I am very much focusing on quality! This is becoming hard labour though,
since competitors are dumping the price level to stay in the business.
Our work should be worth something!
This is why I would like to define quality:
a) If quality is what you pay for, you will get “high quality” for much money,
“medium quality” for average money and “bad quality” for little money!
b) If quality is to be identified by high value, I’d like to quote* John Ruskin
(1819-1900): (*Ironically, I could not get hold of the original text, therefore
had to translate it from the German. I apologise for this but the sense was
kept genuine.)
„It is not advisable to pay too much, but it is even worse not to pay enough.
In the case you pay too much, you loose a bit of money, that’s all. If you
do not pay enough though, you might loose everything, since the
purchased item does not fulfil its designated task. The laws of economy
do not allow getting high value for cheap money. If you accept the lowest
offer, you must calculate some margin to catch up with the risk you are
running. And if you do that, you might as well pay for the better quality
in the first place.“

To this extend, you can expect to get high quality for an adequate price. In case you would want a cheaper
price, the quality would obviously be adequate to that. I wish to point out though, that we refrain from giving
away our high quality labour for any low price policy!