Who are they?
Herman Miller is a high-end furniture company that owns the production licenses for timeless pieces including the Eames Lounge Chair (above), the Eiffel Chair and the Aeron Chair. Matt Blatt is a furniture company that specialises in replica designer furniture (it lists 437 individual replica items on its website) that are generally manufactured in China and significantly cheaper than the originals. A genuine Eames Lounge Chair costs around AU$5,400, while the Matt Blatt replica costs AU$1895.
What happened?
Herman Miller recently announced it was taking legal action against Matt Blatt over copyright infringement of the Eames name. Despite Matt Blatt publicly undertaking in 2006 to “clearly identify the copies it markets of the iconic Charles and Ray Eames designed furniture as replicas”, it had failed to do so on a number of occasions. The matter was settled prior to appearing in court.
Though the terms of the settlement remain confidential, Jeremy Hocking, Vice President of Herman Miller Asia Pacific, confirmed that they are “satisfied with the radical changes to Matt Blatt’s website that were implemented immediately after legal proceedings commenced”. These changes include the following statement in bold on Matt Blatt’s homepage: “Matt Blatt’s replica products are not manufactured or approved by, or affiliated with, the original designers, manufacturers or distributors including Herman Miller, Charles or Ray Eames, Knoll, Fritz Hansen, Flos, Studio Italia, Giogali, Artemice Spa, Tolix or Xavier Pauchard“. Even with the word replica plastered all over its website, Matt Blatt does remain entitled to use the Eames name however.
What do we think?
The differences between original and replica furniture may be difficult for the casual observer to discern. A detail here, a material there are all that separates the two. It could be argued therefore that the original Eames Lounge Chair, at over 2.5 times the price of the replica, is a waste of money.
We beg to differ.
From a distance, under heavy fog or to the myopic, the differences between original and replica may be few, but for those who really care about good design, we argue that the money is merely a hurdle to surpass on the way to ownership of an original piece of designer furniture. It is likely the additional cost of an original offers the potential of increased resale value, however of more interest to us is the unquantifiable values it embodies. In buying original furniture, we are participating in the long and exciting history of design. We are purchasing an object that blossomed out of the minds of the world’s most celebrated designers. By recognising the importance of designer furniture that exists today, we are investing in the future of design and the untold number of classic pieces waiting to be created.
What should we learn?
We are lucky enough to own an original Eames Lounge Chair. It is a stunningly beautiful object, it is fantastically comfortable and it fills us with immeasurable joy knowing that it’s real, that it’s the Eames Chair. Herman Miller most likely spent a lot of money on the legal team responsible for the settlement with Matt Blatt. We’re glad they did. The originators of good design are too important to go unrecognised.
Herman Miller is a member of the Authentic Design Alliance, an organisation established to support the integrity of original, authentic design.
First seen on Australian Design Review, here.
“. . . we argue that the money is merely a hurdle to surpass on the way to ownership of an original piece of designer furniture.”
This is in many ways an elitist view and very much clouds my view on this whole matter. It raises as to whether or not good design be readily available to the masses. Almost in all cases these replicas acknowledge is some form or another so that they are not all bad. Many people who appreciate good design are more often than not unable to afford an original and replicas provide an alternative and in my opinion should not be considered totally evil.
I for one am currently remodelling my living/dining area and in the process of looking at what types of furniture we would like/can afford. My partner fell in love with a particular Featherston chair but we cannot really justify spending over $5,000 on a single chair and that means money is not just merely a hurdle to surpass on the way to ownership of an original piece of designer of designer, it’s a bloody big brick wall.
Thanks for your comment, Neil.
We agree that the accessibility of good design is an important and far-reaching issue. We’re not yet certain where we stand on the existence of the Matt Blatts of this world – but this is a different matter from whether or not they name their products after the original designers. A friend of ours recently purchased a replica Hans Wegner Plank couch because the $7,000 asking price of the original was just too steep. We understand perfectly why he made this choice. But we imagine there are some good reasons why there are such price differences between originals and replicas. We’ve seen vintage Eames Lounge Chairs that would now be pushing 60 still looking good – worn and weathered, but good. We wonder whether the Matt Blatt version would have the same longevity?
