Warning: this post is about furniture. Fast Company has an article on the decline of the furniture company Design Within Reach. The article focuses on how in an effort to cut costs DWR "copied" designs it had earlier sold as a distributor. A look at the before and after, however, shows that the real problem is that the copies are nowhere near as aesthetically pleasing as the originals.
Take a look at these credenzas. In the DWR version where is your eye first drawn?
Is the eye not drawn first to the stodgy feet? The thick and heavy feet of the DWR version combined with the shorter width give it a weighted down, stolid feel. The original in contrast is light and airy, it almost floats above the floor, an effect which is aided by the shading with its subtle look of fluffy clouds.
Now take a look at the bookshelfs.
The DWR version has a clean look but it's boring–you see it once and you are done. Now look at the original. Does it not draw your attention? In the original the middle shelves do not align vertically with the side shelves and the top and bottom middle shelves are open, not closed. I think the result is a much more interesting and entertaining piece of furniture.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled dose of economics.
Good design(anywhere) is hard to do. There’s an obvious sample bias. We tend to hate bad design more than love good design.
The alignment is symmetrical, ,just not done on the edges.
But the aesthetic point is right.
In the credenza comparison, the labels are beside the feet, and they are stacked, so we notice the feet. Pose the credenzas as you did the bookcases – side-by-side, labelled on top, and the feet are less noticable.
In the bookcases comparison photo, the original bookcase is at an angle to the viewer and the light, the DWR version is face on. The angled version gets more interesting shading.
I’m impressed that DWR managed to get into financial trouble during the real estate boom. That takes real work! It’s a shame.
‘Bookshelfs’ eh?
Here’s my opinion, and I’m a professional furniture designer: 99% of furniture design is based on theft and retreading earlier forms. You can walk into any furniture store in the country and buy items that were originally designed in the 18th century – show me any other commonly bought good where this is true. Modernism is subject to the same forces, despite a concerted propaganda effort to highlight the “originality” of the work. The market place will decide which forms are truly timeless and which can be knocked off. The travails of a single company over the course of 9 years tells you nothing except how their management handled their economic environment. It’s amazing to me that a company which tries to get a handle on its COGS is vilified, but whatever… after they’ve been in business for a few more years they’ll learn what it is about their presentation that is truly valued by their clientele.
Two more points: 1) Modernist furniture is like jazz: lots of fuss, relatively small audience. 2) Furniture is not an ongoing repeat kind of purchase. Once you’ve got a dining table or sofa, you aren’t going to buy another one soon. So if DWR’s audience is confined to a very particular demographic, it’s not surprising that their sales would soar up and then crash. When all the hipsters have furnished their apartments, they’re done. In that context the Tools division makes some sense – start selling smaller things that people can buy on a whim. If the company can’t make inroads into more McMansion style customers (which is where the money is in America) then they will always be a niche business, and their sales will level off until they reach an equilibrium with the size of the hipster market.
That might explain the problem I encourntered… A few years ago, we purchased the Parentisi extension table from DWR. After it was vandalized by a drunken house guest (don’t ask) we ordered another (yes, said drunk paid for it). However, the second table, which the salesperson assured me was identical, but with a different name, is indeed different. (Can’t remember the new name, and DWR doesn’t have either on their site anymore.) The color is off, from a rich coppery tone to a dull brown. But color discrepancies are common with wood. The big difference is the way the veneer runs. On the old table, the wood grain runs vertically around the edge. On the new table, they run it horizontally along the edge – definitely a cost-saving measure. The new one, while just as expensive, is not nearly as sleek and special.
I agree the DWR versions are not as appealing to the eye as the original pieces of furniture.
Comments on this entry are closed.