa?)
I'm just really shocked by the animosity the ad brought on. And ps folks - the ad iteslf is like 15 years old. (debuted in 2003)
This whole thread has brought up to important questions:
1: when did it become not okay for a company to protect it's own interests? and,
2: would this same animosity exist if the company were a lot smaller and scrappier- but still trying to protect it's own interests?
Herman Miller's pricing is...
Herman Miller's pricing is just as bothersome as any of the other companies making a buck these days. What's worse is that companies like Knoll or Cassina were never meant to be the most affordable dealers in the first place. And as we all know, this was not the case with Herman Miller. The great designer minds that brought on these pieces we call classics today, namely Charles Eames and George Nelson, were interested in producing quality modern furniture with accessibility for everyone. Yet over the years, the quality of materials and construction of HM editions has suffered while their prices have sky rocketed. I don't see any need in defending them.
And whether this spot was run in the 80's or just yesterday, I cannot believe that a company of Herman Miller's clout would approve such an inept ad. I don't mind the message. But the combination of sassy arrogance and ignorance is just what I called it, gross.
Not so serious...
I don't remember seeing this ad for HM. But seeing it for the first time, honestly I think it was pretty cool. I don't know but maybe some of you are over analyzing the whole "old" campaign. Or I'm not analyzing enough (sure there is a dirty side to every thing). But it is a business, and how people make a living.
As an artsy individual this ad simply works for me, it's clear and straight to the point. Sure the "real" comparisons are a bit juxtaposition but I see it as "authentic" which is also another way of saying "real". It's a pretty simple ad really, well at least that is as far as I take it. But it's great seeing it from a different perspective.
I'd love to work for HM.
Perception vs. Fact
Again, Lunchbox, perception vs. fact. It is true that some of the pieces of Eames and Nelson were designed to be accessible to everyday folks. However, Herman Miller quickly moved from the residential market to the contract/architectural market. (even whilst Eames/Nelson were still on board)
And skyrocketing prices? An eiffel chair costs $250, a plywood lounge $650, and an executive chair costs $1200. Are these prices really that outrageous? (compared to say - Knoll, at $1200 for a Tulip dinnig chair?)
It's true - the big lounge chair and the nelson sofa and the coconut chair start to become luxury items - but those were always designed for the luxury market. The Eames lounge today costs no more (allowing for inflation) than it did in 1958.
Lucifer...
I don't see your point of view as even one someone could see as perception, much less reality. The L&O goes for $3700 these days. The Group Lounge for $2700. And frankly, how you can consider the LCW a deal at $679($699 for cherry) is beyond me. That design uses the least materials of any I can think of amongst 'high design.' And $250 for a molded plastic side chair on eiffel base is a sham in my opinion as the original ingredient of interest(fiberglass) is no longer even used in production. I could go on. But basically, I couldn't disagree more with the sentiment that Herman Miller is no more expensive today than in the glory days of the real geniuses.
Lucifersum is right on the money (sic)
Relatively speaking, Herman Miller's prices are a much better value than anything being produced by Knoll, Fritz Hansen, Cassina, Artek, etc.
Materials and wages go up and i think Herman Miller's stuff is still fairly priced.
Where else could I have gotten a 36" x 36" square work table for under $400.00 (during the Herman Miller sale)?
A similar Knoll table would've cost me $800.00.
I think you've already...
I think you've already guessed correctly that I think the modern market is pretty inflated at this point, Pegboard. However, I'm speaking from a comparative point of view. Knoll produces both the Saarinen Womb as well as the Bertoia Bird. Would I prefer these designs over the Eames Lounge or Aluminum Group? Absolutely not. But considering the fact that Knoll are still reckless in their attention to detail compared to Herman Miller, I'd be inclined to purchase a Womb or Bird for roughly the same money as a Group and decidedly less than a L&O. As I alluded to, Herman Miller's frame of reference price wise to Knoll and companies of like mind was decidedly lower to begin with and has now surpassed Knoll in terms of inaffordability in the lounge chair realm. Am I wrong? Am I missing something? I realize to a certain degree this is an argument of principle. But honestly, do you disagree?
Lunchbox
I'm not trying to be rude here, but I dont think you have a realistic sense of what furniture or manufacturing costs these days -especially in America.
I don't consider the LCW a 'deal' but I certainly dont think it's very expensive. To use your Knoll example: Risom's Vostra lounge goes for $750 and is just a wood frame and cotton webbing. Hell - a shitty 'designer' lounge chair from CB2 costs 500$.
I'm also really missing your frame of reference in terms of quality. Because of the material considerations lets set aside the plastic chairs (altho I note that a plastic Ikea bucket chair cost $150 by comparison).
But do you have any basis to claim the 670 is less well made now than it ever was? Or, more surprisingly, the aluminum group? In my experience the Alu group are built like battleships. I've got a new (2006) 670 and a vintage Alu - both are solid and gorgeous.
Also - I again disagree with you in terms of pricing. Simple saying that HM was cheap doen't actually make it so. Fact: the 670/671 cost $500 in '57. Accounting for inflation that same $500 is equivalent to $3800 today. Not a big price gap. And in 1958 when the price went to $800 the relative price today soars near the $6k range.
I think you've got this very romanticized version of what HM was about - much of which was driven by ideals - but often not realized in practice. The classic furniture didnt make up nearly as much of the company as the commercial furniture did.
The plywood lounge chairs were dropped from the product line in 1954 - and not reintroduced until the 90s. The casegoods were dropped early too. The only things that stuck around were the things devoted to the contract market: Task chairs (alu & softpad) Public seating (plastic and tandem sling) Office seating (plastic and DCM/Ea127) ; and Luxury (670/671) Affordability for the everyman was dropped by the wayside pretty early on. By the 70s almost all of Herman Miller was devoted to systems, medical, and corporate office spaces.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
Lucifer...
I will concede that I might have a sugar-coated vision of what HM was back then in my head. However, while you may be right about costs and inflation I will certainly argue against HM's quality these days versus vintage. Not in reference to the L&O or Group designs. Those are pretty straight forward. But as I mentioned, the Nelson Swag Group re-editions are poor in my opinion compared to their vintage counterparts. From the chairs to the desk to the disturbingly priced miniature chest. There are quite a few pieces in their catalogue which don't wow me half as much as their label or price should, shell chairs being the most notable. And while I can see that some of my scorn for HM these days stems from the absence of nostalgia of any piece which comes off their lines these days all shiny and new, I don't think I'm being too overly critical. Maybe I am. Hell, I don't know.
On a side note, now should be a great time to buy an Aluminum Group Lounge. Should their prices not fluctuate as the raw materials market does?
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com