Do companies ever make basses worse on purpose?

[Spector_Ray]

I think EBMM's SUB line is a good example of keeping costs down while keeping relative quality high. The SUBs are made in the same plant as every other EBMM instrument so they've managed to use their skilled labor but reduce costs by doing the following:

Only a handful of textured finish choices, all solid, no trans keeps painting costs down. Since the colors aren't see through, less expensive poplar can be used in place of ash.

No contouring means less time on CNC machines and less time sanding, IMO (I'm only guessing as I've never been to their shop).

Less expensive bridge (no fancy 'Ernie Ball Music Man' stamped on the bridge) but still solid. Less expensive tuners as well.

Passive models save on active preamp costs as well as rear routing for battery compartment. Active SUBs don't save as much in this department, but only a 2band preamp is available as an active option.

Since the neck is painted, the wood underneath doesn't need to be carefully selected for appearance. This saves money. Same goes with headstock.

Doesn't come with a hardshell case.

You can see there were many places where construction savings occurred but the final product is still a solid instrument. In case you can't tell I'm still impressed at the build quality of my $475 US made 5 string instrument.

I know my SUB would never hold its own against a StingRay5 but that's not why I bought it. I wanted a solid 5 string at a low price I could use to decide whether I like 5 strings. Also, I'm feeling the bite of the modding bug so this bass would provide a solid foundation (great neck, excellent fretwork, solid body) should I decide to go ahead and add a 2nd pickup and active pre.

Last but not least, it was made in my home country. I'm not isolationist, and I would looooooovvvveeee to own a Jerzy Drozd but I would also like to keep as many jobs as possible from moving away simply to save a few bucks.

+1
I've played several of them and they are solid. I wouldn't hesitate to buy one if I found one that looked good to me.

 

[Pneuma]

+1 to the above. Dealing with these sort of issues in my day gig makes this topic interesting to me.

I think Roger Sadowsky is the master at product tiering in the high end music gear business.

*snip*

His retailer pricing requirement is no discounts, so you don't ever find his Metro's on 'discount', 'sale', etc., and that type of pricing translates to a quality, special image IMO, and keep retailers from eroding the brand image by giving deep discounts.

K

Which, honestly, to me says that people are being overcharged for Metros. Artificial price floors and whatnot. I've always had a hard time with companies that control their distributor's pricing.

Back on topic...

One thing that often leads to a lower price is simply less attention to the details. Details take time to work out, and time costs money. So, even if you made two basses with the same "specs," one could easily cost a few hundred more than the other simply based on finishing and QC inspection times.

What's fortunate in the case of MIMs vs MIAs is that ("tone selected wood" arguments aside) it's pretty much just the pickups that sound different. The cheaper bridge, tuners, and pots can still sound good. So, when you find a good one that plays well, you truly do usually get a deal compared to the MIAs.

IMO.

P.

 

[Tactician]

Pennydreadful - Not quite how a big manufacturer would see it. Trouble is they have tremendous brand interia when they are as big as Fender. I teach a whole lot of young players who'd all like to have a 'real USA Fender'. It's about brand more than playability and quality. But mixed in there are older and more experienced players who'll tell the World that a manufacturer has lost it if they let the quaility slip - so it's compromise. Marketeers are trading off the imade/ brand and the players and better retailers want high quality. So the brand splits into MIM and MI China - but looks the same and MIA or MIA DL and up goes the quality / price and it plays like it should.

Let's get real here - I'm old enough to remember when I bough my first pro quality guitar in 1964 - a Rickenbacker was £159, a 335 was £170 and a S/H start couldn't be given away at £50! That means 40 years ago it cost the average guy about 20 weeks wages for something like a MIA Jazz bass. That's like a $10,000 starter price. I've just spoken to a 17 year old cello student at the school I teach who's getting a new cello (MIC) at $7000. And this week I listened to a violin player on the radio talking about the $45,000 loan she had to pay for her instrument. Good instruments are made with care and take time.

I think any pro level bass costing less than $2000 is an amazing bargain!

