Another Carvin model bites the dust.

[Wolfhound32]

That still doesn't answer the question.

How is it that making a B40 in the USA should cost any less to manufacture than a Fender Jazz in the USA? From a cost standpoint either Carvin is/was losing money or Fender makes the Jazz for $300 and is ripping people off. There is no difference whatsoever in production value of either bass. For either one you have to make a body, sand and finish it, make a neck, fret and finish it, make or buy electronics, install electronics and assemble the whole thing. There is no "special sauce" in a Fender Jazz that costs more to make. It's a body made of mostly cheap wood, a neck that some are great and some not so much, and pickups I would argue probably come from the exact same place Carvin pickups come from.

So, answer my question. How can Carvin possibly turn a profit from making a bass that is identical to a Fender Jazz from a manufacturing standpoint and sell it for around half or less than what Fender does? More importantly, WHY should they? (from their standpoint anyway)

(Answer: They can't)

Why compare Kiesel to only Fender?
Why not compare them to Lull, or Sadowsky for instance? Try comparing them to any of the "boutique" guys building similar instruments and see how it stands up. Fender is just the obvious choice because they are somewhat close in price. If we were to add in all the middle-man costs, the Kiesel would be priced close to those builders. I suspect the Kiesel would hold its own quite well in such a showdown

It would be a great experiment to have someone an unbiased perspective of these manufacturers provide an objective comparison. Granted, none could be completely objective-- but there are ways of getting close. It would be a great conversation at any rate

 

[hrodbert696]

Why compare Kiesel to only Fender?
Why not compare them to Lull for instance? Try comparing them to any of the "boutique" guys building similar instruments and see how it stands up. Fender is just the obvious choice because they are somewhat close in price. If we were to add in all the middle-man costs, the Kiesel would be priced close to those builders. I suspect the Kiesel would hold its own quite well in such a showdown

It would be a great experiment to have someone an unbiased perspective of these manufacturers provide an objective comparison. Granted, none could be completely objective-- but there are ways of getting close. It would be a great conversation at any rate

Because Kiesel isn't a boutique operation, it's a factory operation. The boutique builders are more small-workshop producers.

 

[One Drop]

What I'm saying is that makes sense. Their quality rivals the American big boys (Fender and MM). Can you buy a USA P bass for under a grand? Can you buy a Stingray for under a grand? Why should Carvin be cheaper?

Because in the past they marketed themselves as delivering more quality for the money compared to other brands due to their direct sales / no distribution business model, I assume.

 

[Wolfhound32]

Because Kiesel isn't a boutique operation, it's a factory operation. The boutique builders are more small-workshop producers.

True, and I imagine the "boutique" builders have that advantage. However, I suspect the objective differences in similar instruments between Kiesel and builders such as Lull/Sadowsky for example, would be very minor, with Kiesel being closer to those builders in terms of quality & choices than say production line Fenders. Remember, Kiesel is a very small company, with 52 employees (after a recent addition)

 

[Wolfhound32]

If we somehow take branding out of the equation, the conversation moves in a much more interesting direction. An example to illustrate my point:

 

[Mr_O'B]

I think this is a mistake. People look to Carvin exactly for the reason that they can get an Americsn made product for less money than the big name brands...and I still know players that look down their nose at Carvin. I mean, I'm sure they sell what they need to in order to be profitable, but have you ever tried to sell a used Carvin? Sure, it will sell, but they don't exactly retain their value. They should be offering MORE lower cost products, not less. Cancelling the B40/B50 line was a huge blunder in my opinion. Lastly, if the company is going in a more high end direction, they need to get a handle on the weight of their basses. Lots high end basses are also lighter than cheaper versions. Example: I have a Spector Euro that weighs just over 7 pounds, and a Rebop 5 that weighs in at 8.2. My Legend 5 is just over 10 pounds. Other than their new Vader line, Carvin basses are crazy heavy. Just have a look at their in stock page. The weights are all in the 9 to 12 pound range and heavier. That is the main reason I never became friends with any of the Carvins I've owned.

My only issue with Carvin is weight!

 

[two fingers]

Because in the past they marketed themselves as delivering more quality for the money compared to other brands due to their direct sales / no distribution business model, I assume.

Sure, I get it. I have bought a couple. But it can't be half off (or close) just because they don't sell in stores. That may make $100 or (at most) $200 difference, but not hundreds. I used to work in MI. There isn't much profit in guitars for the middle man. Trust me, accessories is where the money is.

 

[One Drop]

Sure, I get it. I have bought a couple. But it can't be half off (or close) just because they don't sell in stores. That may make $100 or (at most) $200 difference, but not hundreds. I used to work in MI. There isn't much profit in guitars for the middle man. Trust me, accessories is where the money is.

You have to figure in the markup, which is certainly more than a few hundred dollars on a bass with over $1000, and the costs associated in supporting distributors.

I trust you but that doesn't mean I believe your figures; I head up international sales for a hospitality SAAS and we work on a mixed direct sales / distribution model depending on the market. I've done the same for another company who produced packaged smoothies. There are associated costs with both models, some overlap and some don't, and the relative costs depend on the product of course, but no reseller who wants to stay in business will accept derisory margins no matter the situation.

 

[G On Bass]

Why compare Kiesel to only Fender?
Why not compare them to Lull, or Sadowsky for instance? Try comparing them to any of the "boutique" guys building similar instruments and see how it stands up. Fender is just the obvious choice because they are somewhat close in price. If we were to add in all the middle-man costs, the Kiesel would be priced close to those builders. I suspect the Kiesel would hold its own quite well in such a showdown

It would be a great experiment to have someone an unbiased perspective of these manufacturers provide an objective comparison. Granted, none could be completely objective-- but there are ways of getting close. It would be a great conversation at any rate

Keep in mind that lots of the 'boutique' guys also sell direct, so no middle man costs there. I've owned Fenders, Sadowskys and a few other boutiques. In those match-ups felt pretty good about my Carvins at ~$1,000 because they were half the price and clearly superior to Fender, IME. But were they priced the same, of unless I needed 7 different woods on a multi-colored bass, I'd take the boutiques all day long. For that kind of $$$$, I want my choice of top-of-the-line, name brand electronics/pots/wiring and hardware, with routes that allowed future direct replacement for other pickups. And I'd want Cloverleaf tuners!!!

 

[Skokiaan]

Yeah I think we're all agreeing on different points.

1) Carvin used to be known as a bargain brand.

2) Being made in the USA I'm not really sure how they were able to compete with Asian made products as long as they were.

3) Those days seem to be over for Carving. But it's just a matter of stepping up into the realm of Fender and MM among US manufacturers rather than somehow trying to "stick it" to low budget players.

The B40 is no different (in manufacturing terms) from a Fender Jazz bass. You still have to make a neck, make a body and throw electronics in it using US labor. Add to that the somewhat "custom" aspect (or at least a menu of options to choose from......unlike Fender or MM.....unless you pay ridiculous custom shop prices) and I really have no idea how Carvinn was able to offer the lower end models without losing a ton of money on them. In fact, they may have. Or at least they weren't making much, if any, profit from them. That's probably why they are phasing them out.

One factor is missing here. Fender sells their instruments at wholesale to dealers typically at 50% of list price. Dealers then mark up the price to sell at retail. Carvin sells direct at retail prices. Assuming production costs are similar at Fender and Carvin for a similar model, Carvin should be making more money per bass.

Let's look at some numbers (with some assumptions) comparing similar models from Fender and Carvin:

Fender American Standard P Bass (with case)
Example 1
Street price: $1,349.99, so list price is probably around $1,680 (assuming a typical 25% off list discount)
Fender likely sells them to dealers for around $845 (50% of list).
Assumed production costs of $400 (a number I made up).
Fender grosses $445 per instrument.

Fender American Standard P Bass (with case)
Example 2
I do not see Fender list prices anywhere, so what if $1,349.99 is list price as well as street?
Wholesale would likely be around $675.
Assumed productions costs of $400.
Fender grosses $275 per instrument.

Carvin PB4 (with case)
Direct price with standard features: $889.00.
Assumed production costs of $400.
Carvin grosses $489 per instrument.

 

[two fingers]

One factor is missing here. Fender sells their instruments at wholesale to dealers typically at 50% of list price. Dealers then mark up the price to sell at retail. Carvin sells direct at retail prices. Assuming production costs are similar at Fender and Carvin for a similar model, Carvin should be making more money per bass.

Let's look at some numbers (with some assumptions) comparing similar models from Fender and Carvin:

Fender American Standard P Bass (with case)
Example 1
Street price: $1,349.99, so list price is probably around $1,680 (assuming a typical 25% off list discount)
Fender likely sells them to dealers for around $845 (50% of list).
Assumed production costs of $400 (a number I made up).
Fender grosses $445 per instrument.

Fender American Standard P Bass (with case)
Example 2
I do not see Fender list prices anywhere, so what if $1,349.99 is list price as well as street?
Wholesale would likely be around $675.
Assumed productions costs of $400.
Fender grosses $275 per instrument.

Carvin PB4 (with case)
Direct price with standard features: $889.00.
Assumed production costs of $400.
Carvin grosses $489 per instrument.

Your numbers imply $500 profit at the middle man. Unless something has changed (drastically) in the few years since I left the MI biz, there's nowhere near that much profit. So, assuming your other numbers are close, the middle man probably pays more like $1050 (and even more for smaller companies) for a P bass.

I would even argue your production numbers are low as well. But I have nothing to back that up.

So, assuming my numbers are correct, if Fender is getting $1349 for a P bass, Carvin (in order to turn the same profit) should be charging $1050 for a PB4. If they can't get that much, they should ditch the line altogether.

I am not saying your theory is way of or that mine is dead on. We are both doung a lot of speculating and guessing. But your cost to the middle man is low I'm pretty sure. There's not nearly $500 profit in a $1349 bass. Mom n pop stores are lucky to pocket a couple hundred bucks.

What will blow your mind is that there is more profit for the store in a middle of the road $600 Ibanez than there is in a $2900 Gibson. (Or at least there was when I was selling them.)

A Shure SM58 at $89 loses money. They cost the store right at $100.
Strings, cables and straps are where the money lives. You only sell guitars so they come see you for the other stuff.

 

[two fingers]

You have to figure in the markup, which is certainly more than a few hundred dollars on a bass with over $1000, and the costs associated in supporting distributors.

I trust you but that doesn't mean I believe your figures; I head up international sales for a hospitality SAAS and we work on a mixed direct sales / distribution model depending on the market. I've done the same for another company who produced packaged smoothies. There are associated costs with both models, some overlap and some don't, and the relative costs depend on the product of course, but no reseller who wants to stay in business will accept derisory margins no matter the situation.

What I can tell you is this. There was always more profit in a $600 Ibanez than there was in a $1000 USA Fender Strat, Tele, P bass or Jazz. There's really not much meat on the bones in higher end guitars. You would be happy to get anything north of $200 on the "good stuff".

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

One factor is missing here. Fender sells their instruments at wholesale to dealers typically at 50% of list price. Dealers then mark up the price to sell at retail. Carvin sells direct at retail prices. Assuming production costs are similar at Fender and Carvin for a similar model, Carvin should be making more money per bass.

Let's look at some numbers (with some assumptions) comparing similar models from Fender and Carvin:

Fender American Standard P Bass (with case)
Example 1
Street price: $1,349.99, so list price is probably around $1,680 (assuming a typical 25% off list discount)
Fender likely sells them to dealers for around $845 (50% of list).
Assumed production costs of $400 (a number I made up).
Fender grosses $445 per instrument.

Fender American Standard P Bass (with case)
Example 2
I do not see Fender list prices anywhere, so what if $1,349.99 is list price as well as street?
Wholesale would likely be around $675.
Assumed productions costs of $400.
Fender grosses $275 per instrument.

Carvin PB4 (with case)
Direct price with standard features: $889.00.
Assumed production costs of $400.
Carvin grosses $489 per instrument.

When I was selling at a now defunct store here in San Diego, Fender was what was known as a "B Mark" wholesaler - that is, my store paid 60% of MSRP for their kit (big names like Fender and Gibson can get that extra 10%; Smaller names run at 50% MSRP).
Fender and Gibson also spends a PILE of money on marketing that Carvin does not.

I suspect that Carvin *does* make more money per instrument / piece of gear but their volume is probably about 10% that of FMIC - so they make much less money overall.

 

[Skokiaan]

When I was selling at a now defunct store here in San Diego, Fender was what was known as a "B Mark" wholesaler - that is, my store paid 60% of MSRP for their kit (big names like Fender and Gibson can get that extra 10%; Smaller names run at 50% MSRP).
Fender and Gibson also spends a PILE of money on marketing that Carvin does not.

I suspect that Carvin *does* make more money per instrument / piece of gear but their volume is probably about 10% that of FMIC - so they make much less money overall.

That's why I said Fender grosses (not nets) X-dollars per instrument. Marketing, commissions, rebates, etc. all come off the bottom line.

 

[Wolfhound32]

An interesting tidbit to the conversation, Jeff Kiesel mentions in a recent video that they are doing better than ever, and producing about 4000 instruments a year. A quick & dirty numbers rundown:
Per year = 4000
/ by 12 months = 333.333
/ by 30 day = 11.111

So roughly an average of 11 instruments a day to pay for O&M and 52 employees (not just craftsmen). It would not be unreasonable to suggest they make more profit on any one instrument than does Fender. I wonder what a similar numbers comparison with Sadowsky & Lull would look like? I have been mentioning these two as a Fender alternative because I find them very similar-- aside from Kiesel's weight tending to be heavier (inherent in the available woods today), which Sadowsky offsets by chambering-- also an option with Kiesel.

As for the quality of their pickups, I've yet to find a P-type pickup I like better than the Kiesel, and I never expected to be the guy saying that Their older J-type pickups didn't appeal to me much at all. Now however, they have two newly designed hum bucker/single coil, both radiused. I've yet to play them, but the reports I've been getting back are glowing. There have been a lot of improvements since Jeff took the company its own way a few years ago!

 

[G On Bass]

An interesting tidbit to the conversation, Jeff Kiesel mentions in a recent video that they are doing better than ever, and producing about 4000 instruments a year. A quick & dirty numbers rundown:
Per year = 4000
/ by 12 months = 333.333
/ by 30 day = 11.111

So roughly an average of 11 instruments a day to pay for O&M and 52 employees (not just craftsmen). It would not be unreasonable to suggest they make more profit on any one instrument than does Fender. I wonder what a similar numbers comparison with Sadowsky & Lull would look like? I have been mentioning these two as a Fender alternative because I find them very similar-- aside from Kiesel's weight tending to be heavier (inherent in the available woods today), which Sadowsky offsets by chambering-- also an option with Kiesel.

As for the quality of their pickups, I've yet to find a P-type pickup I like better than the Kiesel, and I never expected to be the guy saying that Their older J-type pickups didn't appeal to me much at all. Now however, they have two newly designed hum bucker/single coil, both radiused. I've yet to play them, but the reports I've been getting back are glowing. There have been a lot of improvements since Jeff took the company its own way a few years ago!

Not to be 'that guy', but technically it would be 4000 divided by ~260 (# work days a year) so it's just over 15 instruments a day.

FWIW, the radiused pickup idea came in as part of Brian Bromberg's design on his signature bass along with Brian's preamp w/an active volume pot (single coils only). It is a hell of a combination, btw... This happened years ago during the Carvin era, and were not a 'Kiesel-inspired' anything.

 

[G On Bass]

So does this mean China is now ripping off Kiesels?

Invalid Link Removed

 

[hrodbert696]

While we're all speculating about Carvin's price structure: how many instruments are they actually selling at the base price? And how do the options affect the profit structure? If you take an instrument with a base cost of $799 and order $600 of options on it, is Carvin's profit margin (as a percentage) going up or down? I suspect up. Based on used Carvins that I see in the classifieds and on CL and stuff, I get the impression that next to no one orders a Carvin with just the basic woods, colors etc. They all have some fancy wood or finish or electronics package or whatever. I guess the point being that when we guess at Carvin's actual balance sheet, we probably should be assuming mostly $1200-1800 instruments rather than $799-999 ones.

 

[Altitude]

Lastly, if the company is going in a more high end direction, they need to get a handle on the weight of their basses.
...
Other than their new Vader line, Carvin basses are crazy heavy. Just have a look at their in stock page. The weights are all in the 9 to 12 pound range and heavier. That is the main reason I never became friends with any of the Carvins I've owned.

I had an LB75 that was about 8 pounds. It was all koa - the body and the neck - and I do think I would have liked it better with a maple neck that would have been a bit heavier. But - it's possible to have a light one; it's the materials choices.

 

[jamro217]

Yeah I can understand that but if the bass doesn't play well nor feel solid, the sound nor the look will mater.

Also, no matter how much you pay for you Carvin/Keisel you still have a 1000$ bass with expensive wood ... it is still a 1000$ worth bass. It won't play better nor it won,t sound better because you spended more.

It is like buying a Honda for 10 000$ and put 10 000$ in custom part to make it looks better, it is still a Honda ...

True. You'd be better off spending that $20,000 on a better car than on trying to improve a lesser model. Back in the '70's the stock pickups in some popular instrument brands were found to be "sonically wanting". This led to the birth of the aftermarket hotrod pickup industry. DiMarzio, Seymour Duncan, Bill Lawrence, etc. had no reason to exist back in the '50's and '60's. It's no big thing to slap on a new set of pickups, and if that's what is holding back a good bass from being a great bass, splurge. The best part is that there are so many to choose from, you can tailor your sound.