View Full Version : Giving Away The Store
Merchants of high value added goods do not give their products away
or sell them at a deep discount to employees or vendors or service
providers without substantial incentive. The reason is that the
products have a tendency to appear back on the market at a substantial
discount, undermining the price structure.
Seconds or blems are also controlled carefully. Many companies have a
policy of either taking them back and refurbing them, if new, or
alternatively destroying them if they are not fit for prime sale. The
guitar companies today, for instance, saw an enormous number of their
mid price guitars into pieces if refinishing or unit repair isn't
practicable.
If a reviewer is getting a substantially discounted price on a
product, that is guaranteed to be an influencing factor in any reviews
or public statements about a product. There's too much incentive
otherwise to modify, consciously or not, one's public opinions about
that product.
I was talking to a man who was a FDIC bank examiner back in the 70s.
He said that back then, they would hire college graduates and many
would quit because of the incredibly strict regulations placed on a
bank examiner. They could not accept as much as a cup of coffee or a
calendar from a bank. They had to have their house financed by a
savings-and-loan or a credit union, which were not FDIC regulated, and
could not have accounts with FDIC banks. If they rented the landlord
had to have no connection with any bank.
If the reviewers with audiophile magazines had one-tenth of this
rigor applied to their relationships they could not find any
reviewers.
On Apr 27, 5:24�pm, wrote:
> �Merchants of high value added goods do not give their products away
> or sell them at a deep discount to employees or vendors or service
> providers without substantial incentive. The reason is that the
> products have a tendency to appear back on the market at a substantial
> discount, undermining the price structure.
>
> �Seconds or blems are also controlled carefully. Many companies have a
> policy of either taking them back and refurbing them, if new, or
> alternatively destroying them if they are not fit for prime sale. The
> guitar companies today, for instance, saw an enormous number of their
> mid price guitars into pieces if refinishing or unit repair isn't
> practicable.
>
> �If a reviewer is getting a substantially discounted price on a
> product, that is guaranteed to be an influencing factor in any reviews
> or public statements about a product. There's too much incentive
> otherwise to modify, consciously or not, one's public opinions about
> that product.
>
> �I was talking to a man who was a FDIC bank examiner back in the 70s.
> He said that back then, they would hire college graduates and many
> would quit because of the incredibly strict regulations placed on a
> bank examiner. They could not accept as much as a cup of coffee or a
> calendar from a bank. They had to have their house financed by a
> savings-and-loan or a credit union, which were not FDIC regulated, and
> could not have accounts with FDIC banks. If they rented the landlord
> had to have no connection with any bank.
>
> �If the reviewers with audiophile magazines had one-tenth of this
> rigor applied to their relationships they could not find any
> reviewers.
Here's the problem with that logic.
First of all, the people who can afford the best systems probably
aren't interested in reviewing equipment. They're too busy being
doctors and lawyers and corporate executives.
There's gotta be a compromise somewhere.
George M. Middius[_4_]
April 28th 09, 04:14 AM
said:
> > ?If the reviewers with audiophile magazines had one-tenth of this
> > rigor applied to their relationships they could not find any
> > reviewers.
>
> Here's the problem with that logic.
>
> First of all, the people who can afford the best systems probably
> aren't interested in reviewing equipment. They're too busy being
> doctors and lawyers and corporate executives.
Not to mention all-knowing Usenet nerds.
> There's gotta be a compromise somewhere.
When will you guys who produce and publish audio mags figure out that
you're the ones who enable the nerds with your crumbs of attention?
Hahaha, just kidding. It's a tossup whether the nerds (and 'borgs, of
course) envy those who play with the fancy stuff as much as those who
manufacture it.
We should find out the aliases Brattie uses on other groups. He surely has
it in for overpriced stuff like jewelry and liquor and exotic motor
scooters. Not to mention salon-style medical plans, million-dollar racing
boats, and trips to the space station. Brattie has a lifetime of grit
under his fingernails. Where's his reward? He's surrounded by skeevies and
mudders and all those other undersirables. Rant, rant, rant. You betcha!
--
"Arny is a man's man. If I were a woman, I would love to have his baby."
Bret "Bratzi" Ludwig, RAO, April 2, 2009
On Apr 27, 8:14�pm, George M. Middius >
wrote:
> said:
>
> > > ?If the reviewers with audiophile magazines had one-tenth of this
> > > rigor applied to their relationships they could not find any
> > > reviewers.
>
> > Here's the problem with that logic.
>
> > First of all, the people who can afford the best systems probably
> > aren't interested in reviewing equipment. They're too busy being
> > doctors and lawyers and corporate executives.
>
> Not to mention all-knowing Usenet nerds.
>
> > There's gotta be a compromise somewhere.
