A Plea For High-End Audio Manufacturer Honesty and Transparency
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
We had a customer buy a set of our M-60s, after which he traded them in on a set of MA-1s, after which he traded them in on a set of MA-2s all in a matter of a few weeks. After that he commissioned us to build a more powerful amplifier, now known as the MA-3. He paid us something down for that and paid the balance after the amps were completed, which took a few years. We didn't make any money on that project, having gone through 7 chassis designs and five circuit designs. Of course he was calling about once a month to check on progress. Its not something I would care to do again.
Elliot G.
Dealer - Bending Wave
I am not sure a commissioned sale is the same thing and of course you sell direct to the consumer so its a bit of a different model. I don't think the point I was referring to meant the same thing but of course i could be wrong. Designing a building a unique item that does not exist IMO is not the same as taking money for orders for something you are selling but is not ready to be sold. In my past I can name a bunch of times a review promoted a product that was not really available and was a prototype. These usually ended badly in my experience.
As a dealer I am done paying for anything that can't be shipped or a near future shipping date can be provided and stuck too ..period.
I've made these mistakes already in my past and won't repeat them but others may want to walk on the wild side. so be it
Elliot, after 40-plus years of retailing fine audio, you have earned the right to do the things that in your experience have paid off. After making this post, I will now drop off the thread, having made my most important point about not painting with too broad a brush in terms of smaller manufacturers.
When differentiating between a manufacturer that sells through dealers versus direct to consumers, both models are viable, depending on a manufacturer's time and ambition, especially in the early years of a brand's visibility. As you also know, as a distributor of a smaller speaker brand, one can often struggle to gain access to quality dealers, even after receiving positive reviews, going to shows, and investing in extensive advertising. I think most people here on WBF believe that if we only have the big established power players out there offering choice, value, and innovation, things would get really boring, really fast!
The point Ron was making was not intended to pit dealers, distributors, or manufacturers against each other, but rather to emphasize that each plays a role in the chain when it comes to transparency. I agree that when all three parties are involved in the customer acquisition process for a product, best communication practices are necessary to ensure the customer receives the most accurate and up-to-date information possible.
And as we know, some dealers prefer that the upstream providers do not speak with "their clients". Our adopted communication model involves working with retail partners who welcome open and transparent communication regarding the flow of information to end users. In my opinion, everyone benefits from this approach.
PS I checked Ralph's website, and it clearly lists his dealers in the About Us section, so perhaps you may have missed it.
When differentiating between a manufacturer that sells through dealers versus direct to consumers, both models are viable, depending on a manufacturer's time and ambition, especially in the early years of a brand's visibility. As you also know, as a distributor of a smaller speaker brand, one can often struggle to gain access to quality dealers, even after receiving positive reviews, going to shows, and investing in extensive advertising. I think most people here on WBF believe that if we only have the big established power players out there offering choice, value, and innovation, things would get really boring, really fast!
The point Ron was making was not intended to pit dealers, distributors, or manufacturers against each other, but rather to emphasize that each plays a role in the chain when it comes to transparency. I agree that when all three parties are involved in the customer acquisition process for a product, best communication practices are necessary to ensure the customer receives the most accurate and up-to-date information possible.
And as we know, some dealers prefer that the upstream providers do not speak with "their clients". Our adopted communication model involves working with retail partners who welcome open and transparent communication regarding the flow of information to end users. In my opinion, everyone benefits from this approach.
PS I checked Ralph's website, and it clearly lists his dealers in the About Us section, so perhaps you may have missed it.
Naim is about $21 million in revenue and 140 employees from their latest financials. They note the industry outlook is not good.
You guys need to address the Lee S matter. He told alot of stories in the MQA fight that folks haven't forgotten.
If you have been around financial regulation and politics, you immediately recognize what Wilson is doing is called an availability cascade. I’m not a fan of the tactic.
