What High End Manufacturers Could Learn From Bose

very enjoyable thread...the comment about the porsche deserves response.

yes, its a typical strategy to have a high price product as the intro to get snob appeal and status in the mkt (ala mercedes--used to start at $70k, now down to $30k), and then introduce lower price product that has substantially higher volume. some audio mfgs do this...not many though.

why?

it is my sincere belief that the high end audio industry is an anomaly..what you have are a lot of hobbyists who are DIYers and ultimately tweak enough until they decide to start a company where there product is their best effort--and they're concerned about iterative product improvements, rather than a long term profitable go-to market strategy. lots have done it, and lots have failed. very few have the business discipline to do it properly--as a business. the most notable exception, to whom i give all the credit in the world, is mark at rogue audio. from what i gather, same boards used in every pre and every amp.

smart man.

there's way too many speaker manufacturers to serve this small, niche market. if it weren't for low overhead models (i.e. guys working at home and using the tax write-offs), you'd see far fewer companies. anyone out there want to be a speaker manufacturer, here's a hint: use the same drivers and cabinet base in every model, differ products by # of drivers and crossover parts (inexpensive relative to drivers). electronics mfgs--see rogue for an example how to do business.

and btw: be prepared for bankruptcy if the industry rags dont like you.

(exception: an alternative that may be viable is to go the ULTRA high end route, ala Rockport's $70k turntable and its low cost $30k entry level model--this assumes you have the knowledge to be the best engineer out there, and frankly, there's few guys with that capability...maybe 5. want names?)

all of this may or may not be a good thing. but it is what it is.

rhyno

Justacoder's car analogy is most revealing. I for one have never driven a Ferrari, but I know know their mystique. I don't expect high end companies to battle for mid-fi market share, but I want high end companies to at least define in the public's mind what is high end audio. Harmon's deal with Lexus for Levinson car systems is an excellent example. I also think Red Rose's Whitney Museum store is an example of the type of marketing high end companies need to be doing. The audiophile world needs to look outward to the uncoverted if it is to avoid shrinking to the point of irrelevance. There will always be a state-of-the-art products that by definition have no mass market appeal. But that doesn't mean that reasonably priced, good sounding, easy to set up and great looking high end products cannot become made and sold in reasonably large numbers.

I do not believe your premise that Bose is grabbing (for the future) the "high fidelity sound reproduction market." There are two (or more) different market niches. As Ed pointed out "high-end" means small market (an entirely different market niche). Because, very few people actually sit down and listen to music, very few would even care about "Krell" sound. For those that do there is the high-end. Because this market is small the high-end will never employ similar Bose marketing strategies-it would simply cost too much.

Even assuming your premise is correct, I don't believe that the future of "high fidelity sound reproduction" belongs to companies like Bose because of their marketing efforts. In fact, I believe that Bose is good for the high-end. The high-end feeds off of Bose; It gives non-audiophiles a starting point and a basis for comparison. Both Bose and the "high end" can coexist as long as there are people like us who really care about high fidelity sound reproduction.

I think it's a matter of what the audio market is like.

I can listen to a new CD of the Goldberg Variations and quickly say a lot about the performance. On the other hand, I know very little about wine and usually ask the store clerk, "Which is better, X or Y?" I know nothing about what that store clerk's knowledge or tastes are but go with it. I don't have the depth of opinions about a wine as I do about a recording the Goldberg Variations.

I know there's good wine out there, but I just don't know enough to feel comfortable trusting my own tastes, and it's not that important for me to invest my time: I'm satisfied that I picked an $80 brand-name wine over a $40 wine, though a wine expert might easily pick some $40 wines that would be better than what I bought. I figure, so this is what $80 buys and don't really think much more about it. Maybe I note that it's sweet or not sweet.

Some people balk at my attitude towards wine, while I don't understand why they can't hear how my hissy mono recording is obviously better than their DDD version of the same piece.

Audiophiles read stereo magazines, study up on audio and take months to carefully choose and match components. A typical consumer goes to Circuit City and asks, "Which is beter, Yamaha or Sony?" instead of doing A/B/A listening tests. They buy stereos the way that I buy wine. People don't know enough to feel comfortable using their own ears, and it's not important enough to them to work on it.

My friends say that they just can't hear all these differences that auido magazines fuss over. They're not thinking about the 30 things that we do -- they just hear more or less bass. It also doesn't help that everything sounds same-same when you're working with what's available at Circuit City. More reason for people to just go with whatever they see put out there.

the robb report, arch digest, dupont registry and more carry ads for high end hifi companies. they will also contain ads for multi million buck boats, cigars you couldn't buy even if you had the money, and jewelery that
queen elizabeth would be embarassed to wear. placing high end audio ads in "people" magazine however is unlikely to
yield satisfactory return. Still, one would think blowing all your ad budget on audio rags, where readers are already aware of your product is backward too. seeding a new
patch of bare ground occasionally instead of the crowded garden seems logical.
as far as the 30 grand benz goes, it has a star on the hood, but thats about where the comparison to the 70 grand mercedes ends.
b**e seems apathetic towards any aspect of their business apart from marketing. if 10% of the annual ad budget went to actual r&d instead of herbie on t.v., that $0.23 cent 2 inch paper cone they cram in everything would be a distant memory. don't even bother commenting on the 4" "subwoofer". by the way, dr. bose was a gifted theorist and designer, it's just that his conclusions and results were wrong. invaild equations are hardly unusual in tech and engineering endeavors. (you'd think the odds that at least one idea would work were high though, wouldn't you?)
one more little slice of evil from that corp. is a rabid litigation team. Better Off Sueing 'Em than being a positive contributor and respected member of the industry. a recent example supporting "lawyercide" and the viewpoint of "them" towards this wonderful hobbie and all of us in it took place in boston. a new company formed by two of the industry's most regarded leaders built an amp that sent all but the very best scurrying. audiophile sonics, 5 mono channels, 1500 watts, bullet-proof,under 2k$. since the company was in boston and proudly so, they called it
Bostronics. after the expense of putting that name on everything from boxes to lit, and getting a national magazine review praising it as perhaps the best multichannel ever built, the B**e lawyers crawled from the brimstone and demanded the small company change it's name. the current one sounded too much like "bose electronics". the suit was weak as 4" subwoofers and very easy to beat in court. the problem? 3-4 years of battle and min.$50,000 in court costs. read this in a trade journal.
know what? B**e belongs in the outlet malls. next to the fridge magnets store. i sure hope they don't read this.