Before this | After this

boxes SimonJester
Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) has a short discussion today about digital camera design, and also briefly mentions a couple of sound mixing boards he has used.

Plus, people just like stuff that looks and feels better. I remember my old Alesis mixing board was good, but its controls felt cheap -- like a kid's toy. The Mackie I use now (the Alesis suffered an unfortunate accident) isn't any better, really, but its controls feel better, so it's a pleasure to use.

I've been noticing a lot of contrast in my life between products that actually work very well, and products that are far more pleasurable to use than the first set but don't work nearly as well. One example that I think about almost daily is body lotion, which I use a lot of because I have very dry, flaky skin.

The cheap, national-brand lotion I get at the grocery store smells a bit off (not too bad, just neutral instead of good). The container is, again, a bit off: not attractive, although I like the colors chosen for the pump and part of the text: a nice strong blue, somewhere between turquoise and teal. The design of the bottle is good in that you really can get almost all the lotion out through the pump. And the lotion works wonderfully: one application lasts roughly 24 hours--that is, my skin doesn't feel dry or itchy, and I have a lot less flakiness. I don't feel a bit sticky or greasy after applying it, either, and it's never stained my clothes.

I've had a lot of other moisturizing experiences (not all were lotions) in the last couple of years, including: custom-scented lotion that Twoson gave me for my birthday (he picked jasmine, one of my favorites), orange-ginger lotion from a hotel stay (I grabbed each day's tiny bottle and brought them home), and then there are the LUSH products.

Massage bars, lumps of scented cocoa butter to use in the shower, foot lotion, hand lotion (both a solid bar and a custard in a pot), body lotion. All beautiful to smell, touch, and see; all very expensive.

These non-grocery-store products are very pleasurable to use. I feel special when I use them, both because they are not the run-of-the-mill basics and because of their particular properties: their silky feel on my hands while I'm spreading the product, their smells, the packaging used on them.

The very expensive, clove-scented foot lotion from LUSH is a decadent luxury to put on, and I feel like a princess when I'm doing it--but my feet feel dry when I get up in the morning. Not true of the grocery-store basic. Same with the hotel lotion: the tiny bottle is clever and hip, the lotion smells delicious, but my hands feel dry and I need more lotion about an hour later. And the massage bars and shower bars leave my skin so greasy that I prefer to lounge for a few minutes and let them buff off a bit on the inside of my robe before dressing.

All of the LUSH stuff is like the foot lotion. Pretty product, great scents, marvelous feel while using, but ultimately they're not doing the job of moisturizing my skin, and some of them have the negative quality of greasiness.

On the other hand, the basic grocery-store lotion is very cheap to buy and use: it has no bonus of pleasure in the use, no happy smells or pretty feel to induce me to use it, it's like taking my vitamins or my prescriptions, a chore rather than a treat. But that's what I keep going back to, because effectiveness is more important to me than pleasure, and this one does the job at a quarter the price.

Even though I'm willing to pay more for texture, color, scent, and even a pretty package, I'm only willing to pay more when the product also *works*. It doesn't have to work better than the less-expensive competitor, but I want it to work at least as well.

In a perfect world I could get the basic lotion in a range of scents for just a bit more in cost, but I'm glad to have it at all. And I'll keep buying it, because I'm not stupid: I'd buy it even if it cost more than the others because it works, but it's actually cheaper by a lot. I can give up the decadent pleasure of using the expensive stuff in favor of the practical value of the cheap stuff.

So that's my sweet spot. I imagine I'd struggle harder if any of those premium products worked, but they don't. I'm astounded by that, truly I am.

Comments

[info]dr_brat wrote:
Oct. 23rd, 2006 12:30 am (UTC)
I'm wondering if you've tried Burt's Bees body lotions and where they fit in your spectrum from Lush to supermarket. DWH has abominable skin, so we're always on the lookout for products to make his life bearable. He's liking the Burt's Bees lately.
[info]snippy wrote:
Oct. 23rd, 2006 01:00 am (UTC)
I find the smell of them unbearable, and I think they're midrange: they work okay, but nothing special.

I've got very sensitive skin and I react to some of the ingredients they use, so although I love the lip balm I tend to stay away from the rest of their products.

I found the same "cheap is actually better" assessment worked on my facial products, too. I'd used one major brand since age 13, was very loyal even though it was expensive. Then when I really couldn't afford it, I tried a drugstore brand and like the results much better. Plus instead of putting on 4 or 5 different layers of product, each costing upwards of $35 per jar, I'm getting just as good results with one moisturizer twice a day after washing with plain soap.
[info]akicif wrote:
Oct. 23rd, 2006 11:15 am (UTC)
Yes! Thanks for posting this. It's nailed something I've never really considered in detail before, but have had vaguely formless and inchoate thoughts about. I guess you could say it's all down to the user interface....

[Re: LUSH - I got introduced to their products in the early nineties, when they were still just a mail order operation called Cosmetics-to-Go. Some lovely look-and-feel, and quite a lot of clever ideas, but the quality of the stuff that's meant to do something, rather than just get you clean and feel vaguely nice, seems to have dropped in the last few years]
[info]laurel wrote:
Oct. 23rd, 2006 11:26 pm (UTC)
I'm always searching for better products. I want my products to have appealing packaging and an appealing scent (where applicable) and good feel and also *work*. But it's hard to find items with all these qualities. I will pay more for such items, though of course if they're a good value-- all the better.

I've had similar experience with Lush products. I love the smell of Sympathy for the Skin and the texture as I put it on, but it's greasy enough afterwards that I can really only apply it if I'm going to be just lounging around the house a while in a robe or PJs or something. It also, I once found, really attracts bugs (must be the banana in it, I'd guess). Lots of their products seem to have trade-offs.

I'm newly addicted to the Method line of cleaning products because I love the packaging and like their concept. Though I've already found that the scents leave something to be desired and I'm wondering if I'll go back to using different hand soap 'cuz of that, etc. And we'll see how well the other products fare. I'm so obsessed with aesthetics that I like that right now all my cleaning supplies "match". My husband laughs at me over it (in a good natured way).