In my experience from working in the technology industry, a typical and accepted practice is to inform customers of the GA (general availability) date of a new product. This is usually interpreted to mean that the product is ready to ship. As the products were often in high demand, customers would be able to place provisional orders in advance of GA and we ensured a FIFO (first in, first out) approach.
I think it is a practice that protects consumers - buying something that is replaced next day can be frustrating. Good for audiophiles - this way we can get good new products at the end of life for a better price. I got my XLFs in such conditions.
Elliot G.
Dealer - Bending Wave
I get what you are saying however isn't this a marketing technic used almost in every business. I know it is very commonly used in audio and new products are announced or introduced at major audio shows , usually months or more in advance of the deliveries of said items. What has become lately of using places like WBF to introduce and sell upcoming products in some cases direct to consumers and taking advance payments. The market will vote on this and whether some like it or not there is no one stopping this trend.
I personally may not like it but this is not something horrible. I think it becomes shady when these items are not finished in design or testing or just not ready for prime time release and companies are asking for orders some of which requires pre payment of some kind. we have a system , like it or not, that uses said technics along with providing review samples ahead of release to get a desired result.
It makes me crazy when there are review samples all over the planet but no product to sell or see.
This is the reality of much of high end audio and as consumers or dealers we can only react to this by choosing to spend or not to spend.
I am not so sure. If a brand announces by minor 'leak' or an official newsletter or announcement, then surely customers thinking of buying from that brand will wait, and sales may fall off a cliff (for a period).
Look at the car industry, they go to great lengths to keep the shape secret (covered in camouflage vinyl wrap) and not tell most of the dealers till it is ready to flood the market. Remember in that case, many car dealers have stock sat on the forecourt to shift. They don't want stabbing in the back.
Likewise, an audio brand should be sympathetic to its dealers.
I can see smaller audio brands thinking they could finance a new product by testing the market, and even get deposits in before it is ready. Personally I think that is not good. Audiophiles are on the market to buy a product, not 'invest' in an audio brand, we are not directors getting a profit bonus after all. So customers should be treated a customers, not something else.
Elliot G.
Dealer - Bending Wave
sadly the Audio business and the automobile business are nothing alike. Car dealers , usual single brand buildings are dealerships for the last few decades, are business partners with Ford , Gm , MB etc this is definitely not true in audio for the most part.
Audio is a now business, meaning the product life is relatively short and they need to move boxes to the dealers now. Very few companies worry about the inventory that exists in the field. The audio business is totally based on WHATS NEW to survive and there are some companies that have something new every show.
I personally try not to support brands that do this. If you are making truly great products that are well designed and built then you shouldn't need to change it often. Those are products that care about the consumer and those who represent them.
the hifi gear business is not one size fits all in terms of marketing and product profiles.
i think certain segments of hifi product categories do have normal product cycles. where the particular customers of those type products are expecting to see fresh products and so do react to teases. it's effective. most digital products fall into this category. change is expected. large brick and mortar speaker brands and electronics brands fall into this category.
OTOH other segments need to maintain an element of more separation from the product cycle feeling, and that their products are end games in themselves and do not change necessarily. and any change is not expected. and in some ways customers don't want or need change. they don't want their product to be left behind. activity is more about moving up in a mostly stable line up.
both have positive and negative aspects to them. and customers want to be comfortable with their segment delivering what is expected.
after 50 years in auto retailing management i do view the car business as having as regimented a product cycle process as any other industry possibly excepting cell phones. where there are new product cycles for every model every 3-5 years, and smaller refreshes every year or so. if we related that to hifi, we have a few speaker companies that we could pick out that do follow that template to some degree. and the customers of those companies are trained to work with that.
no right or wrong about how products get introduced. if their particular customers are comfortable and loyal then that is the proof of concept.
i think certain segments of hifi product categories do have normal product cycles. where the particular customers of those type products are expecting to see fresh products and so do react to teases. it's effective. most digital products fall into this category. change is expected. large brick and mortar speaker brands and electronics brands fall into this category.