>
> When will you guys who produce and publish audio mags figure out that
> you're the ones who enable the nerds with your crumbs of attention?
> Hahaha, just kidding. It's a tossup whether the nerds (and 'borgs, of
> course) envy those who play with the fancy stuff as much as those who
> manufacture it.
I read some of that Hydrogen Audio thread and I was overwhelmed by
ennui. Those people don't deserve to hear the good stuff. In fact, I
doubt most of those people are out hearing live music, either.
>
> We should find out the aliases Brattie uses on other groups. He surely has
> it in for overpriced stuff like jewelry and liquor and exotic motor
> scooters. Not to mention salon-style medical plans, million-dollar racing
> boats, and trips to the space station. Brattie has a lifetime of grit
> under his fingernails. Where's his reward? He's surrounded by skeevies and
> mudders and all those other undersirables. Rant, rant, rant. You betcha!
The only other place he seems to post on Usenet is
rec.auto.makers.chrysler. That about sums it up.
>
> > If the reviewers with audiophile magazines had one-tenth of this
> > rigor applied to their relationships they could not find any
> > reviewers.
>
> Here's the problem with that logic.
>
> First of all, the people who can afford the best systems probably
> aren't interested in reviewing equipment. They're too busy being
> doctors and lawyers and corporate executives.
>
There's also the other issue, the doctors and lawyers and executives
reviewing audio equipment are in the same position if we asked
recording engineers and electronics experts and musicians and
acoustical designers about which surgical techniques in cardiac bypass
were the best or how one should select juries or argue Miranda cases
before appellate courts. Doctors know a lot, as a group, about
medicine. As individuals some are also knowledgeable, legitimately,
about economics or flying jets or even music, but as a group they
suck. They routinely go bankrut while having seven figure incomes,
they routinely slam Beech Bonanzas into the ground (with turbine
aircraft they're worse) and they routinely embarrass themselves
onstage. The same principle holds true of other professionals.
Would you want Doug Sax or Bob Ohlsson to do surgery on you? Would
you let Bob Clearmountain defend you in a felony trial? Would you let
Bob Pease run Apple Computer if you owned a lot of Apple stock? Maybe
let Jim Williams run, oh, say, Boeing?
That's exactly the problem. BMW uses terrible electronics and gets
away with it because the owners _don't care_. They don't care about
the repair bills, they have shown that. Ferraris had 25 pounds of
Bondo on the bodies and Cinzano wrappers for fuses, Lotuses "shed
parts like Alsatians shed hair", and every Brit car made betwen 1965
and 1990 had massive rust and electrical issues. The buyers didn't
give a ****. They were buying-well, let's face it, virtual cock size.
The same people will continue to buy brand new Audio Research
amplifiers that four or five years later will let out a big smoke
cloud, and then they'll buy another new one.
On Apr 27, 10:24*pm, wrote:
<<snippppp>>
>
> The only other place he seems to post on Usenet is
> rec.auto.makers.chrysler. That about sums it up.- Hide quoted text -
Rarely.
Although, Chrysler had the best engineering of any car in the world
at one time, in the opinion of many engineers. The head of automotive
engineering at Rolls Royce was once asked his opinion of the then-new
all aluminum Rolls V8 car engine. He replied, without missing a beat,
"It's almost as good as the Chrysler".
Neither Chrysler nor RR has much in the way of great engineering
anymore, but that's another issue.
On Apr 27, 9:30�pm, wrote:
> > > If the reviewers with audiophile magazines had one-tenth of this
> > > rigor applied to their relationships they could not find any
> > > reviewers.
>
> > Here's the problem with that logic.
>
> > First of all, the people who can afford the best systems probably
> > aren't interested in reviewing equipment. They're too busy being
> > doctors and lawyers and corporate executives.
>
> �There's also the other issue, the doctors and lawyers and executives
> reviewing audio equipment are in the same position if we asked
> recording engineers and electronics experts and musicians and
> acoustical designers about which surgical techniques in cardiac bypass
> were the best or how one should select juries or argue Miranda cases
> before appellate courts. Doctors know a lot, as a group, about
> medicine. As individuals some are also knowledgeable, legitimately,
> about economics or flying jets or even music, but as a group they
> suck. They routinely go bankrut while having seven figure incomes,
> they routinely slam Beech Bonanzas into the ground (with turbine
> aircraft they're worse) and they routinely embarrass themselves
> onstage. The same principle holds true of other professionals.
>
> �Would you want Doug Sax or Bob Ohlsson to do surgery on you? Would
> you let Bob Clearmountain defend you in a felony trial? Would you let
> Bob Pease run Apple Computer if you owned a lot of Apple stock? Maybe
> let Jim Williams run, oh, say, �Boeing?
