Dunlop Flatwounds...

[73jbass]

All the OP wanted to know was where you think they would be on the chart. Not whether you like them or not.

 

[Slater]

Good thing I didn’t ask about Compression Wounds, lives might have been lost!

I don’t want to pay for the extra cost of compressing the windings.

 

[Aqualung60]

Skip the Dunlop strings. Here's why:

At 52 weeks per year, and changing your Dunlops about 2 to 3 times per week, comes out to 130 sets of strings (52 x 2.5). The street price for super brights 5 string sets range from $22 to $36 dollars. Cheapest is PittBull on eBay for $21.03 with free shipping*.

So let's take $22 per set. That represents $2,860 that Dunlop has to make up in retail sales for the free strings given to just one artist, not to mention the wastefulness and contribution to global warming (if that's your priority).

Now consider it's likely that one artist represents a fraction of the free strings given out, maybe 5%, then Dunlop needs to make up lost revenue and profit for about $60,000 every year from those that purchase their strings. That's just one avenue of the spiffs they give out.

So my take on it is that Dunlop is heavily into the free spiffs, and I'm significantly reluctant to subsidize other people who probably make more than I.

So, my recommendation is to move to another string manufacturer that you like, and let those that appear to be excessive on spiffs know that you oppose this form of marketing.

*= cheapest I found is actually Kiesel Guitars at $20 even, but they charge shipping unless you pick up in their store. Then, you are subjected to CA state income taxes if you are a non-resident.

Jeez, I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition......

 

[JimmyM]

Skip the Dunlop strings. Here's why:

At 52 weeks per year, and changing your Dunlops about 2 to 3 times per week, comes out to 130 sets of strings (52 x 2.5). The street price for super brights 5 string sets range from $22 to $36 dollars. Cheapest is PittBull on eBay for $21.03 with free shipping*.

So let's take $22 per set. That represents $2,860 that Dunlop has to make up in retail sales for the free strings given to just one artist, not to mention the wastefulness and contribution to global warming (if that's your priority).

Now consider it's likely that one artist represents a fraction of the free strings given out, maybe 5%, then Dunlop needs to make up lost revenue and profit for about $60,000 every year from those that purchase their strings. That's just one avenue of the spiffs they give out.

So my take on it is that Dunlop is heavily into the free spiffs, and I'm significantly reluctant to subsidize other people who probably make more than I.

So, my recommendation is to move to another string manufacturer that you like, and let those that appear to be excessive on spiffs know that you oppose this form of marketing.

*= cheapest I found is actually Kiesel Guitars at $20 even, but they charge shipping unless you pick up in their store. Then, you are subjected to CA state income taxes if you are a non-resident.

Of course, the part you leave out is it costs Dunlop a fraction of what they charge retail to manufacture strings, thus making your post null and void. The other part you leave out is that endorsers sell product, otherwise they don't stay endorsers for long. So you get this:

 

[Slater]

Jeez, I wasn't expecting the Spanish Inquisition......

NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

(Sorry, it had to be done.)

 

[Thuddy Waters]

 

[Bander]

Now consider it's likely that one artist represents a fraction of the free strings given out, maybe 5%, then Dunlop needs to make up lost revenue and profit for about $60,000 every year from those that purchase their strings. That's just one avenue of the spiffs they give out.

So my take on it is that Dunlop is heavily into the free spiffs, and I'm significantly reluctant to subsidize other people who probably make more than I.

So, my recommendation is to move to another string manufacturer that you like, and let those that appear to be excessive on spiffs know that you oppose this form of marketing.

Good rationale why we need to be better stewards of our money and purchasing, and not reward bad behavior. Analogous to Coke or Pepsi, where the contents are virtually free, compared to the expense of packaging, distribution, advertising and endorsements - and costs more than gasoline, lol. Bass strings at $500 per pound, cost twice Sterling Silver. The raw materials for a set of strings is about 15 cents...

But don't all the major producers use endorsements to advertise? D'Addario, Ernie Ball, Fender, DR, GHS - who doesn't use endorsements? Doing a google, it looks like DR by far has the most ads out there. DR and Ernie Ball seem to have the most mention of endorsements. And yet, DR are one of the more affordable flatwounds? Ernie Ball are also competitive. Not sure there's a real correlation with inflated price and endorsement deals?

 

[unclebass]

Cheaper to give out strings and allow artists names to be used to endorse your product than to pay for advertising. If I know “Johnny Somebody” plays ABC strings and XYZ basses and I like the sound, I’m very likely to use those products or at least try them. Much more cost efficient than companies that pay millions for Super Bowl ads.

 

[CapnSev]

 

[LiquidMidnight]

Perfectly so. Do you ever look into the free products given out to endorsers for the products you buy? There's some truths to the free market. Some of which are:

1- Manufacturers are free to determine how best to maximize profits including giving free products to endorsers.
2- Consumers are free to determine which competing products to buy, including considering how much free products to given out.
3- Anything given freely has to be accounted for in what's sold.

