Klarinet Archive - Posting 000500.txt from 1999/11

From: musictrader <syrinx@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] subject: [kl] Plastic Horns
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 09:59:18 -0500

Dear Mr. Lacy,
I was surprised to read your evaluation of why Conn left Elkhart (as you
are usually "right on the money" with your comments). I remember quite a
different scenairo (as I was working for W. T. Armstrong as a
tester/quality control at the time). As I recall, the primary motivation
for their move was pure and simple survival (on the part of the
owners/management of C. G. Conn). The unions within the company had gotten
so powerful over the years, and demanded such high rates of pay and
benefits for their membership, Conn was no longer able to compete
effectively with other manufacturers (who were paying their non-union
workers significantly less money/benefits to fabricate relatively similar
instruments). Whereas the "bottom line" is always a major consideration for
all manufacturers, I do believe that the quality of their product comes in
a very close second.

I personally believe that it is a grave mistake to paint the manufacturer
(or any single element of the music industry, for that matter) as the
enemy; I do believe that vast majority of musical instrument manufacturers
are conscientious and responsible in their strife to create a better
(first) and less expensive (second) product. One only needs to compare the
cost (in real dollars) of musical instruments with the cost of housing or
automobiles over the past 50 years. In 1955, one was able to purchase a
good quality student flute for approximately $125 compared to about $500+
in today's dollars. Money has inflated approximately 3-fold in the last 50
years (for example, $10 in 1950 is approximately equal in spending power,
to about $80 in today's money; as it's value halves, on average, about
every 14 years). So, if manufacturers charged today an amount of money
equal to the spending power of the 1950 dollar, the average retail cost of
a student flute would be somewhere in the neighborhood of over $1000! I'd
say the musical instrument manufacturer has managed a pretty darn good
record of cost and quality when compared to other commodities which have
followed a more standard inflationary spiral.

In the music industry we have at least 5 significant, and equally important
players: the Manufacturer, the Performer/Musician, the Repairer, the Music
Educator, and the Music Retailer. There are many sub-divisions within each
category, however, each has its opportunity to better the music industry
overall. Working together and working OBJECTIVELY, we can do wonderous
things! Just a few ramblings.

Best Regards to all,
Lars Kirmser, Editor, The Woodwind Quarterly

At 10:50 PM 11/10/99 -0600, Edwin V. Lacy wrote:
>I wish I were as confident of this. There are already plenty of examples
>of companies destroying their reputations by trying to save a few pennies
>here and there, doing so by cost-cutting measures of varying degrees of
>intelligence or stupidity, and in the process reducing the quality of the
>product to the extent that they ultimately destroy their former
>reputation.
>
>For example, think of the move by Conn from Elkhart, Indiana to
>Nogales, Mexico. In Elkhart, there was a cadre of experienced and expert
>workers. The move was made in an attempt to have the instruments built by
>workers who they could hire for a fraction of what they paid to American
>workers. The result? The quality of their instruments went so far down
>that they became a laughing stock among musicians, their potential
>purchasers. This move had nothing to do with a desire to provide a better
>quality product. It was clearly an attempt to improve the profit margin.
>In other words, it was driven by the dollar - or some might say, by greed.
>
>Consider also the fact that Selmer no longer markets instruments under the
>Bundy name. They are now called "Selmer model 100" or something similar.
>Bundy had become associated in the minds of so many musicians with
>inferior quality and poor value that they felt it necessary to do away
>with the name. Notice that their response was not to improve the quality.
>The change was purely a marketing ploy.
>
>It can happen in all businesses and industries. Notice in your Sunday
>newspaper that K-Mart is in the process of changing their name to "Big K,"
>a trade name formerly used by one of their competitors. Why would they
>want to do this? Because the K-Mart name had been the punch line of
>thousands of jokes, and was synonymous with cheapness and poor quality.
>Note again that the response was not to improve quality, but to try to
>brainwash the public into forgetting the associations of the K-Mart name.
>
>I realize that this may seem too cynical. I hope I will be proven wrong.
>
>Ed Lacy
>el2@-----.edu
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
>Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
>Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
>Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org
>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org