The Daily News. TUESDAY, MARCH 28. QUALITY, PRICE AND LOYALTY.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIII, Issue 263, 28 March 1911, Page 4

The Daily News. TUESDAY, MARCH 28. QUALITY, PRICE AND LOYALTY.

Some years ago New Zealand business men seriously discussed the proposition to brand goods manufactured in the Dominion, ''Made in New Zealand." It was then stated that the average New Zealander was less disposed to buy goods that were raade in Xew Zealand than goods made in other countries, and that the brand, so far from helping the sale of New Zealand goods, would hinder it.

There is, unfortunately, some truth in the contention that colonial people arc not systematically and collectively loyal to New Zealand manufactures, and when politicians and others enter the lists in an endeavor to prove that many of the articles sold at very good prices are of a "shoddy" nature, this does not increase the confidence of the public. Whether the allegations are true or false, the public which buys or rejects the goods is most competent to judge. The average man wears a suit the material for which was made in Britain; he probably wears American, Canadian or Leicestershire boots, and a London hat, and it is uncommon for him to have upon his person any article produced in New Zealand. Unaccountably he sometimes seems to think that nothing good—except raw material—can come out of his country. There must be a reason. Sydney master tanners who lately conferred, and mentioned the "blind prejudice" against Australian manufactures, very naturally speak feelingly, but stimulation of loyalty to colonial manufactures will never come through blaming the public for exercising its discretion. We shall never believe that a New Zealander will reject a New Zealand-made article if it is as good an article as the imported one and as cheap. Everyone knows that many colonial buyers—who, of course, ought to know better—will more readily pay a high price for a foreign article than a low price for an inferior locally-made article of the same class. The enormous business done in New Zealand in imported foodstuffs put up in vessels of various kinds is an illustration. In every case where the local manufacturer has attained the perfection of quality and appearance—and the last is very important—he has made it hard for the imported article to retain its footing. Formerly, for instance, the Chicago packers did a rich trade with both Australia and New Zealand tinned meats, sending "coals to Newcastle," as it were. No New Zealand buyer ever questions the superiority of the New Zealand tinned meats nowadays. The New Zealander is not blindly prejudiced when the "price is right" and the quality as good as the best imported goods. It is perhaps natural in Australasia that the owners of infant industries should attempt to make money before achieving reputations. It is merely a question of time when quality will be so important a consideration that the colonial will demand his homemade (not Home-made) poods in preference to all others. We have been told that it has been "necessary" to tell untruths, about New Zealand manufactures in order to induce sales; that it has been "necessary" to tell folk that New Zealand tweeds were made in the West of England, and so on, The pitiful "trick of the trade" will not help New Zealanders to a better appreciation of their own goods. No sweet reputation can be

built on a foundation of untruth. New Zealand manufactures will never be helped by telling folk they were made in Germany or France, America or Britain. The New Zealand producer is not invariably loyal to his own people. He sends the best he has to foreign markets: the worst he keeps for internal consumption. The foreigner sets a rigid standard, and rejects everything under that standard. New Zealand produces many things of higher quality than any other country on earth, but the New Zealand shopper doesn't get a chance to find out how very good New Zealand products are. We glow with pride at the production of magnificent bullocks. They are much too good for New Zealand eating. They must be frozen and sent Home, where they will bring a smaller price than they would have done had they been, locally sold. We have heard of gorgeous displays of New Zealand fruit—at Covent Gardens. Our best mutton has been cavilled at by London east-enders, and our inferior mutton sold to New Zealanders at a better price than the best brings at Smithfield. There is no market for inferior and diseased New Zealand potatoes anywhere but in New Zealand. And so on, ad infinitum. Two men stood in front of a photographer's shop admiring the picture of a beautiful girl. "Isn't it a lovely photo," said No. 1; "I'd like to have it." "You take the photograph, I'll have the girl," chuckled No. 2. In regard to locally-produced necessities, the New Zealand "takes the photograph" and the foreigner "takes the girl." A while ago an Australian Governor generally decided to be loyally Australian. He and his wife wore clothes woven and made up in Australia. Society followed suit. But neither the GovernorGeneral nor society would wear Australian clothes if they were inferior to British clothes and cost more. It is al-' ways a question of quality and price. "You can fool some of the public some of the time, but you can't fool all the public all the time." The New Zealander knows tliat New Zealand can produce certain things as valuable as any that may be imported. The New Zealand public also knows that New Zealand can manufacture the best goods—if she will. The point is, not the ability of the manufacturer to make good goods, but his consent to do so. Apart from the excellent work of trades' unionists who are endeavoring to stimulate loyajty to local manufactures, the concerted action of manufacturers and shopkeepers, and the help of Chambers of Commerce, much good might be done Dy absolute frankness and unequivocal statements. If the Labor Department periodically tabulated lists of New Zealand manufactures that are in competition with imported goods and stated plainly the relative values of the rival articles, the public might see at a glance the superiority or inferiority of the goods locally produced. If colonial manufacturers were convinced , of the superiority of their own goods, ' they would welcome the publication of expert testimony. Where manufacturers did not court publicity, the public would have the right to spend their cash on the imported article.