I'm telling OP why I don't buy Dunlop strings. Actually one of several reasons why I don't buy Dunlop. Instead I buy GHS and Elixirs. They probably have spiffs, but I'm not aware of real life examples of excessiveness. If I learn of some, it's a good bet that I'll move on. I don't fund excessiveness of others. It's a question that each of us asks as paying consumers.

So ask yourself. If the answer is that you don't consider it's worth factoring it in to your purchases, that's fine too. It's a free market, not Venezuela or the Soviet Union (a country that I played bass in once).

The example is from an endorsing artist, not OP, btw.

I like pie.

...and cake too. You can't argue with cake, but pie is good.

 

[Slater]

Good rationale...

Actually, it’s not. Nothing in post #7 has anything to do with realistic business and marketing.

Aside from saying “Good rationale”, your post demonstrates that you have a better outlook.

 

[Bander]

Actually, it’s not. Nothing in post #7 has anything to do with realistic business and marketing.

Aside from saying “Good rationale”, your post demonstrates that you have a better outlook.

That would be wrong on the 1st point, and right on the second. My high costs for items that don't cost much to produce, are directly caused by folks paying too much, willingly, and naively. Like $50 for bass strings. 15 cents of material with any amount of labor and machinery doesn't warrant even $5 retail price. Most economics and all marketing is aimed at extracting as much cash as possible, while reducing the cost as much as possible. If they could swindle $100 for that same 15 cents of material, they would - oh wait, thats Pirastro and upright strings . [rewind] If they could charge $500 for a set of 15 cent strings they would. But its a free country thank goodness, and I'm sure plenty of folks feel much better paying $50 than $5, and they probably play much better too

 

[Slater]

That would be wrong on the 1st point, and right on the second...

Again, the scenario in post #7 is not how advertising, marketing, and endorsement costs are recovered. Ultimately, those costs need to be eclipsed for profitability, but that’s not how it’s done.
If you disagree, that’s fine...

 

[74hc]

Again, the scenario in post #7 is not how advertising, marketing, and endorsement costs are recovered. Ultimately, those costs need to be eclipsed for profitability, but that’s not how it’s done.
If you disagree, that’s fine...

Costs are only recovered by revenue generated by sales, unless the company wants to go out of business somewhere down the road. Borrowing money is not revenue. Just ask Gibson. Ultimately, that's where those costs are recovered.

Now if the company has investment income, that could fund the recovery. But if there's no turnaround to where sales revenue recovers it, either the investors pull out, or the company cuts production, closes or sell off products. Again, just ask Gibson.

The bottom line is if revenue from sales does recover those marketing costs, and make profits, the company will go out of business, or leave that business somewhere down the road. The free market system is a cruel mistress for those companies that are in-efficient. Just ask Gibson.

 

[unclebass]

I apologize to ALL of the TALKBASS community for starting this thread!

 

[Bander]

Again, the scenario in post #7 is not how advertising, marketing, and endorsement costs are recovered. Ultimately, those costs need to be eclipsed for profitability, but that’s not how it’s done.
If you disagree, that’s fine...

I can't disagree with math. The math says gross sales fund all activity, expenditures and services of any company. Endorsements, offsite "training" in Las Vegas, deceptive advertising, walnut paneled executive wash rooms, company Porsches and "after hours entertainment and business gratuities", materials and labor are all funded by sales. Post #7 is correct in reminding us that companies that spend revenue on non-value added activity either have to inflate their pricing, or impair their product with cost reductions. Post #7 also reminds us that we consumers are equally responsible for all business practices, and we can reward good behavior, or we can reward bad behavior. That's the extent of my interest, and comments.

I'm not not equipped to spar on the details of business plans, balance sheets, and cost recovery strategies. Apologies if I misrepresented my intent.

 

[CapnSev]

I apologize to ALL of the TALKBASS community for starting this thread!

It’s cracking me up! The internet at its finest.

 

[Axstar]

Skip the Dunlop strings. Here's why:

At 52 weeks per year, and changing your Dunlops about 2 to 3 times per week.

Cool novel, but why would you replace flats 2 to 3 times per week?

 

[LiquidMidnight]

It’s cracking me up! The internet at its finest.

Only on Talkbass would a question about the timbre of a set of strings invite the equivalent of undergrad gunners trying to argue microeconomic theory in an intro to marketing class in an attempt to appear clever.

 

[Slater]

The scenario in post #7 is hypothetical and pure fantasy. Marketing, advertising, and endorsements have value, and are not poor business practices. Otherwise, no one would do it.

Advertising and endorsements are intended to pay for themselves and then some, by influencing a higher volume in sales.

I was just trying to provide some enlightenment on some misinformation.

For more information on business and advertising, try searching for TalkBusiness or something. I’m going back to enjoying TalkBass.com