Figure 2: Detail from the original Facebook post, showing the low yield of dried watercolour from the bargain-brand 50-tube paint set
The original post was posted on 20 September and since then, there have been 50 plus comments, none of which completely answer the question posed. The author has subsequently identified the brand and how much the 50 tube watercolour paint set cost, but I have chosen not to report this information, as I don’t think it adds anything further to this ARTicle.
Before I start to answer the “what’s going on with these paints?!?!?!?!?” question, I want to make it clear that I have no experience or knowledge of the bargain-brand itself nor the specific paint set mentioned by the post author in the comments to the original post. But what has been reported does resonate with my experience and has become standard practice, at the very low-quality end of the art materials market. However, the point I am more alarmed about is that these watercolour paints have obviously been marketed at a segment of consumers, who expect and require better quality paints.
So, in answer to “what’s going on with these paints?!?!?!?!?”, the answer is quite simple as someone in the post’s comments stated “Cheaper paints are mostly filled with water as the water has evaporated you(‘)re left with not much at all”. In my opinion this is correct, the fact that the once full pans on drying have very little left in them would indeed support this. Sorry to reiterate the obvious, but let us now focus on why these paints have been made this way.
As water tends to be the lowest cost raw material, it makes sense to add as much as possible to bring the cost down. However, with respect to a pigmented water-borne paint, it is not an easy thing to do. Addition of water will thin the paint out allowing pigment (which remains as heavy particles) to separate and settle. Therefore, for low-cost water-borne paints the tendency is to use thickened water, using similar formulation techniques as those used to stabilise gels, such as anti-inflammatory creams, hand sanitisers, etc.
From the author’s comments, some of the paint in the tubes were liquid, whilst others were “blobby and gloopy”, suggesting that the manufacturer had tried to use thickened water, but it hadn’t been completely successful. In most cases, cellulose derivatives are used to thicken water-borne coatings and the degree and stability of the thickening will depend on the amount used and their quality.
Again, apologies for stating the obvious, but I think this bargain-brand 50-tube paint set has been designed for the low-quality end of the watercolour market. The chalkiness of the dried paint in the pans suggests it is loaded with an extender (inexpensive, usually white powdered mineral) with very little binder and coloured pigment. The appearance of the dry paint suggests to me that the binder may not even be gum Arabic, but another less expensive and inferior quality water soluble gum. These are all standard formulation practices for children’s products, where the artist (child) is not too worried about the quality as long as it looks good on the fridge (gallery) before throwing in the recycling bin and the consumer (parent) is only concerned about the price and if it keeps the little artist amused for short while.
But why make such low-quality products? The answer is to meet a commercial price-point, which ultimately is dictated by the retailer! Large retailers have considerable power and often dictate how much products must cost, with little or no regard for the actual cost to the manufacturer. The retailer argues that it is a competitive market and so, squeezes the manufacturer, who either supplies at the retailer’s price-point or looses the business and so putting jobs at risk. Technology and formulation skill then comes in to play to reduce costs, but there will come a point where no further costs can be saved. So, then the retailers may turn to foreign manufacturers, who are no different, relying on orders to keep their factories going and their workers relying on their employers for their living and survival. Their products may initially be less expensive, but they will still be expected to reduce their price to meet the retailer’s new competitive price-point, or to compensate for cost rises in transport and import duties. But unlike the first group of manufacturers, their formulation expertise and ability to use technology to cut cost is often their biggest weakness and so product quality generally suffers, but this is not a big deal with regard to children’s paints, where cost is the primary focus for the consumer.
However, the author does state in a later comment to her original post that they did do some research before ordering the paint set, “watched videos on other(s) using them and really expected them to be at least as good quality as the Daler & Rowney, Walmart sells in their stores.”
For me, the fact that the author had done research and there were videos to watch, suggested that the bargain-brand were marketing these watercolour paints at a different consumer segment (as paints for adult watercolour painters), other than parents (as paints for young children). This is the most alarming aspect of this sorry tale, as the bargain-brand is being less than honest about their watercolour paint set, obviously marketing it above its true quality position.
The problem with competing on price and not quality, is ultimately a race to the bottom! In this race there are casualties, as certain parts of the market makes sure that they keep their margins and so maintain their profits. Generally, this is at the expense of the manufacturers and the consumers (as in the case of the Facebook post author). Another important factor in this affair is the one that is often overlooked, the impact on the environment.
Each one of the millions of tubes of watercolour supplied in this 50 tube watercolour paint set and others like it, have required resources, such as energy, natural and man-made materials, which may or may not be renewable. In terms of money, these products may be inexpensive, but in reality they could be costing us all dearly.
It is difficult to suggest an alternative, one that would be acceptable to all. I personally am mindful of what this throw-away society means to our environment. What we purchase by mistake, we have to dispose of, which is another issue that is often overlooked. To buy the best you can afford is often sound advice as in the long run it can work out less expensive. With regards to watercolours, I have written a number of ARTicles, in which I discuss aspects of quality and how important it is to start with the right paints and tools, how product marketing can be deceptive to the unwary and what to look out for in performance and watercolour properties (see the links below). I hope you the readers, never get hoodwinked like the subject of this ARTicle did.
Notes:
*In sharing this post here in this month’s ARTicle, I hope I have not broken any copyright laws. I have taken that because, the artist has posted on a group page we are members of, it allows me to share the post as other Facebook users can in their feeds and amongst their FB friends, except of course, I am sharing it elsewhere. However, I felt it more appropriate not to share the artist’s name.