 

[guy n. cognito]

Which, honestly, to me says that people are being overcharged for Metros. Artificial price floors and whatnot. I've always had a hard time with companies that control their distributor's pricing.

.

That's not how an open market works. The market will pay what they consider a fair price for an item. Given that you never see and Sadowskys languishing on store shelves, I don't think anyone is being "overcharged."

One of my local stores is a Sadowsky dealer. He says he's never had a Sad sit on the rack more than 30 days. This is, when he can get them.........

 

[Pneuma]

That's not how an open market works. The market will pay what they consider a fair price for an item. Given that you never see and Sadowskys languishing on store shelves, I don't think anyone is being "overcharged."

One of my local stores is a Sadowsky dealer. He says he's never had a Sad sit on the rack more than 30 days. This is, when he can get them.........

In that case, why does Sadowsky have MAP schemes? As far as open markets, you're right, that's not how it works, because open markets don't have artificial price floors. In an open market, dealers have to compete for sales. MAPs eliminate that competiton. There's no price variance for consumers to choose from. So, their only choice is to have zero Sadowsky's, or pay MSRP.

As it is now, consumers don't really have a choice, they just pay MSRP cause you can't get them anywhere cheaper.

P.

 

[guy n. cognito]

In that case, why does Sadowsky have MAP schemes? As far as open markets, you're right, that's not how it works, because open markets don't have artificial price floors. In an open market, dealers have to compete for sales. MAPs eliminate that competiton. There's no price variance for consumers to choose from. So, their only choice is to have zero Sadowsky's, or pay MSRP.

As it is now, consumers don't really have a choice, they just pay MSRP cause you can't get them anywhere cheaper.

P.

Consumers always have a choice. They can choose not to purchase a Sad, or purchase on on the used market. Many high end manufacturers (not just in basses) use price floors to maintain the integrity and prestige of their products. They don't want their products sold in the "discount bin" because they don't want to dimish the prestige of their product, or because they want to insure a level playing field for all retailers. This is especially important in the modern world of internet buying, where smaller, "local" dealers can easily be run out of business by the larger retailers. If Sadowsky wants to maintain a network of local dealers for their product, then they may be requiring price floors to help the smaller retailers.

Of course, the retailer discussion is irrevelant in this situation. I don't claim to be an expert, but Sad doesn't seem to be having ANY problems selling their merchandise, despite the floor. Dealers seem to be able to sell their Sad stock very quickly. Every used Sad that has hit the classifieds here has sold very quickly, which demonstrates the demand for this product. Sad has no reason to allow dealers to discount prices, because there is no evidence that shows that the discounts are necessary to move the product.

Remember, Sad can always adjust their "floor" if they determine that their basses aren't selling at the current floor. It is still a classic example of supply and demand in the open market, despite the floor at the retailer level.

 

[superblues]

I'm glad that someone resurrected this thread because it reminds me of an often hotly debated topic i've come across in firearms forums. And I think the parallels may be similar.

In firearms forums, many people argue that large chain retailers (i.e Wal-Mart) sell firearms of lower quality than their smaller, independent competitors.

Allow me to give you some background.

There are 2 main points in this argument.
1. Many contend that both large-scale, discount retailers and small independent stores sell weapons that are identically labeled and branded. However, to keep costs down at the large store, many feel that the QC on the firearms they carry is below the level of QC on firearms sold at the smaller store. The 2 weapons will have nearly identical specs on paper, but many feel that the retailer who buys from the manufacturer in considerable bulk will be sold weapons with exhibiting a lower quality barrel or a poorer quality stock, the finish may not be completed properly or the mechanics are not properly filed and deburred.

The reason a manufacturer would do this is that no one on the retailer end of things will check for proper quality control. They simply do not have the man power to measure and test the thousands of firearms that get re-distributed to thousands of retail outlets.

And when purchasing from a large-scale retailer, you are more often than not, sold a weapon new-in-the-box and not sold the display case model that you had the opportunity to handle.