This is an issue that faces architects too. In the early stages of projects, we are constantly frustrated by our clients’ expectations of construction costs and our inability to compete with volume house builders. We can be smart and creative and frugal, but we can’t even get close to the $1,000/sqm volume builders price point. Emilio Fuscaldo said once that for $2,000/sqm he can be smart and creative, anything less, he can only be stupid and boring.
A sad reality of design (in Australia, at least) is that good design costs. It doesn’t have to cost the earth, but comparing good design to buildings and furniture that are cookie-cutter copied across the landscape is not comparing apples with apples. One ray of light is the ever-increasing design awareness of the general public. Boyd’s Cream Australia Policy appears to be a thing of the past – if people start investing more and more in good design today, hopefully its volume and spread will mean it won’t be so steeply priced tomorrow.
I thought that original intent for eames design was to bring good design to the masses?
The replica/original argument points at exclusivity. Something that conflicts with the core philosophy.
I think that there is a stronger argument in respecting a design with good build quality. Those with the responsibility of producing these designs should be striving to bring to us all these objects at the lowest price point possible without (within reason) loosing build quality.
The Eames were interested in bringing good design at a good value to the public, but it is an error to equate this with ‘cheap.’ Looking at the original prices for their pieces in the year of introduction, then plugging those values into an inflation calculator for present day value–you will find the prices are near identical, and in some instances less expensive today than they were at the time of introduction.
Starting with a reliable calculator…http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm, and original pricing in the published catalogs from the 40s and 50s (see Schiffer reprinted catalogs), and using the Eames Lounge & Ottoman… ’56 catalog price was $605 ($430 for lounge, $175 for ottoman)… plugging that value and 1956 into the calculator, today’s adjusted price is $5,046.61 in 2011. Listed retail on the U.S. hermanmiller.com is $4500 for walnut, or $4579 for cherry. In the Santos Palisander it is $5449, but given the restricted import status of rosewood (which HM helped to establish, to protect the rainforest) and the resulting expense of sourcing a similar, certified sustainable material, the additional $400 vs. historic price is a fair reflection of today’s added material cost in service to the environment.
Similarly, using the Eames plastic shell chairs, a DAX (arm chair, metal rod legs) in 1956 sold for $44 — inflation adjusted at $367, vs. today’s retail at $299.
Yes, these prices are U.S. and no doubt differ substantially from landed Australian pricing, but I’m guessing that if one could find an historic price for a landed HM product in Australia in ’56, a similar result would be found.
Thanks for the input, Mark – your informed contribution is much appreciated. A query if you’re able to respond: what percentage of the US$4,500 Eames Lounge Chair goes to “prestige mark-up”? In other words, is there a lot of profit in it?
There’s a respectable profit in the sale of these great products as they were originally designed to be made, but the business of high quality furniture doesn’t come close to the margins enjoyed by other design/innovation brands (ie, Apple, etc.) whose products, conversely, are unlikely to serve for more than a few years, let alone generations. Yet where is the hue and cry over their cost to consumers?? Also worth noting that HM still pays a royalty to the Eames Office on every product sale, in addition to supporting the Eames Foundation, the Nelson Foundation, numerous other design-related organizations and programs, and multiple philanthropic causes worldwide that are focused on greater human needs. And the company annually spends tens of millions of $ on research & design (a multiple of the industry average) in support of future product development.– compared to zero from the knock-off industry. But to your original question, as a public company anyone can take a look at Herman Miller’s books and see fiscal 2011 gross margins at less than 33%, adjusted operating earnings less than 7%–those financials do not suggest predatory pricing.
Excellent to see this discussion up and running again, I was a little disappointed when the case was settled, it would have been great to see everything out on the table.
I am all for good design and I am all for respecting and giving credit to the designer, as an architect I’m not keen on the idea of someone choosing an alternate just on price.
There seems to be a misconception about Eames furniture just for the masses, my understanding was that they were not about “the masses” they were into the new techniques of “mass production” and if it got cheaper in the process then great. In an interview in 1972 via the Briain Pickings site http://tiny.cc/2kam8 he answered this very question;
Madame L’Amic asked: To whom does the design address itself: to the greatest number (the masses)? to the specialist or the enlightened amateur? to the privileged social class?
Charles Eames answered: To the need.
