You get what you pay for. It’s the mantra of the smug friend, relative, colleague or general know-it-all when something you’ve bought turns out to fail miserably in its purpose. It’s easy to listen to the naysayers and feel like a cheapskate and with the benefit of hindsight wish that you’d paid that little bit more.

Is it true though? If you pay more, do you get a better product?

Of course it’s not a 100% correlation between outlay and quality, but increasingly I’ve been wondering if there’s even a pattern at all. Of course some pricier products will out perform their cheaper counterparts, but I’m increasingly noticing the converse to be true as well.

I think the real issue here is that the power of the brand is being diluted. The rise of the internet has made it easier than ever for the small guy to compete with the biggest brand. Arguably that’s the perfect storm for the well known company – little manufacturers popping up specializing in a subset of the product ranges they once dominated. Customers are naturally drawn to lower pricing, especially if the quality is comparable.

As a result, some brands are falling into the trap of letting their standards slip in order to compete on price without taking too much of a hit on their margins. Soon enough the brand loyalty has gone south, and it’s no longer true for customers that it’s a case of ‘better the devil you know’.

Here at the PortfolioReviewer.com, we’re going to dive headlong into this paradox, and work out just how you can balance your spend with the highest quality.