Experiment proves once and for all if Americans will pay more for 'Made in USA' goods amid Trump's tariff
Ramon van Meer — owner of Afina, which sells self-filtering shower heads — was facing skyrocketing costs due to Trump's new 145 percent tariff on Chinese-made goods.
To explore reshoring, van Meer sourced a US manufacturer — only to find his production costs nearly tripled.
'We make a $129 filtered showerhead in China. With tariffs surging we explored US manufacturing,' he wrote on X. 'We found a US supplier. Our costs nearly tripled.'
To test consumer appetite, van Meer offered 25,000 shoppers a choice: the original $129 'Made in Asia' shower head or an $239 'Made in USA' version — an 85 percent increase in price.
At the conclusion of the experiment not a single customer bought the American-made version.
Furthermore, fewer than 1 percent got as far as adding the American product to their carts. Meanwhile, 3,500 bought the cheaper model.
'It wasn't a marketing failure—it was a referendum on price,' van Meer said.
Afina's landing page showed the two different options
Van Meer said business owners often hear consumers say they would pay more for domestically-made products but he was skeptical if they would do so in practice.
'The results were brutal,' van Meer admitted of the experiment.
'We want to bring back domestic manufacturing. But when consumers face the actual price tag — they didn't,' he explained.
'It's not because they don't care. I think it is because most people are not willing to pay the premium (yet).'
Van Meer said his team ensured marketing for each item matched perfectly, they also ran the experiment over multiple days and traffic sources.
'For a moment, we thought we'd made a technical error. We hadn't,' he wrote on Afina's website.
The business owner said he doesn't blame American consumers, who have faced years of inflation and now an uncertain economy.
'If policymakers and pundits want to rebuild American industry, they need to grapple with this truth: idealism doesn't always survive contact with a price tag' he wrote.
Consumers are set to find rising prices across an array of goods as the consequences of Trump's tariffs begin to trickle through.
Ford has informed car dealers that sticker prices will climb across its vehicle fleet in June.
Amazon has incurred the wrath of the White House by advertising the cost of tariffs on the items it sells online.
The ecommerce giant was later forced to back down after Trump declared 'war' on the 'hostile act.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
17 minutes ago
- BBC News
ckglxlx5vldo (GIF Image, 1 × 1 pixels)
Frank Gardner BBC Security Correspondent Getty Images It is quite possible that Monday's meeting in the White House could prove even more crucial to the future of Ukraine - and for all of Europe's security - than last Friday's US-Russia summit in Alaska. On the surface, that Putin-Trump reunion seemed to live down to every expectation. There was no ceasefire, no sanctions, no grand announcements. Were Ukraine and Europe about to get cut out of a deal cooked up behind closed doors by the world's two foremost nuclear powers? Not, apparently, if Ukraine and its partners can prevent it. The presence of Sir Keir Starmer, President Macron, Chancellor Merz and other leaders alongside President Zelensky in Washington is about more than making sure he does not get ambushed in the Oval Office again, in the way he did on 28 February. They are determined to impress upon Donald Trump two things: firstly, that there can be no peace deal for Ukraine without Ukraine's direct involvement and secondly, that it must be backed by 'cast-iron' security guarantees. Above all, Europe's leaders want the US President to see that Ukraine and Europe present a united front and they are eager to ensure he is not being swayed by his obvious personal rapport with Vladimir Putin into giving in to the Russian leaders' demands. Watch: How the Trump-Putin summit unfolded... in under 2 minutes This is where the Sir Keir Starmer's diplomatic skills will be sorely tested. Trump likes Starmer and listens to him, and in a month's time Trump will be coming to the UK on a state visit. He also likes Mark Rutte, the NATO Secretary-General who will be in attendance, a man who is sometimes called 'the Trump Whisperer'. The US President appears to be less fond of President Macron and the White House was sharply critical recently of his intention to unconditionally recognise a Palestinian state at the next UN General Assembly. For a peace deal in Ukraine to have any chance of working, something has to give. European leaders have said frequently that international borders cannot be changed by force and President Zelensky has said time and time again he will not give up land and besides, Ukraine's constitution forbids it. But Putin wants the Donbas, which his forces already control around 85 per cent of, and he has absolutely no intention of ever handing back Crimea. Yet as the former Estonian PM and now Europe's top diplomat Kaja Kallas once said