2. Many times, large retailers, as part of a dealer-recognition promotion will be allowed to sell special edition firearms with slightly different cosmetics. For the most part, the weapon will be identical to a standard production model, but differ in some minor detail like barrel or stock finish.

Now, I have seen this exact thing at GC's. GC, MF, and M123 often get basses with an "exclusive" finish. Case in point, a few years ago, GC advertised and sold a yamaha BB series bass (the old NE style) with an exclusive blue finish. This finish was not available anywhere and was not listed on Yamaha's website.

I guess, my point is, is it beneficial for some instrument (i.e guitar and bass) manufacturers to scrimp on the hardware or QC for large orders of instruments going to a major chain outlet?

Many people argue about the quality and setup of instruments found at GC and I sometimes wonder if manufacturers are "inentionally" building a slightly subpar instrument, using inferior woods, parts or QC.

Is a Fender American Standard J bass from GC different than a Fender American Standard J bass from Bass Central (or insert any smaller non-chain retailier here)?

 

[xJasonSmithx]

Although I think they are good instruments do you guys think they didn't use a normal finnish on purpose because it would cut down on the rays they were selling? Personaly it makes sense because I think that finnish is ugly but someone who who wants a midlevel bass may not be as discriminating as someone wanting a $1000 + bass.

-Jason

 

[robb.]

Here it go: Once upon a time, Fender ALL Fenders were MIA!

Now all of a sudden, we get Fenders made in mexico which are cheaper with inferior wood, inferior pick ups and inferior tuners, weak sheilding, while the american made fenders are $1500!!!!!!

once upon a time, fender was the name for high end instruments. they got beat up other guys in the less expensive markets. now they compete in many more markets. it's your choice whether you buy the expensive fender or the less expensive fender. at least you have a choice now.

robb.

 

[Billy Low]

I'm glad that someone resurrected this thread because it reminds me of an often hotly debated topic i've come across in firearms forums. And I think the parallels may be similar.

In firearms forums, many people argue that large chain retailers (i.e Wal-Mart) sell firearms of lower quality than their smaller, independent competitors.

Allow me to give you some background.

There are 2 main points in this argument.
1. Many contend that both large-scale, discount retailers and small independent stores sell weapons that are identically labeled and branded. However, to keep costs down at the large store, many feel that the QC on the firearms they carry is below the level of QC on firearms sold at the smaller store. The 2 weapons will have nearly identical specs on paper, but many feel that the retailer who buys from the manufacturer in considerable bulk will be sold weapons with exhibiting a lower quality barrel or a poorer quality stock, the finish may not be completed properly or the mechanics are not properly filed and deburred.

The reason a manufacturer would do this is that no one on the retailer end of things will check for proper quality control. They simply do not have the man power to measure and test the thousands of firearms that get re-distributed to thousands of retail outlets.

And when purchasing from a large-scale retailer, you are more often than not, sold a weapon new-in-the-box and not sold the display case model that you had the opportunity to handle.

2. Many times, large retailers, as part of a dealer-recognition promotion will be allowed to sell special edition firearms with slightly different cosmetics. For the most part, the weapon will be identical to a standard production model, but differ in some minor detail like barrel or stock finish.

Now, I have seen this exact thing at GC's. GC, MF, and M123 often get basses with an "exclusive" finish. Case in point, a few years ago, GC advertised and sold a yamaha BB series bass (the old NE style) with an exclusive blue finish. This finish was not available anywhere and was not listed on Yamaha's website.

I guess, my point is, is it beneficial for some instrument (i.e guitar and bass) manufacturers to scrimp on the hardware or QC for large orders of instruments going to a major chain outlet?

Many people argue about the quality and setup of instruments found at GC and I sometimes wonder if manufacturers are "inentionally" building a slightly subpar instrument, using inferior woods, parts or QC.

Is a Fender American Standard J bass from GC different than a Fender American Standard J bass from Bass Central (or insert any smaller non-chain retailier here)?

