What is the normal discount given by audio dealers there to the walk-in end user? Now that we have a scenario of less 85% from the factory, would the dealer not give even less 5% off the MSRP? Or maybe he gives 30% off the MSRP to the the end user?
I repeat..Transparent offers 70% margin for an exclusive. Nordost 85%. Those are 100% accurate numbers. I have no idea about ten years ago.
I own Transparent cables (not Opus!) and I know exactly how much they cost the dealer. I paid retail btw...as I roll
with the lowly Super designation.
What is the normal discount given by audio dealers there to the walk-in end user? Now that we have a scenario of less 85% from the factory, would the dealer not give even less 5% off the MSRP? Or maybe he gives 30% off the MSRP to the the end user?
This could be tricky because a lot of dealers are locked into what the maximum discount they offer and can be penalised/blacklisted by a manufacturer or distributor (applies to all components from my own chats to dealers I know well).
Sometimes costs are not just enforced or dictated by manufacturer but also by the major sales channel-distributors.
Cheers
Orb
For another thread, why to most (not a all) women go for jewelry, and most (except watches) men a/v?cars are commodities and there are multiple website where dealer invoice can be found. high end audio products are not really related. i think some jewelry, like high end watches, might be similar though.
To paraphrase Myles, 'who cares?' If you aren't in the market for a 50k cable, it really doesn't matter does it, unless you assume that a high asking price at the top level encourages more ambitious pricing at the lower rungs.
As to these business owners driving Rollers, those cars are probably the some of the heaviest depreciating rolling stock on the market. (I'm assuming you are talking newish ones, not the vintage collectibles). Dan D'Agostino used to drive a newish Bentley as I remember, and nobody accused him of overpricing or gouging. Ditto, Mark Levinson- I seem to remember he had an Aston-Martin.
Yes, but that's class warfare and revolution. I don't think this is about people begrudging the idle rich. I do think there are legitimate questions about gear, value and pricing, but isn't it academic unless it affects the market you are in? The new Rolls is a good example. Who cares how much they charge for one, new? Most of us, even those who could afford it, won't buy it, because it is a bling-mobile, and it has no enduring value. Nor does its pricing affect more real world cars offered by the same company. Ditto the Veyron. I just don't take it seriously, and if I did have the money to spend on that kind of car, I certainly wouldn't buy that. So, it's easy to carp about the pricing of this stuff, and whether it affords 'real world value,' but that's not the premise of these products. And some, I suspect, actually do deliver the goods, albeit at a price. To the extent there is any trickle down effect from blue sky efforts, I don't think the presence of uber-priced gear hurts. Sure, it's good fodder for articles in hi-fi mags, but the reality is, there is more good gear than ever available at a wide range of price points.Some lady long ago talked her head off when she said "let them eat cake"
To paraphrase Myles, 'who cares?' If you aren't in the market for a 50k cable, it really doesn't matter does it, unless you assume that a high asking price at the top level encourages more ambitious pricing at the lower rungs.
As to these business owners driving Rollers, those cars are probably the some of the heaviest depreciating rolling stock on the market. (I'm assuming you are talking newish ones, not the vintage collectibles). Dan D'Agostino used to drive a newish Bentley as I remember, and nobody accused him of overpricing or gouging. Ditto, Mark Levinson- I seem to remember he had an Aston-Martin.
Yes, but that's class warfare and revolution. I don't think this is about people begrudging the idle rich. I do think there are legitimate questions about gear, value and pricing, but isn't it academic unless it affects the market you are in? The new Rolls is a good example. Who cares how much they charge for one, new? Most of us, even those who could afford it, won't buy it, because it is a bling-mobile, and it has no enduring value. Nor does its pricing affect more real world cars offered by the same company. Ditto the Veyron. I just don't take it seriously, and if I did have the money to spend on that kind of car, I certainly wouldn't buy that. So, it's easy to carp about the pricing of this stuff, and whether it affords 'real world value,' but that's not the premise of these products. And some, I suspect, actually do deliver the goods, albeit at a price. To the extent there is any trickle down effect from blue sky efforts, I don't think the presence of uber-priced gear hurts. Sure, it's good fodder for articles in hi-fi mags, but the reality is, there is more good gear than ever available at a wide range of price points.
Good post. Here is how I think arbitrarily priced gear affects us all. When a few companies brazenly come to market with gear priced at what really
seems priced to a selling point, it emboldends all the other companies to start to follow suit.
It happened with cables. Hobbyists were aghast when the first $1000 interconnect cable came around...they could not believe it. They all followed suit
once they saw the first company get away with it.
Audio Research just raised their prices by $500. Now was that to cover their rising costs? Who knows? they now sell no gear under $5500.
And to your point, there certainly is expensive stuff that does deliver the goods.
also good post
Yes, but that's class warfare and revolution. I don't think this is about people begrudging the idle rich. I do think there are legitimate questions about gear, value and pricing, but isn't it academic unless it affects the market you are in? The new Rolls is a good example. Who cares how much they charge for one, new? Most of us, even those who could afford it, won't buy it, because it is a bling-mobile, and it has no enduring value. Nor does its pricing affect more real world cars offered by the same company. Ditto the Veyron. I just don't take it seriously, and if I did have the money to spend on that kind of car, I certainly wouldn't buy that. So, it's easy to carp about the pricing of this stuff, and whether it affords 'real world value,' but that's not the premise of these products. And some, I suspect, actually do deliver the goods, albeit at a price. To the extent there is any trickle down effect from blue sky efforts, I don't think the presence of uber-priced gear hurts. Sure, it's good fodder for articles in hi-fi mags, but the reality is, there is more good gear than ever available at a wide range of price points.
I can tell you that both D'Agostino and Levinson were booted (Levinson multiple times) from the firms they founded for spending lavishly,
bringing the companies to the the edge of bankruptcy, and for basically trying to live well beyond their means.
Levinson was one of the first companies to price gear at levels that really raised eyebrows if I remember correctly. I remember my dad
being shocked at the price tags of some of their stuff when I was a kid.