Mark, your comments regarding Herman Miller profit margins, royalties and philanthropic contributions offer great insight into a company that is clearly aware of its social responsibilities. I look forward to accessorising our dining table with a phalanx of Eiffel chairs.
This whole debate puts me in mind of an analogous situation when purchasing pharmaceuticals. Here in Australia, the pharmacist always asks whether I wish to purchase the name brand product or a cheaper generic equivalent, and I always answer the name brand product. Now, big pharmaceuticals hardly need my financial support, however I reason that an extra few dollars enable me to support a company that invests in new medicines with vast R+D budgets.
The cost of any product reimburses the hidden values just as much as the visible.
I was having a discussion about this issue last night with an old friend. This is where I got to…
Two furniture markets exist, namely Type A = authentic and Type B = inauthentic, or to be more generous, replicas. I see no genuinely compelling reason for why both markets can’t coexist if the copyright and legal issues are not being breached in a way to upset the legal representatives of the Type A people.
Such coexistence exists everywhere! Art House cinema coexists with mainstream popcorn films. Twenty five dollar wagyu beef burgers exist in the same universe as $1.99 McDonald burgers. Aston Martins exist in the same world as Fort Fiestas. Eames Chaise lounges exist alongside cheap rip offs of the same. There’s a spectrum from higher quality through to lower quality. We decide where on the spectrum we are comfortable, where our budget dictates and where we aspire to be. Our choices and aspirations will change as our values, income, interests and knowledge evolve.
I would be loath to demonize a McDonald burger eater because when I was studying, that’s where my student budget put me. As the owner of three pieces of Herman Miller Type A furniture pieces now I don’t feel the need to deny someone Type B versions of the same. On one level they simply might not share my concerns and interests that relate to authentic furniture, on another, they might not be able to justify it financially. If they like their versions of the furniture, who am I to judge them? If they like their cow-hide Corb lounge because they like the black and white pattern or because it resonated with them when they saw it sitting insitu in the Villa Savoye itself, good luck to them.
Freedom of choice creates the full spectrum of what is available in the market place. The day I am actively denied the choice between authentic or inauthentic products, well, that would be more of a concern for me.
Well said, Trevor.
This very thought occurred to me recently in the realm of exercise – a friend of ours is passionate about yoga, a sport for which I have no love whatsoever. Once upon a time, in my younger, more self-centred days, I would have derided the activity for no other reason than it didn’t appeal to me. These days, I’m far more inclined to acknowledge its value. It pleases me no end that the world is sufficiently complex and varied to fulfil the diverse needs of 7 billion people.
Your point is good however I disagree. The issue here is one of copyright and patents and most importantly originality.
Original: authentic, genuine, actual, bona fide, innovative, creative, imaginative, inventive, new, novel, fresh, refreshing and unusual.
Cars, burgers and the like are concepts and patents do not apply. An Andrew’s burger v’s a Big Mac is an entirely different subject that I am very happy to go into on another page.
Using your analogy in this subject is equivalent to (lets be very specific here) a Herman Miller Eames Eiffel chair versus any other seat with a back and 4 legs. It should not necessarily relate be a replica brand (Matt Blatt) Eames Eiffel chair.
I am all for variety and, more so, individuality in design and inspirational concepts. Eames designed a chair and that should be that, they should not even have to defend this product.
If someone wants to go and design another chair that has a seat, back and 4 legs then they have every right to go and do so, they really should be thinking to themselves; why don’t I look at what Charles and Ray Eames have done and try and do it better.
This is the case for every industry or even research and the world is a better place for it.
Do you or have you downloaded music illegaly?
I am certainly not a fan of the copying of original furniture designs. I would far prefer an original to a replica and the creator of something original deserves the credit and rewards that come with that. Distributors of replicas are pragmatic opportunists filling a niche in the market, that’s all.
If the law has not been broken and people think they can produce a replica with a point of difference, and in the example of Matt Blatt Eames replica Vs Herman Miller authentic Eames there are clearly three obvious points of difference – 1. Quality of workmanship, 2. Quality of materials, and 3. Price, there will always be suppliers and purchasers in the market place. Whether we like it or condemn it is debatable. Patents and copyright will be dealt with by the law.