***?!?!?

 

[dewbass4]

A proper shielding job takes quite some time, actually. If it's not done right, it just doesn't work. Labor is the big cost in shielding. Take a bass to any repairman and see how much he says it will cost. I'd bet it would cost AT LEAST $50, and probably a lot more.

+1..............
If anyone thinks proper shielding is so easy, try doing it yourself (maybe you'll learn something about the value of skilled craftsmanshp). Skilled hand work takes time and more time cost more money. Sombody has to pay for the additional cost and that somebody is you the consumer. Bass building is a 'for profit' business not a charity.

Age old saying - ya get what ya pay for.

EXACTLY

 

[Pneuma]

Consumers always have a choice. They can choose not to purchase a Sad, or purchase on on the used market.

Yes, that's what I said. But a choice between "you can have it only at this price or you can't have it at all" isn't much of a choice. It's not like say, shoes, where I can go to a variety of stores to find the best deal. Sure, you can choose not to have a Sad, but if you want one, you'll have to pay what Sadowsky says, not what you and the dealer agree upon.

Many high end manufacturers (not just in basses) use price floors to maintain the integrity and prestige of their products. They don't want their products sold in the "discount bin" because they don't want to dimish the prestige of their product, or because they want to insure a level playing field for all retailers. This is especially important in the modern world of internet buying, where smaller, "local" dealers can easily be run out of business by the larger retailers. If Sadowsky wants to maintain a network of local dealers for their product, then they may be requiring price floors to help the smaller retailers.

Eh, if they are selling as well as you say, then why should they fear the "bargain bin." If they are that hot of a commodity, they won't end up there anyway. I mean, if you've got to ensure your high prices to make sure you have "prestige" then you don't really have prestige do you? You just have a product with a high price tag to make it seem more valuable. And, just because people (or other manufacturers) do it doesn't make it good. It just makes it popular. Also, depending on how you look at it, price floors negate the "levelness" of the playing field. They give advantages to brick and mortar shops that they wouldn't have without the help of the manufacturer. What does that do for the consumer that doesn't care if their dealer is local? Nada, it just makes them pay for services that they may have no intention of ever using.

Of course, the retailer discussion is irrevelant in this situation. I don't claim to be an expert, but Sad doesn't seem to be having ANY problems selling their merchandise, despite the floor. Dealers seem to be able to sell their Sad stock very quickly. Every used Sad that has hit the classifieds here has sold very quickly, which demonstrates the demand for this product. Sad has no reason to allow dealers to discount prices, because there is no evidence that shows that the discounts are necessary to move the product.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. If they are that hot, then why are they worried about keeping a price floor? If they are so hot that you can sell them no matter what, then I think they'd have to institute price ceilings.

Remember, Sad can always adjust their "floor" if they determine that their basses aren't selling at the current floor. It is still a classic example of supply and demand in the open market, despite the floor at the retailer level.

Again, that's backwards. If you've got a lower price limit, then you have no idea what supply and demand are doing. You only know that they are selling what they have at the price they've got. The floor itself betrays the situation. If supply and demand were really setting the price, then you wouldn't NEED a floor. It doesn't matter if they sell out, it's still not a true reflection of supply/demand interaction setting a price. I mean, if what you are saying is true, then Sad could remove the floor and prices shouldn't change at all. I think we all know that that is false.

It just reinforces my opinion that Sad is overpriced.

P.

 

[guy n. cognito]

Yes, that's what I said. But a choice between "you can have it only at this price or you can't have it at all" isn't much of a choice. It's not like say, shoes, where I can go to a variety of stores to find the best deal. Sure, you can choose not to have a Sad, but if you want one, you'll have to pay what Sadowsky says, not what you and the dealer agree upon.



Eh, if they are selling as well as you say, then why should they fear the "bargain bin." If they are that hot of a commodity, they won't end up there anyway. I mean, if you've got to ensure your high prices to make sure you have "prestige" then you don't really have prestige do you? You just have a product with a high price tag to make it seem more valuable. And, just because people (or other manufacturers) do it doesn't make it good. It just makes it popular. Also, depending on how you look at it, price floors negate the "levelness" of the playing field. They give advantages to brick and mortar shops that they wouldn't have without the help of the manufacturer. What does that do for the consumer that doesn't care if their dealer is local? Nada, it just makes them pay for services that they may have no intention of ever using.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. If they are that hot, then why are they worried about keeping a price floor? If they are so hot that you can sell them no matter what, then I think they'd have to institute price ceilings.