to me: victory for Ukraine in this war does not have to be exclusively about reconquering occupied land. If Ukraine can obtain the sort of Article 5-type security guarantees now being talked about, sufficient to deter any future Russian aggression and thereby safeguard its independence as a free and sovereign state, then that would be a form of victory. It does now appear that what the US and Russia have been discussing is a proposal that broadly trades some Ukrainian land for security guarantees that it won't have to give up any more to Russia. But the question marks are huge. Could Ukraine accept a deal that ends the war but costs it land, especially when so many thousands have died trying to save that land? If it is asked to give up the remaining 30 per cent of Donetsk Oblast that Russia has yet to occupy then does that leave the path westwards to Kyiv dangerously under-defended? And what of Starmer's much-vaunted Coalition of the Willing? Earlier talk of deploying tens of thousands of boots on the ground have since been scaled back. Now it's more about 'safeguarding skies and seas' while helping Ukraine to rebuild its army. But even if peace does break out on the battlefield we are still in dangerous territory. Every military expert I have spoken to believes that the moment the fighting stops Putin will reconstitute his army, build more weapons, until he is in a position, perhaps in as little as three to four years, to grab more land. If and when that happens it will be a brave Typhoon or F35 pilot who is prepared to fire that first missile on an advancing Russian column. Zelensky and allies head to White House for Ukraine talks
BBC News
17 minutes ago
- BBC News
Zelensky and allies head to White House for Ukraine talks with Trump
US President Donald Trump will host Volodymyr Zelensky on Monday for their first meeting since the pair's heated exchange in the White House - but this time the Ukrainian president is bringing European general of Nato Mark Rutte and UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer are among the leaders who will join Zelensky in Washington for efforts to end the war with follows Trump's summit with Russian leader Vladimir Putin in Alaska that ended with the US president dropping a demand for a ceasefire and calling instead for a permanent peace deal.A US envoy said on Sunday that Putin had agreed to security guarantees that could lead to a Nato-like security pact for Ukraine. "BIG PROGRESS ON RUSSIA. STAY TUNED!" Trump posted on his Truth Social platform, without heading to Washington for Monday's meeting are French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Finnish President Alexander Stubb and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. It is unclear how many of them will go to the White handing Donbas to Putin would mean for UkraineIn maps: War-ravaged Ukrainian territoriesFor so many heads of state to travel with such little notice across the Atlantic to what is essentially a wartime crisis meeting appears without precedent in the modern era, underscoring the sky-high sources say European officials are concerned that Trump may try to press Zelensky to agree to terms, after the Ukrainian leader was excluded from the Trump-Putin meeting on US soil last US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told the BBC's US partner CBS that any suggestion Zelensky might be bullied by Trump into accepting a peace deal was a "stupid media narrative". Nato leaders also appear eager to avoid a repeat of Zelensky's February trip to the Oval Office that ended abruptly after an argument with Trump and US Vice-President JD altercation - which saw Trump accuse Zelensky of "gambling with World War Three" - left Washington-Kyiv ties in European leaders have been working diligently behind the scenes since then to mend the relationship. The Ukrainian leader has been coached to talk in terms of deal-making - language that resonates with April, Ukraine signed a minerals agreement that gave the US a financial stake in the country, and Trump and Zelensky spoke privately at the Vatican before Pope Francis's funeral. Ukraine made it clear it was willing to pay for US July, the two leaders had a phone call that the Ukrainian president described as "the best conversation we have had".Meanwhile, Trump had begun to express exasperation with Russia's unrelenting onslaught in Ukraine. He called Putin "absolutely crazy", drastically shortened his deadline for a peace deal, and threatened economic sanctions on these deliberations grind on, Russian forces continue to advance on the battlefield. They now occupy almost a fifth of Ukraine since Moscow launched its full scale invasion in February 2022. A virtual summit was held on Sunday between Zelensky and the so-called coalition of the willing - a group of nations including the UK, France and Germany that have pledged to protect peace in Ukraine once it is achieved. Afterwards, Emmanuel Macron told reporters their plan was to "present a united front" for Monday's talks with and the Nato leaders said they