The Dominion. FRIDAY, JANUARY 17, 1919. STANDARDISED GOODS

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 96, 17 January 1919, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, JANUARY 17, 1919. STANDARDISED GOODS

Any attempt that is made to systematise production with a view to providing the public with a reliable article at a reasonable price is entitled to sympathetic consideration.' It might bo easy, however, to base exaggerated expectations upon the experiment _ the Government is about to make in promoting the sale of standardised footwear in • this country. The Acting-President of the Board of Trade, Mr. MacDonald, made a statement a few days ago in the course of which he indicated that standardised boots and shoes would probably be on sale to the general public towards the end of. March next. A message from Ohristchurch which was published yesterday shows, , however, that boot manufacturers in' that city are unaware of the conditions under which it is proposed to carry out standardised production. MR.. Mac-Donald remarked that manufacturers,, through their associations, had expressed approval of the scheme, but it is evident that this approval was of a general character and that a definite working agreement has yet to be established. The' Christchurch manufacturers asked a pertinent question in regard to fixing the price of leather. arrangement with tanneries to supply 'boot manufacturers with first-class New Zealand leather, at "reasonable," and presumably fixed, prices has a place in the Board of Trade scheme, but apparently the arrangement has not 'yet been made. It is obvious that a standard price for boots or anything' else must be determined with reference to the 'price of material and the wages of labour, and that if theso or cither of them vary the standard price also will have to be varied in' a corresponding degree. The Board of Trade scheme is to promote the standardised manufacture and salo of "a reasonable range of footwear for children, maids, youths, women, and men." " It is proposed to impress each, boot with a Government brand as a guarantee of its quality, and the Board hopes "to give the public an of satisfying its demand for footwear at reasonable prices, and still maintain a high standard of efficiency .in the article supplied." These are .objects which all will approve, but it is at best doubtful whether they will be attained under the Board of Trade scheme. As has been suggested, it is necessary first of all to establish settled conditions of manufacture, which may not be an easy thing to do. In any case this is only an initial obstacle to be overcome. Assuming that it had been overcome, it would remain to secure the advantages _ of systematised quantity production and to command a market. It' is probably in these matters that the real difficulties will appear. In Great Britain, where the standardisation of footwear and of cloth for wearing apparel is tried on an extensive scale, there is a vastly greater market than in New Zealand and correspondingly greater opportunities exist of securing the benefits of quantity production without unduly limiting the range_ of selection open to the public. Yet' as far as oa-n be judged at present, standardised boots and cloth are not by any means assured of popular favour and a ready sale in the United Kingdom. In this country, where people are even more accustomed than the British public to follow their fancy in regard to what they buy, the prospects of a standardisation scheme such as it is now proposed to apply to boots and shoes would appear to be rather dubious. The details of the scheme must be left in the main to the consideration of experts, or to a practical working test, but it' is questionable whether conditions in this country for some time to come will make it possible to carry the standardisation of' footwear much further than it has already been carried by manufacturers'on their own initiative. A manufacturer who desires to keep abreast of the times is bound to systematise production as far as possible, and this connotes the greatest development of standardisation consistent with meeting market requirements. The prospects of the Board of Trade scheme perhaps would have been brighter if it had been framed on a more modest scale. For instance, something might have been done to lower the cost of boots to men and boys who arc content to subordinate style and appearance to comfort and efficiency. Footwear of a simple kind which would equally suit children of either sex ought also to lend itself' to standardisation. But to anyone who has looked into the matter it must appear a project of doubtful wisdom to attempt in this country to standardise footwear for women or for girls who have passed beyond the toddler stage. In 'New •Zealand women and girls who arc content to wear boots and shoes of the comfortable, clodhopper type, or who arc likely to be persuaded into doing so, are a very small minority.

Although the standardisation scheme now proposed is not by any means assured of success, the general object aimed at is one it is very necessary to keep in sight, Probably, however, it would be better and more rapidly attained by encouraging local manufacturers to show_ initiative and resource in meoting popular requirements than by asking them to work to any cut-

and-dried Government scheme. The present and prospective benefits uo the public in buying New Zealandmanufactured goods, to the manufacturers of the Dominion in making the most of the local market, are not by any means as commonly realised or emphasised as they ought to be. The tendency, is rather to deprecate or apologise for goods of local manufacture, and in some cases to leave it to bo assumed that they have been imported. By not conspicuously branding their goods to show their origin New Zealand manufacturers sometimes contribute to this state of affairs. The standpoint thus', indicated is absolutely wrong. _ It contrasts most unfavourably with that adopted, for instance, in Canada, where the local origin of manufactured goods is emphasised in every possible way as 'one of their chief claims to attention. A similar policy is badly needed in this country, and is fully warranted by the high standards' already attained in several classes of manufacture. ' Ncw| Zealand rugs 'and some kinds of woollen cloth, for example, command an assured sale on oversea markets. In stimulating the local'demand for goods manufactured in New Zealand, difficulties similar to. those which militate against standardisation would have to be met.' For instance, while New Zealand woollen cloth is of very high quality, it is manufactured naturally in a much more limited range of patterns and textures than imported cloth. There is here a fine opportunity of educating the public in the wisdom of being content with a plain article of sound quality. A in favour of local manufactures should lay due emphasis also upon the distinction between nominal and real cost—the latter being arrived at by taking account of wear and service as well as of initial outlay. An article produced in New Zear land may be cheaper in the end though it costs more to begin with. In undertaking a campaign to popularise goods locally ■ produced manufacturers might reasonably seek the' co-operation not only of merchants and retailers, but of Labour unions and other bodies particularly concerned in lowering the costof living. Obviously it is by. obtaining the widest . possible hold on the local market that manufacturers will best be enabled to improve .the quality and lower the cost of their products, and if they keep these objects'always before them it is likely that more will be accomplished in this way than by any limited application of standardisa- ■ tion under Government supervision.