All products compete on cost-performance ratio.
However, I need to explain why we often can't reach a consensus. It's not about who is right or wrong; it's because our definitions of each concept differ.
Because these definitions differ, we often use the same words but with different meanings. Therefore, before discussing this matter, we must first define what cost-performance ratio truly is.
In my understanding, cost-performance ratio is the ratio of product performance to price. So, to create a product with a high cost-performance ratio, you can either improve the performance or lower the price to achieve a high ratio.
From this perspective, even Apple phones demonstrate excellent cost-performance ratio. Despite their price not being low, their performance is exceptionally high, resulting in a strong ratio.
But why didn't people in the past consider Apple phones as products with high cost-performance ratio?
When we talked about cost-performance ratio in the past, there were often two hidden assumptions.
1. Products with high cost-performance ratio are usually those with relatively low prices. In this sense, Apple's pricing seems too high.
2. Another hidden assumption is that the so-called product performance usually refers to its basic functions rather than additional added values.
However, when I say Apple has cost-performance ratio, the performance I'm referring to includes Apple's overall experience, design, and appearance.
Typically, when defining cost-performance ratio, aesthetic design isn't considered part of "performance." Performance is often narrowly defined as basic functionality. For example, a hotel is simply for sleeping, a watch is just for telling time, and a bicycle is merely for riding. We often overlook aspects like carbon fiber frames, shock absorption systems, climbing performance, or riding comfort, focusing only on whether it can be ridden.
Thus, we might consider a basic bicycle costing over $14 to have a good cost-performance ratio, while a professional off-road bicycle costing $14,000 seems to lack it.
This is because most people don't believe a bicycle needs advanced shock absorption, extremely light weight, or superior riding experience. It simply needs to fulfill their basic need of commuting to work from home – that's the performance they prioritize.
However, for a customer who willingly spends $14,000 on a bicycle, it implies they find it worth the price, meaning the bicycle does have cost-performance ratio for them.
If a company could produce a bicycle as good as the previous $14,000 model but at a selling price of $7,000, it would offer a better cost-performance ratio. Yet, some might still opt for the $14,000 bicycle because it's recognized as the best in the industry, willing to pay for its brand reputation, which is also a part of performance.
But for many, a $7,000 bicycle might still seem to lack cost-performance ratio because our definitions of cost-performance ratio are different.
The same principle applies to the DTF film industry. Many only consider price, equating low price with high cost-performance ratio, and high price with the opposite. However, this perspective only focuses on price, neglecting performance, which isn't a true reflection of cost-performance ratio.
What defines a good DTF film? It's the consistency of quality, the investment in R&D, and continuous product upgrades and improvements. All of these require significant investment. If the industry focuses solely on a race to the bottom in price, where will the funding for these crucial aspects come from?
In the past three years, DTF film prices have drastically decreased in both Chinese and European and American markets. Film prices are now at a bottom and unlikely to fall further. Consequently, quality and consistency are becoming paramount, yet these remain the biggest weaknesses among suppliers. Each batch of product varies, and some "improvements" are actually steps backward. Some companies lack a sufficient production culture to ensure consistent processes. Even worse, many companies are not only moving in the wrong direction with product development but are also selling defective products below cost, which will devastate this rapidly growing market.
As a leading enterprise in the industry, we consistently prioritize quality and invest in R&D. Just as our company's CEO Fego has stated, "For RaceSuper, R&D and business are paramount. We must adhere to R&D, ensure quality, serve customers well, never compromise on quality and service, maintain a clear positioning, avoid price wars, and collaborate with like-minded customers to promote the healthy development of the DTF industry."
RaceSuper: Engineering Precision, Delivering Brilliance.