were keen to learn more after US envoy Steve Witkoff told US television that Putin had agreed on Friday to "robust security guarantees that I would describe as game-changing".Witkoff said such an agreement could see Europe and the US protect Ukraine from further aggression with a Nato-like defence agreement."We were able to win the following concession: that the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in Nato," Witkoff told CNN on has long opposed Ukraine joining Nato, and Witkoff said the arrangement could be an alternative if the Ukrainians "can live with it".Article 5 is a principle at the heart of the 32-member transatlantic military alliance that says its members will come to the defence of an ally that is under also told CNN that Russia made "some concessions" around five heavily contested regions of talks with European allies after the Alaska summit, Trump said Putin had reiterated that he wants the key Donetsk and Luhansk regions that make up Donbas, eastern Ukraine, according to European at Sunday's virtual summit with Nato leaders, Zelensky stressed that the Ukrainian constitution makes it impossible to give up territory - and that this should only be discussed by the leaders of Ukraine and Russia at a trilateral summit with the US secretary of state, meanwhile, sought to temper hopes that a deal to end Europe's deadliest conflict for 80 years could be imminent."We're still a long ways off," America's top diplomat said on Sunday.
The Guardian
23 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump's DC crackdown will do little to prevent crime, advocates say: ‘That's not what creates safety'
Donald Trump's hyperbolic portrayal of crime in major American cities, and his deployment of the national guard in Washington DC ostensibly in an effort to combat it, have reignited a decades-old debate about crime, violence and which policies and approaches can address it. The US president has cited cities such as Oakland, Philadelphia and Chicago as examples of places overwhelmed by crime and violence. He has put forward an increased militarization of law enforcement, and more money and legal protections for police, as the most effective ways to address homicides and other violent crime. But to violence prevention workers, the recent statements appeared made not out of care and concern for the lower-income Black and Latino victims who bear an outsized share of the nation's crimes, but to undermine and dismiss the progress community groups have made. And, the advocates argue, the administration's emphasis on law enforcement and prosecution as the sole ways to stop crime will do little to stop the cycles of violence and property crime that these groups have faced through Republican and Democratic administrations alike. 'The police are about response. But that's not what creates safety,' said Aqeela Sherrills, a longtime community violence intervention leader in Los Angeles. 'A lot of our urban communities have been war zones because they lack investment in infrastructure and programming. It's really disheartening to hear the president of the United States put out misinformation.' Sherrills began his career in violence prevention in Watts in the early 90s. Since then he's been a leading force in several organisations that work intensely with the small portion of a city's population responsible for the most violence in an effort to prevent crime and support victims of crime. Throughout his tenure, he said, he had seen the biggest successes in violence reduction come through training local non-profits, community leaders and officials on different violence community prevention models and then allowing them to build bespoke strategies from there. Over the decades, various models have seen major successes. Some deploy violence prevention workers to middle and high schools. In other programs, they use probation officers as a conduit to connect with young adults who are carrying and using firearms illegally. Some programs send workers to hospitals after a shooting, in an effort to prevent retaliatory violence. Some models rely on a police-community partnership, others don't involve police at all. But most programs center on connecting with mostly young men and teenage boys whose conflicts spill out on to city streets, traumatizing entire neighborhoods. This method has shown promise, research shows, In 2024 the Brooklyn community of Baltimore went a year without homicides after deploying a program called Safe Streets. And cities such as Oakland, Seattle and Philadelphia, where city leaders have invested in similar gun violence reduction programs, have seen drops in homicides when the programs were thriving, according to the Major Cities Chiefs Association's violent crime survey. And while the reasons for the ebb and flow of homicides can't be reduced to one program or strategy, those working to build these programs up have been fighting for credit and acknowledgment. During the Biden administration, they got it. Their approaches finally found federal support with the creation of an office of gun violence prevention and federal dollars for community prevention groups working on the ground. In past years, programs have expanded across the US as more municipalities build their own offices of violence prevention. But these insights don't appear to inform the Trump administration's approach, Sherrills adds. 