OTOH other segments need to maintain an element of more separation from the product cycle feeling, and that their products are end games in themselves and do not change necessarily. and any change is not expected. and in some ways customers don't want or need change. they don't want their product to be left behind. activity is more about moving up in a mostly stable line up.
both have positive and negative aspects to them. and customers want to be comfortable with their segment delivering what is expected.
after 50 years in auto retailing management i do view the car business as having as regimented a product cycle process as any other industry possibly excepting cell phones. where there are new product cycles for every model every 3-5 years, and smaller refreshes every year or so. if we related that to hifi, we have a few speaker companies that we could pick out that do follow that template to some degree. and the customers of those companies are trained to work with that.
no right or wrong about how products get introduced. if their particular customers are comfortable and loyal then that is the proof of concept.
Interesting views, I think both are correct. There are exceptions though. Take Kondo. Many models are decades old with minor updates and still sell well and compete. That is quite rare IMO.
A new thing the last few years has got to be the 'we have a 300K product as well' bandwagon. I am not sure how I feel about that. Yes it can be good to see a brand push the envelope, no restraints, to both sell a few one offs to those who have the means, and promote the brand position. This can 'rub off' on mid and lower models to have a 'bit of that apex product'.
Lastly, how many models a brand has, and how quick they appear is also important. Too many too quick can turn some off, but others see it as progressive.
A new thing the last few years has got to be the 'we have a 300K product as well' bandwagon. I am not sure how I feel about that. Yes it can be good to see a brand push the envelope, no restraints, to both sell a few one offs to those who have the means, and promote the brand position. This can 'rub off' on mid and lower models to have a 'bit of that apex product'.
Lastly, how many models a brand has, and how quick they appear is also important. Too many too quick can turn some off, but others see it as progressive.
"sadly the Audio business and the automobile business are nothing alike. Car dealers , usual single brand buildings are dealerships for the last few decades, are business partners with Ford , Gm , MB etc this is definitely not true in audio for the most part.
Audio is a now business, meaning the product life is relatively short and they need to move boxes to the dealers now. Very few companies worry about the inventory that exists in the field. The audio business is totally based on WHATS NEW to survive and there are some companies that have something new every show."
Not sure I agree Elliot. Your own brands, Goebel for example, have long standing models, and don't seem to bring a new range out yearly. Their website has been more or less the same for 4-5 years. And many brands have 'classic' products that sell for years, including speakers. High end audio is IMO less lifestyle or bling, a show off item like luxury cars. For example, it seems speakers generally stay longer than DACs, or amps. I would like to think most audiophiles are 'in control' of their buying habits with audio gear, chasing sonics not bling.
Audio is a now business, meaning the product life is relatively short and they need to move boxes to the dealers now. Very few companies worry about the inventory that exists in the field. The audio business is totally based on WHATS NEW to survive and there are some companies that have something new every show."
Not sure I agree Elliot. Your own brands, Goebel for example, have long standing models, and don't seem to bring a new range out yearly. Their website has been more or less the same for 4-5 years. And many brands have 'classic' products that sell for years, including speakers. High end audio is IMO less lifestyle or bling, a show off item like luxury cars. For example, it seems speakers generally stay longer than DACs, or amps. I would like to think most audiophiles are 'in control' of their buying habits with audio gear, chasing sonics not bling.
FWIW dept.: We introduced the MA-1 about 1987. The M-50, which evolved shortly into the M-60, 1990. The MP-1 in 1989; MA-2 in 1991. S-30 and MP-3 in 1997. All those models are still in our lineup although have better performance now. All the older product in the field can be updated to the latest spec with a new warranty.
Seems to me ARC has a refurbishment program as well, at least they did. Audio was a business long before ARC or we showed up in the 1970s...
Yes, but aren't you glad you did. Just having the MA-3 on offer must be its own satisfaction.
108 total tubes, 54 in each channel
1/4 Farad per channel power capacity
500 Watts of OTL glory.
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |