WILSON AUDIO/ cost vs. value

Macrojack...

Thank you for the economics lesson again.

The original question was

"My question is should wilson make public their profit margin percentage's to back up their claims or is this more hyperbole from a high-end audio manufacturer..."

My answers are No they should not make public their profit margin percentage's...and yes it is just more hyperbole....it seems to be the way of advertising today...make any claims you want with out any back up

Mr Wilson has been critized for trying to lead us to believe, without supplying enough information, why do you feel your Typical model applies here without knowing anything about how his company is structured?

Here is an example of excess Cost vs. Value that supports your profit model

Radio Shack speaker wire has been rated as a best buy at 19.99 per 100' roll or $0.1999 per foot.
Zu Cable (I use this because of the previous refferences on this thread, and also because they include price on their website) sells speaker cable at 23.93 (their cheapest) per foot. That is a difference of $23.73 per foot "WOW"
I know that this is wrong, I do not have enough information so it is just supposition. Which is what the context of this post was about.

Question to Macrojack: Does the 1/5 of MSRP refer to COGS alone? What exactly is included? Before we can declare that his margin is 67% (12k/18K), we need to consider such costs as warranty expense, shipping (not trivial on Wilson speakers), sales and marketing as well as other G&A expenses. When it gets to profit that falls to the bottom line and accrues to the owners, I expect it's a much smaller number than $12K per WATT/Puppy.

883dave-
The post immediately preceeding yours would indicate that I responded in the manner sought by the original poster. That, however, is the only comment you offer with which I disagree.
But, while you are factually accurate, in your cable comparison, I'm pretty sure the analogy wasn't quite parallel.
Radio Shack is selling some sort of raw cable and the Zu product is terminated. I don't know what this means in precise numbers but it seems to equate to a comparison between the price of raw drivers from company A and the price of finished speakers from company Z.
How Wilson's company is structured addresses what happens to the profits more than how great they were.

OVER.....

Miccrojack between Zu on Zu and this thread: do you have any time to listen to your rig? lol... :)

Again, I can't argue on if the Wilson statement is accurate or not, as much as anyone else here can't, but being involved in the manufacturing of amplifiers that are in the process of changing its entire line and looking at the costs ahead and behind us so far, for things like C&C machinery, specialized booths, engineering costs, tooling, industrial design, I can tell you without conjecture it can cost close to a million dollars to bring honest products to market.

I suspect Wilson could have much more than that invested in their facilities and if one does not include all daily operational expenses, one would not be in business long, there is so much more to it than a simple equation of cost of production to retail.

So unless someone here is Wilson's accountant, we can only speculate on if Wilson's claim is accurate or not but from where I sit, I can see it being closer to the truth, than not.

FYI, I do not own a pair of Wilson speakers or have I ever, nor do I suspect that Wilson has ever used or even heard of our amps but I feel to single out a prominent manufacturer who may have millions as well as decades invested, whither or not we like the speaker and simply because some feel that an advertising statement is misleading, is simply wrong and extremely judgmental, especially without any kind of pertaining facts.

My defense is not only for Wilson but I feel it's to all honest manufacturers who have spent a greater part of their lives along with immense investments to bring products to consumers who are very happy with them, Bose and Polk included.