'He's not reading the data, he's not looking at the trends and reports, it's just more kneejerk reactions,' he said. 'It's shortsighted because they're only speaking about one aspect of our criminal legal system.' This most recent crime debate comes nearly four months after the Trump administration cut nearly $170m in grants from gun violence prevention organizations, including several groups founded and co-founded by Sherrills who have had to lay off several staff members, dealing a serious blow to critical summertime programming. For small, upstart organizations this loss of funds puts their work in jeopardy, said Fredrick Womack, whose organization, Operation Good, lost 20% of its budget due to the April cuts. Womack says he was dismayed to hear the list of cities that Trump singled out, because they are all cities with Black leaders who have invested in community violence intervention. The calls for increased police and potential military presences, he says, shows a disconnect between the halls of power and the needs of the people most affected by violent crime. 'How is the military going to provide support for victims when they need someone who's going to be compassionate to what they're going through?' He asked. 'I know people want justice, but they also need support. They need healing and counseling. 'They won't go into the projects and ask the people how life is going for you. But they'll look at someone who lives in the hills who heard a gunshot two miles away last week and say: 'We have a crime problem,'' he continued. Womack founded Operation Good in 2013, and since then he and his small staff and gaggle of volunteers have worked with the teenagers and young men responsible for most of the city's violence and given them odd jobs and taken them to civil rights museums so they can understand where they come from and gain a sense of community. Womack's work has made a difference: in the years since the pandemic – which saw nationwide surges of gun violence – the homicide rate started to tick down, a change city officials have attributed in part to the work of community-based groups including Operation Good, and their collaboration with the police. Community leaders also argue that not only will Trump's approach be less effective, it's not aimed at helping the people most affected by violence. During a 12 August press conference, Jeanine Pirro, the former Fox News host who was recently appointed the US attorney for DC, argued that Trump's rhetoric about crime and his administration's approach to violence in DC were done in the name of victims. Flanked by posters of mostly Black teenagers and children killed by gun violence, Pirro argued that policies including DC's Youth Rehabilitation Act have only emboldened perpetrators. 'I guarantee you that every one of these individuals was shot and killed by someone who felt they were never gonna be caught,' Pirro told reporters. And when reporters asked about addressing the root causes of crime and violence and the recent cuts to community-based programs, Pirro argued that her focus is on being punitive, not preventive. For Leia Schenk, a Sacramento-based victim and violence prevention advocate, these sorts of sentiments, while common among conservatives, miss the point. 'It's tone-deaf and an oxymoron. The root causes are why we have victims,' Schenk said. 'In my experience [crime and violence] come from systemic oppression. Meaning if a family can't feed their kids, they're gonna steal, rob or commit some sort of fraud to just live and survive.' Schenk has been working in the community advocacy space for more than three decades and in that time has seen the most successful approaches to youth crime, shootings and other forms of violence happen when schools districts, local mental and physical healthcare systems get a level of investment that matches the scale of the problem. 'We're seeing the most success when we are supported – from schools to law enforcement to churches – their support allows us to do what we're doing on a bigger scale.' Despite the comments and moves from the Trump administration, Sherrills says the field of violence prevention will continue to thrive thanks to a strong foundation that was fortified in recent years due to federal support and increased support from philanthropic groups. 'We know that we're in challenging times but it's about doubling down on success and making sure we preserve the wins,' he said. 'We're going to continue to see violence trend down because of the work practitioners are doing in the field. Folks are tired of the killing and the dying and are looking for alternative ways to create better ways of navigating a conflict so that it doesn't lead to violence.'