>
> �That's exactly the problem. BMW uses terrible electronics and gets
> away with it because the owners _don't care_. They don't care about
> the repair bills, they have shown that. Ferraris had 25 pounds of
> Bondo on the bodies and Cinzano wrappers for fuses, Lotuses "shed
> parts like Alsatians shed hair", and every Brit car made betwen 1965
> and 1990 had massive rust and electrical issues. The buyers didn't
> give a ****. They were buying-well, let's face it, virtual cock size.
> The same people will continue to buy brand new Audio Research
> amplifiers that four or five years later will let out a big smoke
> cloud, and then they'll buy another new one.
Why are we suddenly talking about Ferraris and BMWs and cock?
You're totally off the wall here, and your analogy does not fit. But
the simple point is that doctors and lawyers and corporate are pretty
smart guys and they're not likely to throw away money on "snake oil."
A good majority of them have grown to appreciate the finer things in
life, and the idea that a bunch of nobodies on the Internet think
they've made bad purchasing decisions is absurd at best. It's a class
warfare thing again.
You know, I keep meeting these audio objectivists, and they all have
really crappy sounding systems. This obsession with measuring things
has certainly left them out in the cold.
On Apr 27, 9:35�pm, wrote:
> On Apr 27, 10:24�pm, wrote:
>
> <<snippppp>>
>
>
>
> > The only other place he seems to post on Usenet is
> > rec.auto.makers.chrysler. That about sums it up.- Hide quoted text -
>
> �Rarely.
>
> �Although, Chrysler had the best engineering of any car in the world
> at one time, in the opinion of many engineers. The head of automotive
> engineering at Rolls Royce was once asked his opinion of the then-new
> all aluminum Rolls V8 car engine. He replied, without missing a beat,
> "It's almost as good as the Chrysler".
>
> �Neither Chrysler nor RR has much in the way of great engineering
> anymore, but that's another issue.
My wife owns a Chrysler. It's a piece of ****. Royce Royce made nice
engines, but the rear view mirrors and bumpers would fall off in
traffic.
I've owned German, Japanese and American cars. My Subaru WRX...now
THAT'S engineering.
> > Although, Chrysler had the best engineering of any car in the world
> > at one time, in the opinion of many engineers. The head of automotive
> > engineering at Rolls Royce was once asked his opinion of the then-new
> > all aluminum Rolls V8 car engine. He replied, without missing a beat,
> > "It's almost as good as the Chrysler".
>
> > Neither Chrysler nor RR has much in the way of great engineering
> > anymore, but that's another issue.
>
> My wife owns a Chrysler. It's a piece of ****. Royce Royce made nice
> engines, but the rear view mirrors and bumpers would fall off in
> traffic.
Not if you put a little loctite on the screws....or safetywired
them. I agree they should have done that at the works, but still....
>
> I've owned German, Japanese and American cars. My Subaru WRX...now
> THAT'S engineering.- Hide quoted text -
I was a big fan of the early simple Subarus for what they were,
rather than the faster, upscale ones of today (very complicated). But
I have to admit they're still a very well built car. For performance,
I like rear wheel drive, cheap readily available parts, and a big
nasty old engine up front. . Oh, if only Toyota offered the V12 in
the Supra!
On Apr 27, 10:24�pm, wrote:
> > > Although, Chrysler had the best engineering of any car in the world
> > > at one time, in the opinion of many engineers. The head of automotive
> > > engineering at Rolls Royce was once asked his opinion of the then-new
> > > all aluminum Rolls V8 car engine. He replied, without missing a beat,
> > > "It's almost as good as the Chrysler".
>
> > > Neither Chrysler nor RR has much in the way of great engineering
> > > anymore, but that's another issue.
>
> > My wife owns a Chrysler. It's a piece of ****. Royce Royce made nice
> > engines, but the rear view mirrors and bumpers would fall off in
> > traffic.
>
> �Not if you put a little loctite on the screws....or safetywired
> them. �I agree they should have done that at the works, but still.....
>
>
>
> > I've owned German, Japanese and American cars. My Subaru WRX...now
> > THAT'S engineering.- Hide quoted text -
>
> �I was a big fan of the early simple Subarus for what they were,
> rather than the faster, upscale ones of today (very complicated). But
> I have to admit they're still a very well built car. For performance,
> I like rear wheel drive, cheap readily available parts, and a big
> nasty old engine up front. . Oh, if only �Toyota offered the V12 in
> the Supra!
My car is very complicated (one mechanic told me there are more parts
to a WRX STi engine than any other power plant made in Japan), but
after 70,000 miles I've only had to replace the tires, the brakes and
the serpentine belt. Not bas for a car with all-wheel drive and a
turbo.
The last generation Supra is a spectacular car. Too bad Toyota pulled
the plug on it when they did.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.