$100,000 is always a good number to grab most people’s attention with. It’s big enough to be a number that really counts and yet small enough to get lost in bigger budgets, after all if you put a ‘K’ at the top of the dollars column it becomes $100, and regrettably that’s exactly what many staff think when they read the document; after all it’s not their money.
The web has opened up a plethora of opportunities for small business allowing the supply of an unbelievable variety of products and services for an almost infinite range of costs (the amount you pay). In fact you can even pay as little as $10 to get a logo! (I suspect you know where I’m coming from now.) The real question though is: – what’s it worth?
Paying $10 for something to throw it away is a waste, but it’s an even greater waste to pay $100 for something that you could have bought for $10. The underlying process that controls one’s spending habits has much to do with how this operates. It is essentially what one comes to consider as the norm.
Take the example from a number of years back of one intrepid individual who, whilst having breakfast, noticed that one of the Nutri-grain’s in his bowl was the same as ET’s (of “phone home” fame) head. Seeing a dollar to be made it promptly goes onto eBay and it sells for in excess of $1000. Someone who bought it saw a perceived future value, and was willing to put the current value of $1000 to back that greater perceived value. Ultimately the value, and the worth, and the cost were destroyed when the Daily Telegraph bought a whole box of Nutri-grain for around $6 and found in excess of 30 ‘heads’ in their one box!
In large organisations, and particularly in governments, there are procurement processes that have been designed by large consulting entities that are essentially self-fulfilling. They set hurdles that suppliers must first climb over, they normally establish panels or lists of approved suppliers, and they set ongoing procedural steps that many small organisations cannot easily cope with, thus the system itself builds a gravy train for a select few that can benefit greatly.
I know as President of the Parramatta Chamber that I have a number of qualified (local/resident) Members who would have relished the opportunity to deliver a modified (i.e. not new) logo and ancillary paper/digital work for around 10 to 20 percent of what was paid, and there will be many others with similar arguments.
I get a lot of correspondence from ASIC and to be honest I really don’t even notice the logo; in fact it could be on the page upside down and I would be oblivious to it. It is the content of the correspondence that is relevant, not how pretty it looks.
Someone trying to sell me their product over someone else’s, well maybe, but then I’d like to think there are more important considerations than the logo on the letterhead. You see; … I’m normally in search of value.