Again, that's backwards. If you've got a lower price limit, then you have no idea what supply and demand are doing. You only know that they are selling what they have at the price they've got. The floor itself betrays the situation. If supply and demand were really setting the price, then you wouldn't NEED a floor. It doesn't matter if they sell out, it's still not a true reflection of supply/demand interaction setting a price. I mean, if what you are saying is true, then Sad could remove the floor and prices shouldn't change at all. I think we all know that that is false.

It just reinforces my opinion that Sad is overpriced.

P.

Sad offers both Metro and NYC basses that cover different price points, right? Sad created the Metro line to SUPPLY the markets DEMAND for a lower priced bass with Sad design and quality.

The economics of luxury goods works quite differently than the econimics of comodities. If Sads were overpriced, then they wouldn't be selling. Sad would be out of business. Supply and demand doesn't break down simply because a manufacturer decides to set a minimum price. If you think about it, Sads set pricing also creates a ceiling of sorts, which negates one of you points as well. Sad can set a floor because, even with that floor, they can still sell every bass they produce. They have no incentive to sell their basses cheaper. That's just common sense.

What about manufacturers who sell direct? They set their own price, and therefore have a "price limit" or "floor." Are they not operating in an open market? Are they unable to guage supply and demand? Of course they are.

It would be hard to argue that a manufacturer's product is "overpriced" when they are able to sell EVERY item they produce. That fact alone proves that the market accepts the price and is willing to pay it. Now, I am no Sad insider, but I just don't see a glut of Sads on the market to make legitimate the claim that they are overpriced.

 

[Pneuma]

Sad offers both Metro and NYC basses that cover different price points, right? Sad created the Metro line to SUPPLY the markets DEMAND for a lower priced bass with Sad design and quality.

And both price points are pretty stinkin' high (IMO).

The economics of luxury goods works quite differently than the econimics of comodities.

I'm well aware of that, but the difference isn't in the mechanics, it's in the attitudes of the buyers.

If Sads were overpriced, then they wouldn't be selling. Sad would be out of business. Supply and demand doesn't break down simply because a manufacturer decides to set a minimum price. If you think about it, Sads set pricing also creates a ceiling of sorts, which negates one of you points as well. Sad can set a floor because, even with that floor, they can still sell every bass they produce. They have no incentive to sell their basses cheaper. That's just common sense.

Unfortunately, that's simply ignoring the main issue, which is that MAPs set a price FLOOR. You can say whatever you like, but it's a simple issue. If the MAP was gone, then prices would be lower. Why else would they have it? There's no way around it. If demand were as high as you say, then they wouldn't NEED MAPs. If demand were as high as you say, prices would be higher than MAP. It wouldn't be an issue at all. You say that supply and demand doesn't break down when MAPs exist, and you're right, I never said they stop. But the logical extent is that if demand were as high as that then the prices would rise until there was an equilibrium price being set above MAP. We can easily see that this is not the case. MAP is basically the price, and as such, we can infer that if prices were allowed to be set as normal, that they would be lower than MAP. As it is, that equilibrium is not allowed to be set because of an artificial price floor.

What about manufacturers who sell direct? They set their own price, and therefore have a "price limit" or "floor." Are they not operating in an open market? Are they unable to guage supply and demand? Of course they are.

They aren't controlling OTHER people. Only themselves. I have no problem with a dealer setting their prices; that is their right. But when a manufacturer controls their dealers, they are exerting control over other individuals, and manipulating a broader base of pricing. They are eliminating competition. It's an entirely different situation.

It would be hard to argue that a manufacturer's product is "overpriced" when they are able to sell EVERY item they produce. That fact alone proves that the market accepts the price and is willing to pay it. Now, I am no Sad insider, but I just don't see a glut of Sads on the market to make legitimate the claim that they are overpriced.

