Over-Priced basses?

[Baron Von Vik]

My basses cost me more than they'll ever be worth, with all the goodies I put into them. But I don't care, 'cause they're mine, see? If someone wants to drop a few grand on something they love, good for them. Maybe they'll find out that they really didn't love it so much after all, put it back on the market, and one of you cheap so-and-sos can snap it up. Win-win.

 

[pedroims]

Mostly every new bass is overpriced

 

[Andy Brown]

Ah yes, another thread about a subjective topic. A no-win situation.

 

[malthumb]

In real life production costs mean everything.

Only to the manufacturer. The customer should care less about the cost of production. How much does your can opener cost to manufacture? Your gym shoes? Your light bulbs? COST is only one of many factors involved in the development of PRICE. I see a lot of people in these and other threads try to equate the two. COST equal to PRICE equals company going out of business

The issue, as a manufacturer, is "can I sell what I just made at a price that will cover my manufacturing, marketing, and transportation costs and still make a profit?"

The issue, as a consumer, is "is this particular product the best use of my hard earned dollars or do I have better options for a similar amount of money?"

If a manufacturer can produce a bass that is marginally better than a popular $1,500 instrument but his COSTS to produce and market it requires that he sell it for $2,500, he will need to re-consider ways to bring his costs down OR add more valued content (and cost) to position it against $2,500 - 3,000 instruments. Or find another line of work.

 

[MisterMagician]

ITT; passive-aggressive complaining... no, wait, that is most of the posts on the internet.

Carry on.

 

[vene-nemesis]

Only to the manufacturer. The customer should care less about the cost of production. How much does your can opener cost to manufacture? Your gym shoes? Your light bulbs? COST is only one of many factors involved in the development of PRICE. I see a lot of people in these and other threads try to equate the two. COST equal to PRICE equals company going out of business

The issue, as a manufacturer, is "can I sell what I just made at a price that will cover my manufacturing, marketing, and transportation costs and still make a profit?"

The issue, as a consumer, is "is this particular product the best use of my hard earned dollars or do I have better options for a similar amount of money?"

If a manufacturer can produce a bass that is marginally better than a popular $1,500 instrument but his COSTS to produce and market it requires that he sell it for $2,500, he will need to re-consider ways to bring his costs down OR add more valued content (and cost) to position it against $2,500 - 3,000 instruments. Or find another line of work.

Well maybe its because im a soon to be industrial engineer that for me something is overpriced if the price im going to pay for it is way too off from its production costs (specially when we are talking about mass produced goods), wich means to me that there is a lack of good price-value ratio since the easiest way to cut production costs is overlooking quality controls, IE: Fender.

 

[malthumb]

Well maybe its because im a soon to be industrial engineer ....

Cool! I'm a used-to-be industrial engineer. Spent a number of years specifying manufacturing processes, equipment, and tooling requirements for automotive engine and transmission plants.

 

[vene-nemesis]

Cool! I'm a used-to-be industrial engineer. Spent a number of years specifying manufacturing processes, equipment, and tooling requirements for automotive engine and transmission plants.

Thats pretty much my furure, over here we manufacture a huge amount of parts for Volvo-Ford, the VAG group, Renault, even Rolls Royce jet engine parts.

You used to be? what are you doing now???

 

[Dellers]

They're not overpriced in the US, but damn EBMM is really expensive here in Norway. I bought a new Stingray 5 HH 2 years ago from Canada, for what would be about 1700 US$ with todays rate, including shipping and tax. The list price of the Stingray 5 HH (you might get it a little bit under the list price though) here is - seriously - starting at about 4080$. That is totally insane, and I could easily import 2 myself and still have money left...

 

[Brad Johnson]

No more serious than your erroneous pronouncement.

And yes there are a few things wich prices are much more influenced by other factors, like the raw materials needed to produce them, IE: fine jewlery, but these are usually luxury items.