You say the followers of Eames should look at the work of Charles and Ray Eames and do it better – they have, they have done better on the easiest thing they can – price. It just so happens that they will achieve this betterment by compromising on quality, sacrificing detail and craftsmanship, disrespecting the original designers, failing to have vision to design anything physically new or improved, and taking advantage of the greyness of patent law.
It appears that Trevor and Steve are coming at this discussion from the same basic position, albeit with unique twists. Neil’s comment places questions of chairs and burgers, and this discussion generally in the wider and overlapping contexts of copyright ownership, moral rights, authenticity, consumerism and the information age.
Is it hypocrisy to condemn Matt Blatt while simultaneously listening to illegally pirated music? Or to invest in authentic designer furniture while simultaneously copying online photography without acknowledging the owner?
We often make the distinction between individuality and facelessness i.e. we happily pay good money if we can identify with the person behind the product, but we think nothing of illegally downloading a blockbuster film produced by an anonymous studio that is probably reaping gargantuan profits anyway.
Is there a line on all of these issues that we, as conscientious individuals interested in authenticity, should draw?
Who cares.We are the worst predators on Earth,humans and the poor will never be able to afford these designs all because they were born with bad genes.I don’t care about being a narcissist and showing off my original chair.
Appreciate the spirited discussion. To the question of knock-offs existing legitimately as an option for the price sensitive, using the analogy of a fast food meal compared to a fine dining experience, or a classic sports car compared to a modest compact, here is the key difference–the buyer is not being duped into believing they are purchasing the higher quality alternative. The consumer will always understand that the two are not equal because the low cost alternative isn’t attempting to directly trade on the likeness of the authentic product or designer. Imagine instead that the burger joint had a photo and bio of a Michelin 3 star chef on the menu, implying he somehow endorsed the food and that the experience would be equivalent. Or what if an economy car maker placed a photo and bio of Ferdinand Porsche on their site, suggesting he was somehow responsible for their product and that its performance was equivalent to a 911. I think we can all agree this would be outrageous, and that is exactly the preferred practice of the knock-off furniture industry.
You might respond that buyers know the difference and are accepting the trade off in materials, form and quality for the lower price, but I can personally attest that many don’t understand and and even believe they are buying authentic, particularly in the used market. Herman Miller has had numerous instances of complaints from owners of knock-offs demanding repair for what ultimately proves to be a ‘replica.’ The further question is, how many of these shabby pieces are preceived as indicative of the true design’s quality and turn-off other potential buyers, or fail and go unreported, to the detriment of the reputations of the original designer and manufacturer?
At a minimum, the law should prohibit the use of a designer’s name and likeness unless that manufacturer or distributor is the authorized source for the authentic product. This would offer at least some measure of protection to both the buying public and the designer/manufacturer, and likely have a significant dampening effect on knock-off sales to the uninformed.
ps. I’m guilty of many things but illegal downloads, fake watches, etc., are not among them.
I really do think that this post, and many like it, miss the point of ‘copyright’. The right to exclusively ontrol production of work …… and to receive profit therefrom ….. is time-limited as a matter of public policy. This in NO WAY fails to ‘recognize the designer’. In fact all the manufacturers want desperately to associate with the Eames name, and they are entitled to do so just as anyone may now publish the works of Charles Dickens.
The Eames philosophy was “The Best, for the Most, for the Least”. It is now an open competition among manufacturers as to who can offer the best quality at the best price, with no markup guaranteed by exclusive copyright …… and I believe the Aemes’ would be happy that their design is now free, and think Herman Miller well compensated by 50 years of exclusive distribution!
You raise some valuable points, Christian, though I disagree with you over whether Matt Blatt and its cohorts fulfil the Eames’ philosophy of the best, for the most, for the least. They may address the second and third parts of that statement, however one can hardly argue that their products are also the best. I’ve seen 50 year old examples of the Eames lounge chair and ottoman, well worn but still solid. There’s no way a Matt Blatt rip-off can address that sort of durability. So in your mind, do you think quality should also be a factor?
What is the difference between a fake designer chair, a fake designer handbag or a fake designer watch? The answer is none. The reality is that not everyone can afford the real thing, but supporting the sweatshops and organised crime gangs which often produce these dodgy replicas is the ultimate form of delusion.