That's because, as you say, it's a luxury item. People's attitudes are different. Just because a price is willingly paid doesn't mean that the price isn't being artificially raised.

P.

 

[Tactician]

This issue about what's the price and is it fair for the manufacturer to set the price has some fundemental freedoms for the maker at issue. I guess if we were the maker of a bass range and had built a stable route to market, we'd prefer to have some control over how that route to market worked.

Trouble we're getting in Europe on this one is that the route to market (wholesalers and retailers) are now enabled to sell whatever they like for whatever price they like. Now you can get Levi's for $7 at the supermarket. What initially seems great for the customer in the end ruins the brand image (why would you want Levis if absolutely anyone can buy them?). In the longer run this destroys brand profitability. Why would we worry - because in the end the brand shuts down.

Look - if we were producing good quality basses and our route to market was through 100 retailers across the USA, we'd like to maintain a steady flow of business through those stores and ensure they were all sweet and happy about the margins. If one retailer breaks cover and goes it alone with a 30% discount then most of the short-term business goes their way (the power of internet trading) and all the 99 other retailers pull out of supplying our basses. One retailer could ruin our route to market.

What many supermarket suppliers are finding now is that once that one retailer has put everyone else out of the market you have only one route to market - that one supermarket chain. At that stage you either shut up shop or get used to being told what to make, how, when, and at what quality and how much they are going to allow you to take in profit. As they are your only outlet to market that will be mighty small as well.

As a manufacturer, your route to market is critical. Any control you can exert can make of break your future.

 

[superblues]

Unfortunately, that's simply ignoring the main issue, which is that MAPs set a price FLOOR. You can say whatever you like, but it's a simple issue. If the MAP was gone, then prices would be lower. Why else would they have it?

You do not know and cannot prove that the price of Sadowsky's would be lower. The simple issue that you are ignoring is that Sadowskys (and every other bass out there) sell at a price that the market will bear.

Let me repeat the economics 101 lesson: goods sell at a price that the market will bear.


If Sadowsky chooses to set a lower limit on its sales price, fine - its their product, they can do how they please with it. Sadowsky does this simply because its better for their business. it is not personal and they are not trying to keep a Sadowsky out of your hands. Conversely, what they are trying to do is put a Sadowsky bass in your hands, albeit at a higher price than you really want to pay. If you really want a Sadowsky and nothing else, sooner or later, you'll pay for one.

Bottom line: the benefits of the price floor clearly outweigh not having a price floor. economically, they must be justified in having the price floor. it is driving up their profits or they would have gotten rid of it.

They aren't controlling OTHER people. Only themselves. I have no problem with a dealer setting their prices; that is their right. But when a manufacturer controls their dealers, they are exerting control over other individuals, and manipulating a broader base of pricing. They are eliminating competition. It's an entirely different situation.

how are they eliminating competiton by "artifically" raising prices? it seems to me they are inviting competiton. if you can afford a Sadowsky, you can afford anything less expensive than a Sadowsky. Plenty of room for an upstart competitor to come in and try to undercut a potential Sadowsky sale. If you can only afford an SX, you CANNOT afford a typical Sadowsky and are clearly not in the buying market for one. not much room for competition here.

sure you may have ethical issues with Sadowsky's practices, but economically, what they are doing is on sound footing.

 

[need4mospd]

They aren't controlling OTHER people. Only themselves. I have no problem with a dealer setting their prices; that is their right. But when a manufacturer controls their dealers, they are exerting control over other individuals, and manipulating a broader base of pricing. They are eliminating competition. It's an entirely different situation.

The dealer is not forced to sell Sadowsky products. No one is being forced to do something beyond what they are willing to do. It's Sadowsky's right to set their price the dealers have to sell it for. It's the dealer's right to carry that product. And it's the customer's right to buy it at that price.

No one is getting screwed over unless THEY CHOOSE to be screwed over.