I don't know where you're getting this stuff. For example, a simple HDMI cable might cost a dollar or two to make. You can buy them online for around $3. Yet local stores still sell them in excess of $20. Did production costs determine price all around?


Is shipping a production cost? Inventory management? You've already shot down sales costs and infrastructure as not being a part of "everything".

But anyway, most of whats being produced (wich is the key word here) on todays world is being priced mainly after its production costs. I agree that there are other costs involved, but in the very begining of a business a certain good is either manufactured or not depending on the marging of benefits the manufacturer will obtain against its protuction costs given an estimated demand for said good.

BTW, no ofense here, but you're a semantics nazi .

And you clearly aren't into precise language. No offense. Everything does not mean most things... no matter how much you protest.


As far as me being a semantics nazi, I say exactly what I mean (it's surprisingly easy if you just get in the habit early on). You apparently don't. That's why we disagree... you even disagree with your own words.


BTW you don't get to talk about key words when you keep harping on an absolute and trying to act like it's not as problematic as it obviously is. You're at odds with yourself.

In the very beginning as a business you still better be looking at the ENTIRE PICTURE, not just manufacturing costs. To do otherwise is extremely shortsighted. Many failed businesses did just that. It isn't everything after all.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Only to the manufacturer. The customer should care less about the cost of production. How much does your can opener cost to manufacture? Your gym shoes? Your light bulbs? COST is only one of many factors involved in the development of PRICE. I see a lot of people in these and other threads try to equate the two. COST equal to PRICE equals company going out of business
The issue, as a manufacturer, is "can I sell what I just made at a price that will cover my manufacturing, marketing, and transportation costs and still make a profit?"

The issue, as a consumer, is "is this particular product the best use of my hard earned dollars or do I have better options for a similar amount of money?"

If a manufacturer can produce a bass that is marginally better than a popular $1,500 instrument but his COSTS to produce and market it requires that he sell it for $2,500, he will need to re-consider ways to bring his costs down OR add more valued content (and cost) to position it against $2,500 - 3,000 instruments. Or find another line of work.

Sounds familiar, James.

 

[malthumb]

Sounds familiar, James.

Et tu, Brad, et tu :scowl:

 

[malthumb]

Thats pretty much my furure, over here we manufacture a huge amount of parts for Volvo-Ford, the VAG group, Renault, even Rolls Royce jet engine parts.

You used to be? what are you doing now???

Same company, different responsibilities. Product technology planning. Looking forward and recommending to our engineering groups what technologies they should be working on implementing in next generation engines, transmissions, and hybrid systems.

 

[flypejose]

Wow, you've gone to great lengths to disagree with me by paraphrasing exactly what I said in both of my posts in this thread:

The "worth" of any commodity is determined by the price the market will bear. Any producer of any commodity who overestimates what the market will bear will fail.

This is "Business School 101."

Your example about the re-branding of "luxury" Toyotas and Nissans is precisely the sort of thing I'm talking about. If consumers had walked into Lexus dealers when they first appeared, looked at the cars and said, "These are just Camrys," the merchandising experiment would have been an epic failure. But it was not, because Toyota correctly surmised that a large number of consumers would perceive enough value in a "luxury" Camry to pony up the extra cash. It's been a highly successful endeavor, because the consumer market has supported it. If people are buying your product in droves, then you've clearly done an excellent job of specifiying a price point that consumers believe is commensurate with the value of the product.

The fact that Toyota and Nissan use different marketing and pricing strategies in other parts of the world than they do in the US further reinforces my point. They have studied each market, figured out what it will bear, and priced their products accordingly.

How is this different for basses? Why would you bold my statement about the marketing of basses and disagree with it, and then give an example about autos that precisely proves my point?

When TBers express an opinion like, "I don't think Warwicks are worth what they're charging for them," they're not providing any sort of market analysis. They are simply saying, "Given my budget and my needs, I do not see sufficient value in Warwick products to spend my money on them." The mistake people make in these declarations is thinking that because they have this opinion they have thereby invalidated Warwick's business model.

