compromise quality for

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "compromise quality for" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when you want to express the idea that you are sacrificing quality in order to achieve a certain result. For example, "We had to compromise quality for speed, so the job was finished much sooner."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Wiki

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

3 human-written examples

"We are not going to compromise quality for speed," he said.

The New York Times

"My father taught never to compromise quality for price or accuracy for portability". His father, William A. Baum, invented the Baumanometer in 1915.

The New York Times

Never however compromise quality for low rates.

WikiHow

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

57 human-written examples

Hence unfavourable risk information may not lead to clinical anxiety, but persistent worries about breast cancer may compromise quality of life for women who already recognize that they are at increased genetic risk.

British Journal of Cancer

In this stage there are also many behavioral symptoms that compromise quality of life for both patients and caregivers, and are sources of great stress to the latter, with institutionalization being the ultimate consequence.

Clinical interventions in aging

Everything is secondary to the needs of their patients and there are no excuses for factors that compromise quality of care.

Annals of Surgical Oncology

The resulting hepatomegaly compromises quality of life.

Journal of Hepatology

"But they don't want to compromise quality.

The Guardian - Business

Mining waste dumped in the rivers would also compromise water quality for locals, the EPA said.

The Guardian

The Power Pressure Cooker XL is ideal for the busy, time-strapped person that doesn't want to compromise on quality for convenience.

HuffPost

He is not good at holding together coalitions and making compromises (crucial qualities for any Indian prime minister), and the BJP may be seen, in effect, as a collection of regional groupings.

The Economist

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When using "compromise quality for", be explicit about what you are gaining in return. This clarifies the rationale behind the trade-off and avoids the impression of simply cutting corners. For example, "We had to compromise quality for speed in order to meet the deadline."

Common error

Avoid using "compromise quality for" as a blanket justification for poor results. Always provide specific details about the quality aspects affected and the reasons behind the decision. For example, instead of saying "We compromised quality for cost", specify "We used less expensive materials, which slightly reduced durability, to lower the overall project cost."

Linguistic Context

The phrase "compromise quality for" functions as a connector, specifically indicating a purpose. It links an action (compromising quality) to its intended outcome (achieving something else). Ludwig examples show this phrase used in various contexts, justifying decisions made based on trade-offs.

Expression frequency: Rare

Frequent in

News & Media

33%

Science

33%

Wiki

33%

Less common in

Formal & Business

0%

Encyclopedias

0%

Academia

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

The phrase "compromise quality for" is a grammatically correct construction used to explain the reason behind deliberately reducing quality to achieve another objective. Ludwig AI confirms its usability in written English. While relatively rare, the phrase appears across various contexts, including News & Media, Science, and Wiki sources, indicating a neutral register. When employing this phrase, ensure you clarify the specific benefits gained in return for the reduced quality to maintain transparency and avoid negative connotations. Alternative phrases include "sacrifice quality for" and "trade off quality for", each with slightly different nuances.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

Sacrifice quality for

Emphasizes the act of giving up quality for another benefit.

Reduce quality for

Focuses on the action of lowering quality to gain something else.

Lower standards for

Highlights the lowering of expectations to meet different criteria.

Trade off quality for

Indicates a balanced exchange where quality is given up in return for something else.

Diminish quality for

Focuses on the active reduction of quality in pursuit of another advantage.

Impair quality for

Suggests that quality is actively damaged or weakened for some benefit.

Accept lower quality for

Highlights the acceptance of a diminished quality level in exchange for a different goal.

Cut corners to achieve

Implies shortcuts are taken, potentially affecting quality, to reach a goal.

Prioritize other aspects over quality

Focuses on placing greater importance on non-quality factors.

Make concessions on quality for

Suggests compromises are made regarding quality to achieve other aims.

FAQs

When is it acceptable to "compromise quality for" something else?

It's acceptable to "compromise quality for" other factors when the benefits of doing so outweigh the drawbacks of reduced quality. This decision should be made transparently, with a clear understanding of the implications.

What are some alternatives to the phrase "compromise quality for"?

You can use phrases like "sacrifice quality for", "trade off quality for", or "reduce quality for" depending on the specific nuance you want to convey.

How does "compromise quality for" differ from "cutting corners"?

"Compromise quality for" implies a deliberate trade-off made with a specific goal in mind, while "cutting corners" suggests a more haphazard and potentially unethical reduction in quality, often without a clear justification.

What are the potential risks of using "compromise quality for" as a business strategy?

Potential risks include customer dissatisfaction, damage to brand reputation, and long-term loss of market share if the reduction in quality is too significant or not well-justified. It's important to balance short-term gains with long-term sustainability.