Marketing errors in Fairphone 5 launch

The price is always paid by someone and when its not the end-consumer its the worker.

Overall for me not worth the discussion as my opinion is so far away that it doesnt make sense to put any energy in it.


This is an “ad personam” attack.

To clarify: I’m happy to pay Fairphone a good phone sold at reasonable price, considering the effort they put into it to make a reparaible ad sustenaible smartphone.

I’m not happy buying cheap accessories badly needed at an absurd price.

And I’m uncomfortable seeing a company that from one side want to be sustainable, and on the other side want their customer to pay more for making their phones durable and sustainable.

Far better putting everything needed in the box and sell at an higher price,

You are oversimplifying. the price is always paid by customer, the amount is split in parts among actors, one goes to worker.
But raising unreasonably the price is never done for the worker’s benefit.

Why don’t you buy low quality accessories, made with child labor and non recycled materials, at very low prices ?


This discussion is engaging even if a little bit repetitive.
I understood that the prize of the accessories is being questioned and the marketing strategy as well, while the price of the phone is generally accepted as linked to the quality of the product.
As I understood again, the prize of the phone is the result of intentional policies and should cover not only the workers benefits but also the sourcing of the materials and software/support related efforts, plus some extra social initiatives.

It makes sense then the other products offered by the same company would follow the same logic, hence will be less attractive in the eyes of price -oriented consumer.

Many fairphoners on this forum shared their experience of buying third party products such as cases, or screen protectors, so I guess we can say we are happy having the choice. Also some other more sustainable choices have similar price.

Finally the option of leaving some accessories not included gives a company an option to include them during different campaigns, thus increasing the attractiveness of a given offer. One of the examples will be the current fairphone refurbished bundle offer, where both the case and the protector are temporarily included :slight_smile:


There is everything needed in the box, some have already cables or charges, a lot of people (like me for example) will never use a protective foil or glass for the screen. There are so many different preferences for cases, that most people would never use the one you want to have in the box.
So why make all people buy a box with a higher price containing things they will never use, just because you want to have these things?


10€-protection glass is PET.
30€ protection glass is Accessory Glass by Corning® (alkali-aluminosilicate)


Google or Samsung covers are about the same price as the one sold for the fp5. Yes it expensive but you can find some from other companies if you don’t want to pay the full price.

Personally, I am more bothered by the fact it doesn’t protect well than by its price.


3 pieces tempered glass = 7,99

1 piece tempered glass = cost + margin for better a world + margin for sustaining a splendid, ethic company + big, unjustified, absurd margin = 30,00

1 Like

It doesn’t work like that. You can’t just go to the cheapest glass manufacturer and pay them a “better world margin”. You have to find a company that is able to manufacture it in an employee- and environmentally friendly way, and get some audit reports to ensure it. If there’s only one such company, you’re stuck paying what they’re asking.


Don’t you understand the difference between PET and alkali aluminosilicate?