Affordable quality vintage design is there if you look, it’s just that it hasn’t been featured on Grand Designs or in your favourite lifestyle magazine. When it comes to style, it really is a case of Fortune Favours the Brave.
Nobody here seems to have justified their position on the seeming fact that replica items are by definition lower quality than the “original”. Who says so? Is there some sort of body that examines the replicas, compares them to the original and passes judgement? I know an owner of an Aeron will defend it to the ends of the earth as being higher and better this, that and the other, but is there a /valuable/ difference?
Is the person who buys a replica that is made with similar standards (not necessarily Matt Black) somehow being duped by the fact that they pay less?
I’m all for quality, but I do believe that there can be a ceiling on comfort and quality. Yes, I can buy a gold Rolex and pay the earth for the name (and quality) of the brand, but there are many many (many) watches that are of as-good quality from a lifetime’s-use standpoint that are much cheaper.
So do I want to pay for quality? Yes. Do I want to pay for some designer’s name? Not unless I’m only after some sort of recognition from my peers or I believe that the object I buy is genuinely at the ceiling of quality/comfort. Would I buy a Mercedes Benz? Yes, if I could afford one. Would I buy a designer-label concept car? Not with all the money in the world.
The Philippe Starck alien-looking juicer is an example. It’s great looking and well made, but you can’t tell me that cheaper replicas do a worse job of juicing; bullshit, I cry. Quality here is exceeded by price.
Thanks for your input, Tim. You raise a good point about quality, but I think you could expand on it i.e. why is quality only related to durability? Would you consider quality also relating to the sustainability of the materials used, the employment practices of the factory, the design provenance of the piece? None of these might have any bearing on your physical comfort, but they do relate to the prosperity of the industry in general, and can have a bearing on your intellectual comfort. If we expand our understanding of quality to encompass these (and other) issues, how is the balance between original and replica pieces affected?
Let’s start from the beginning, shall we….
Both Ray and Charles Eames were unrepentant modernists.
One of the main theoretical positions of modernism is to bring ‘good’ design to masses – this is evident from the works of Corb to the Smithsons.
And of course this is predominantly inspired by leftist politics whether you like it or not.
(Niemeyer himself was a member of Brazilian Communist Party !)
The choice of materials and construction processes for most Eames chairs clearly reflect the above theoretical position – mass produced designer goods for the masses.
Then the question is – Can the masses afford these products – NO.
In that case is modernism a failed utopia?
I would answer that question saying that modernism has been betrayed by capitalism represented by co-operations such as Herman Miller.
All the talk about quality and royalties is just distractions…..like weapons of mass destruction!
Wonder what Ernesto Guerra would say about Nike selling T-shirts with his image….?
Now who wants to buy the last can of Artist’s Shit by Piero Manzoni?
This is a very interesting comment and probably the most compelling argument against the high price tags of modernist furniture.
It reminds me of the Volkswagen Beetle, originally the people’s car and now a much more expensive, niche designer vehicle. The real people’s cars now are all the micro tin boxes coming out of India, Korea etc. None of these have the lasting design integrity of the original beetle.
What does this say about modern design culture?
When I see people object to the cost of the authentic Eames/Herman Miller today, or quote Eames’ ‘best to the most for the least’ with the presumption that least meant inexpensive or low cost, it’s clear they aren’t familiar with the contemporary cost of the earlier year goods, and they misunderstood the Eames statement. He offered a design equation of sorts; the best (innovative, beautiful, highest quality design) to the most (manufactured for scale and economy, to enhance life for a larger public), for the least (meaning the best possible total value) = Eames design philosophy. His aim was to offer the best total experience, with quality and durability, to create value – it was never about lowest price. It had to be accessible to a larger public, but never cheap. That was also a time when people were prepared to save for a quality suite of furniture with the expectation that it would last decades, even a lifetime, and weren’t conditioned with essentially disposable furniture from IKEA, etc. To confirm my point, I update my earlier post’s actual price/ history comparison, then and now…
Using a reliable inflation calculator.. http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm and input the earlier pricing, from the independently published catalogs from the 40s and 50s (see Schiffer reprinted catalogs), and using, for example, the Eames Lounge & Ottoman… ’56 catalog price was $605 ($430 for lounge, $175 for ottoman)… plugging that value and 1956 into the inflation calculator, today’s 2014 adjusted price, based purely on inflation, would be $5,273.11. However, listed retail on the U.S.hermanmiller.com is $4559 for walnut, or $4639 for cherry. In the sustainable rosewood-like Santos Palisander it is $5509, but seems reasonable given the restricted trade in rosewood and HM’s investment in finding and maintaining a sustainably-forested alternative veneer with similar visuals, for approximately 3% more than the ’56 price. And that with continued investment in new adhesives, parts manufacturing and assembly methods, etc. that make today’s chair true to the original but superior in durability as compared to the earlier vintage chairs. BTW, HM actually helped lead the effort to ban trade in rosewood in the late 80s, and subsequently was a significant funding partner in the creation of the TFF. The same exercise is true with other designs – Eames shell chairs, Nelson bench, Marshmallow sofa, etc.