Clearly this is nonsense. There are enough consumers of bass guitars on the planet who do see value in Warwick products commensurate with their pricing to keep that factory in Germany humming. This means that Warwick got the math right.

I agree that the perception of "luxury" sometimes is generated in the marketplace merely through pricing, but this can only be sustained up to a point. "Luxury goods" must meet certain minimal standards of quality because even in this niche market there is tremendous competition.

However, I would also posit that if Warwick's prices when they first hit the USA had been double what they were, that Warwick would have gotten the math wrong and their business plan would have been a failure.

So explain to me again what it is that you disagree with. Because your previous post is 100% in agreement with everything I've been saying, except for the part where you say you disagree.

I think you've given a pretty good and knowledgable answer to the question of "what a bass is worth"...my wife would give the same answer and more (she has a PhD in economics).

I think the hidden question that is being discussed here is in reality:does a $4,000 bass play 4times better in the studio and onstage than a $1,000 bass? I'm pretty sure the majority will have to say no!

 

[tombaker]

any and every fender

 

[vene-nemesis]

No more serious than your erroneous pronouncement.




I don't know where you're getting this stuff. For example, a simple HDMI cable might cost a dollar or two to make. You can buy them online for around $3. Yet local stores still sell them in excess of $20. Did production costs determine price all around?


Is shipping a production cost? Inventory management? You've already shot down sales costs and infrastructure as not being a part of "everything".


And you clearly aren't into precise language. No offense. Everything does not mean most things... no matter how much you protest.


As far as me being a semantics nazi, I say exactly what I mean (it's surprisingly easy if you just get in the habit early on). You apparently don't. That's why we disagree... you even disagree with your own words.


BTW you don't get to talk about key words when you keep harping on an absolute and trying to act like it's not as problematic as it obviously is. You're at odds with yourself.

In the very beginning as a business you still better be looking at the ENTIRE PICTURE, not just manufacturing costs. To do otherwise is extremely shortsighted. Many failed businesses did just that. It isn't everything after all.

I had this way too long post that i just ditched since you are going to rip it apart because my english is not as fancy as yours (mind that english is not my mother language)...

To sum up my pronouncement here: I think a good is overpriced, even a bass, if its price is way too off from its production costs since this is what determines that certain good's quality, the price just sets its price/value ratio. And when i buy something I like to pay for quality not just the hipe, or whatever business polices or procedures hapen after its made...

In the manufacturing business the production costs are the root of the whole economical operation, IE: Asian manufacturers are literally eating the whole manufacturing market. I agree that there are a lot of other factors that affect the price of a good, but in the end the main factor that makes a business possible on the manufacturing field are the production costs, specially when we talk about mass produced goods.

And just so you understand how important it is, the car parts manufacturing price in europe hasnt gone up in the last 15 years, instead it has gone down and in very few cases it has stayed the same. However the price for the technology used has gone up, the manufacturing technology itself has developed a lot, and i mean A LOT, just so this part of the business makes it more profitable. And yet neither the marketing development, nor transportation means development have kept the peace of the manufacturing technology development, they just dont happend at the same speed because it is much more important and cost effective to reduce production costs than the rest of the business costs. Reducing your manufacturing costs while keeping up the quality is how you sell cheaper than your competitors.

Even stocking has had developments that have reached plateaus (sp?) since the perfection of the just-in-time practises and the many awesome toyota super lean processes that are also aplied to production lines.

 

[KarateKid25]

I got a good deal on a used Warwick Thumb. It's a really nice bass, but brand new, they are over priced IMO.

 

[Brad Johnson]

I think you've given a pretty good and knowledgable answer to the question of "what a bass is worth"...my wife would give the same answer and more (she has a PhD in economics).

I think the hidden question that is being discussed here is in reality:does a $4,000 bass play 4times better in the studio and onstage than a $1,000 bass? I'm pretty sure the majority will have to say no!