 

[MrBonex]

A big point is being missed:

You have no idea what wholesale price Sadowsky is charging its dealers.

This is important because an assumption is being made that all similar goods have similar markups -- and that's not necessarily the case.

Let's look at two basses selling for $1500 -- One Fender, one Sadowsky.

Fender might "retail" that bass at $2000 and wholesale it at $1000. Sadowsky has the $1500 retail and wholesales it at $1200.

The Fender might look like a better deal at the dealer level, but in reality, the dealer's really making less money on the Sad.

Now, let's get to the MAP: While it's true that the MAP "fixes" a price, it's also an assurance to the select dealers that in TRADE for taking a smaller markup, Sad will fix the prices so the dealers won't have to take a bath at retail. It's a contract of sorts because both parties benefit.

The above scenario is wholly fictitious in case anyone might be interested. It's for illustrative purposes only. I don't know jack about Fender's or Sad's wholesale structures.

 

[Tactician]

Most local music shops where I live in the SW of England prefer to sell inexpensive $120 guitar and basses made in China. They sell these because they are cheap and first time buyers and parents of young players don't quetsion these lower prices. As this market is less knowledgeable it's also less price competitive. The retail shop makes more from selling a $120 bass than it would from selling a USA Jazz bass at $1000. Because the buyer for the jazz is more savvy and shops around in the web and chain stores before arriving at some poor dealer who can't compete with a megastore.

The internet and the big chains are killing off the local music shop. The only way you are going to see local stores surviving is fixed prices.

 

[guy n. cognito]

And both price points are pretty stinkin' high (IMO).



I'm well aware of that, but the difference isn't in the mechanics, it's in the attitudes of the buyers.



Unfortunately, that's simply ignoring the main issue, which is that MAPs set a price FLOOR. You can say whatever you like, but it's a simple issue. If the MAP was gone, then prices would be lower. Why else would they have it? There's no way around it. If demand were as high as you say, then they wouldn't NEED MAPs. If demand were as high as you say, prices would be higher than MAP. It wouldn't be an issue at all. You say that supply and demand doesn't break down when MAPs exist, and you're right, I never said they stop. But the logical extent is that if demand were as high as that then the prices would rise until there was an equilibrium price being set above MAP. We can easily see that this is not the case. MAP is basically the price, and as such, we can infer that if prices were allowed to be set as normal, that they would be lower than MAP. As it is, that equilibrium is not allowed to be set because of an artificial price floor.



They aren't controlling OTHER people. Only themselves. I have no problem with a dealer setting their prices; that is their right. But when a manufacturer controls their dealers, they are exerting control over other individuals, and manipulating a broader base of pricing. They are eliminating competition. It's an entirely different situation.



That's because, as you say, it's a luxury item. People's attitudes are different. Just because a price is willingly paid doesn't mean that the price isn't being artificially raised.

P.

You just don't get it. Please tell me, how do you know that prices would be lower? Is ANY retailer that you can find currently sitting on a large inventory of Sadowskys that they simply can't sell because of the price? Is Sadowsky, because of their price floor requirements of dealers, NOT selling basses? Is any retailer forced to sell Sadowskys and submit to their pricing floors? Is there any evidence whatsoever that Sad prices are prohibiting them from selling the basses they produce?

You seem to think that there is some magical, mystical price at which these basses will sell, and that price is lower than the current market price. Allow me to give you a clue: These basses are selling at the current market price. Based on my experience and conversations with local dealers, they are selling quite well at that. The goal of any seller of goods is to SELL ALL OF THE PRODUCT THEY CAN PRODUCE AT THE HIGHEST PRICE THE MARKET WILL PAY FOR THEIR PRODUCT! PERIOD. Who knows what reasons Sad has for pricing controls, and who cares? They make good basses, and can sell those basses at the price they choose.

I think you are confusing either your inability to afford a Sad or your unwillingness to purchase a Sad at the current pricepoint with some inequality in the supply and demand for their product. While you may be unwilling or unable to purchase a Sad at the current pricepoint, there seems to be plenty of buyers that can and do.