Recently, we developed a
cat castle for one of our clients — a truly thoughtful design. Out of respect for the client’s IP and confidentiality, we won’t share product images here. But the process itself is worth telling.
As we’ve introduced before, our development usually starts from the client’s basic model — sometimes a rough sketch, sometimes a simple mock-up. From there, we use CAD to refine the design precisely, select suitable materials, and move toward industrial tooling and sampling.
Throughout this project, we communicated closely with the client, including two video calls to align details. Everything moved smoothly.
There was one small but interesting twist: the cat castle includes a facade/entrance design. To maximize the client’s original intent, we initially recommended a stone board for this part. It matched the design concept well and — based on the supplier’s original quotation — the cost was within an acceptable range.
The client was very satisfied with the cat castle sample we delivered. So far, so good.
Of course, any new product is ultimately meant to be market-accepted, not just a one-off prototype. Pricing, therefore, is a critical piece. That’s why we had already conducted a strict cost analysis during sampling and confirmed it thoroughly with the client.
Everything seemed on track. Shortly after, the client placed the first trial order — as it should be: every new product should enter the market gently, via a trial run. We began preparation.
And then, the unexpected happened.
The issue? That stone board.
Although we had repeatedly confirmed the cost with the supplier beforehand (since it was a new material for us), when we returned to place the bulk order, the new quotation was far higher than the original one. The product cost would have increased significantly.
We were frustrated — not only by the unprofessional inconsistency, but by the risk it created. But blaming a supplier one-sidedly solves nothing.
We took the following steps:
-
Negotiate with the original stone board supplier to lower the price — but the gap was too large; the reduction was limited.
-
Look for alternative suppliers of the same material.
-
Re-evaluate the material choice and communicate proactively with the client.
We revisited why we chose the stone board in the first place:
However, the client wasn’t fully convinced by stone: it is heavy, and there is a risk of delamination/debonding during transport. So there was already a reason to consider alternatives.
We quickly prepared visual renderings of the cat castle using sisal carpet instead of the stone board. Comparing the effect, we found that sisal still aligned well with the client’s design philosophy, while offering clear advantages:
-
Cost did not increase — it decreased
-
Lighter weight, better for shipping and handling
-
No debonding risk associated with stone boards
We immediately shared this update with the client: the issue, our proposed solution, effect images, and a new cost analysis.
The client agreed with our approach and confirmed the new specification quickly.
What we learned
This experience left us with a weighty conclusion:
Material selection is critical in new product development.
When working with unfamiliar materials, thorough market research upfront is essential — because a single material can decide whether a product succeeds or fails in the market.
Sometimes, a crisis mid-stream is also a chance to prove transparency, responsiveness, and long-term thinking. We’re glad we could turn a sudden cost spike into a better, more market-ready solution — together with our client.
What about you?
Have you experienced something similar?
We’d love to hear your stories — what difficulties have you faced when developing a new product with a vendor? Drop a comment or send us a message. Let’s talk.
