Paul Midler’s Poorly Made in China explains the quality fade that often comes with offshored production:
Most of Mr Midler’s work is coping with what he calls “quality fade” as the Chinese factories transform what were, in fact, profitless contracts into lucrative relationships. The production cycle he sees is the opposite of the theoretical model of continuous improvement. After resolving teething problems and making products that match specifications, innovation inside the factory turns to cutting costs, often in ways that range from unsavoury to dangerous. Packaging is cheapened, chemical formulations altered, sanitary standards curtailed, and on and on, in a series of continual product debasements.In a further effort to create a margin, clients from countries with strong intellectual-property protection and innovative products are given favourable pricing on manufacturing, but only because the factory can then directly sell knock-offs to buyers in other countries where patents and trademarks are ignored. It is, Mr Midler says, a kind of factory arbitrage.
The first line of defence against compromised products are the factory’s clients, the importers. The moment they begin suspecting a Chinese manufacturing “partner” and want to discover what might be unfolding is the moment they become particularly eager to find people in China like Mr Midler. That suggests they want information. But, as Mr Midler discovers, they are finicky about what is found. When suspicions turn out to be reality, all too often they become unhappy—miserable about resolving something costly and disruptive, yet terrified about being complicit in peddling a dangerous product. This is particularly true if the problems could go undetected by customers. Better, to some extent, not to know.
Aware of these dynamics, Western retailers increasingly use outside testing laboratories for Chinese products. But this too, Mr Midler writes, is more form than function, since the tests are by their very nature more limited than the ways to circumvent them. The process resembles the hunt for performance enhancements used by athletes, where a few get caught but the cleverer ones stay ahead by using products not yet on the prohibited list.