Here's where the elitist bassist in me really comes out*

I absolutely agree that most people would say no. And IME that is usually based on the wide range of skill levels and expertise among bassists. If you can't play with super low action for example, of course you won't appreciate it and the cost that's involved to get something that will set up that way is likely lost on you. Most of the people that I know of who really "use" boutique instruments are finesse players. Yes, many could play on other instruments but when they want top notch playability, reliability and consistency the difference really can't be measured.

A friend of mine always offered his opinion that no bass is worth thousands of dollars. He did this for years. He's an excellent player and that's just how he felt. One day he offered it again at a local store and afterwards I handed him my orange six string and said "Just play it" and walked away. Came back half an hour later and he was still grinning. He said he got it... instead of having to think about the bass he was holding, he was able to just play.

I feel the same way. I really don't have to work to play that six (or most of my other basses because of how I set them up for me). That is a wonderful thing day in and day out.

Not sure how you measure that in dollar amount or percentage, I know that I regularly get to play basses with playability, consistency and reliability that I previously could've only imagined. Is it worth four or five times a $1k? Absolutely.


I've been lucky enough to own a wide range of instruments and let people play all of them. I rarely get anyone saying that whatever they're checking out isn't "worth it" anymore, they might say they can't spend that kind of money or their wife would kill them or they're really not in a situation where they need that kind of bass.

BTW I bought most of the instruments I own used. That really skews the equation. Take my Surine Protocol 7 for example. Is a $4k bass you bought for $1k worth more than a new $1k bass.



*at least that's the usual accusation when I say what I'm saying.

 

[marchone]

To me "overpriced" simply means I won't pay for it. End of discussion.

I think the hidden question that is being discussed here is in reality:does a $4,000 bass play 4times better in the studio and onstage than a $1,000 bass?

No, that is not the question. Quality improvements above a certain price point are always made incrementally.

The question is "Is it good enough for my needs at the price I am willing to pay?"

 

[Brad Johnson]

I had this way too long post that i just ditched since you are going to rip it apart because my english is not as fancy as yours (mind that english is not my mother language)...

To sum up my pronouncement here: I think a good is overpriced, even a bass, if its price is way too off from its production costs since this is what determines that certain good's quality, the price just sets its price/value ratio. And when i buy something I like to pay for quality not just the hipe, or whatever business polices or procedures hapen after its made...

In the manufacturing business the production costs are the root of the whole economical operation, IE: Asian manufacturers are literally eating the whole manufacturing market. I agree that there are a lot of other factors that affect the price of a good, but in the end the main factor that makes a business possible on the manufacturing field are the production costs, specially when we talk about mass produced goods.

And just so you understand how important it is, the car parts manufacturing price in europe hasnt gone up in the last 15 years, instead it has gone down and in very few cases it has stayed the same. However the price for the technology used has gone up, the manufacturing technology itself has developed a lot, and i mean A LOT, just so this part of the business makes it more profitable. And yet neither the marketing development, nor transportation means development have kept the peace of the manufacturing technology development, they just dont happend at the same speed because it is much more important and cost effective to reduce production costs than the rest of the business costs. Reducing your manufacturing costs while keeping up the quality is how you sell cheaper than your competitors.

Even stocking has had developments that have reached plateaus (sp?) since the perfection of the just-in-time practises and the many awesome toyota super lean processes that are also aplied to production lines.

Here's some really plain language... I think a good is overpriced when you cannot sell in the numbers needed to attain profitability and meet your sales goals.

If you understand all of the other factors involved in the ultimate pricing of an item, I have no idea why you would insist the rest don't matter by saying one thing is everything. More than once. If you consider that ripping you apart, you really have set the bar low.

That is where we disagreed, plain and simple.

BTW lots of companies resell goods manufactured elsewhere and the production costs are merely the starting point for pricing. Like the HDMI cable example I gave. Market ignorance is what allows them to remain artificially high in some channels. Ridiculous markup if you look at production costs... but they still sell.