HM is then investing the margins from these successful designs into the next generation of product design. In 2013 R&D was almost $50 million, not including designer royalties. Those same financials show that the company’s overall profits, etc. are modest as a % of sales– hardly a ‘capitalist betrayal’ –particularly when considering its overall progressive social record, from employee profit sharing (1950), to a formal environmental policy (1953), to employee ownership (1983), etc. Conversely the knock-off industry has no genuine commitment to these designers and their legacy, or the sustained quality of these designs, in part because they have no historic roots in the origins. It’s also a good bet they’re not paying their people the same quality of wages and benefits, or investing in meaningful new designs for tomorrow. But they’ll happily play on the designers’ names, their likeness, etc, believing that the public buyer either doesn’t care or doesn’t understand the difference. My point is that there are many costs, of a sort, both personal and societal, that need to be considered before buying something less than the real thing.
My own chief point is not to argue what’s legal, but whether the design enthusiast has really considered the entirety of the issue and the facts of price vs. quality, real economic and social cost vs. the personally convenient transaction leading to one more knock-off chair being sold, etc. And for those who don’t know truly know the design or designer, but just like the look, then fine, the knock-off industry has the right to sell objects that are in the public domain, but shouldn’t they be prevented from making any name association to the designers and the object’s history? This wouldn’t protect the used / secondary market buyer, but it would be a start in protecting those buying new who are potentially misled to believe that ‘replica’ is equivalent in quality and value.
And a final added quote from the Eames office itself, from 1962, “Beware of Imitations, Enjoy the Comfort of the Real Thing, Designed by Charles Eames for Herman Miller, These Are the Originals – Accept No Substitutes” http://eamesdesigns.com/library-entry/beware-of-imitations/
Eames himself obviously didn’t see early knock-offs of his designs as manna for the masses (knock-offs are not a new issue, only a growing one). The Eameses actively campaigned against copies, as this poster shows. He was an unrepentant designer (I believe he would have dismissed being dubbed a modernist) that wanted the work produced as he intended, overseen by those he trusted, and appreciated by those who recognized the greater experience and value of owning an Eames design.
Well said, Mark, and thank you again for your articulate and well-informed insight.
‘best to the most for the least’
That puts the whole argument about cost, quality and authorship in to quandary when MOST cannot afford the best….!
Let’s start again deconstructing the rhetoric.
What does MOST mean? Most Americans? Most people with deep pockets? Or most of the general public?
Because if it is the later, here are some facts:
* 80% of the humanity lives less than 10 dollars a day.
* According to UNICEF, 22,000 children die each day due to poverty.
(Source: http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats)
Let the erudite readership decide what MOST represents.
A classic example on affordability vs copyright, R & D and prices is Novartis v. Union of India & Others, where a multi-national drug company launched a law suit against cheap generic drugs (copies – if you want to be a cynic) produced in India.
(more info :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novartis_v._Union_of_India_%26_Others)
Furthermore, it is a fallacy to assign high production cost to high quality or vice verse.
I was just reading the Age on the purchase of F-35 jets.
F-35 is an inferior product to both Sukhoi T-50 (at less than half the price) and Sukhoi/HAL…but alas….they are from the ‘other side’ and we don’t buy products made in ‘other side’ and we certainly don’t buy into cheaper products….!
According to Piero Manzoni even shit has a price when it is canned and labelled…….Artist’s Shit.