Ooh, the new PRS Private Stock "Signature" guitars are hitting the shelves!

[Twinfan]

Cheers Andy, and I'll pass on the Dano  ;)

It usually takes me a little while to decide if something is a keeper, and every time I want to play guitar I pick up the Modern Eagle - it's just "me".  Pearly is the best example of a Les Paul most people will come across, but I'm just not a Les Paul guy.  Which has taken me a while to admit to myself...

[nfe]

Always a tough one admitting to yourself that a big purchase probably hasn't been the right choice in hindsight, eh?

I've been that guy a few times.

[dave_mc]

It's not just about you though is it Dave  ;)

oh sure, i realise that. I'm just saying that, personally, it's not worth it to me to pay for things which don't/won't affect me. :D And I don't think it's ok to expect me to be ok with paying extra (not saying you're doing this, I mean the bigger companies and shops- they act like I'm awful if I don't keep them in business). :)

Nice new avatar Dave (J)!  

Kind of emphasises your standpoint in this debate.  :D

i was scratching my head for 30 seconds there wondering what you meant and then I realised you were talking about twinfan :lol:

[Twinfan]

Is this all not a moot point anyway Dave, as I don't think you buy £1000+ guitars where it would be worth importing them from another country for a decent saving?

[Philly Q]

I don't want to extend the debate unnecessarily ( :P !), but I still think a major issue with importing expensive guitars is not being able to try them first. 

OK, that applies to UK mail order too, but if I buy something from (say) Guitars4you and I'm not happy, I know I can return it for a refund and it's only cost me £20 or something.

If I have to return a guitar to the USA or Japan its potentially going to cost me well over £100 (especially with full insurance), plus it takes forever, you have to fill in Customs declarations etc and there's the risk of damage in transit (in both directions).  Doesn't take long to use up that big saving.  And what price do you put on inconvenience?


(None of this stops me buying guitars on eBay, but I would be very hesitant about buying a PRS or upmarket Gibson, just because of the higher sums of money involved)

[AndyR]

I've been enjoying the debate - but don't have much to add to it... Remember, I'm the guy who happily buys in Denmark St! :lol:

Still, I only tend to buy stuff in the £700 to £800 ballpark though, so the amount I might pay over the odds compared to a UK internet sale is not huge (I've even managed to get "cheaper than internet" there!). I tend to regard the "extra" as well worth it for the chance to see and try the thing I'm buying. I've never even considered getting stuff from outside of the UK. The furthest I get stuff from is pickups from Cornwall and strings from Plymouth! :lol:

I see what you're saying Dave (mc), but I'm probably nearer to Dave (TF) in my attitude to dealerships/importing/etc/etc. Personally, I have no beef with anyone who wants to charge more than I want to pay for the goods or service they offer - I just won't be one of their customers. I also have no beef with someone who wants to charge more in my town than the town up the road. If the price up the road plus whatever it costs me in money/time is cheaper, that's where I'll get it. If it's not, I'll happily pay the price in my town.

If they charge unrealistic prices they'll go out of business. If they're successfully "overcharging" for something I want it's not their fault, if anything it's mine for not appreciating that there's enough people who value the item higher than I do.

But this is all just the way I look at it and feel about it - I'm definitely not saying it's the way anyone else should think! :lol:

[dave_mc]

^ I think the price you charge should be related to how much it costs to produce :)

Is this all not a moot point anyway Dave, as I don't think you buy £1000+ guitars where it would be worth importing them from another country for a decent saving?

Don't think so.

Plenty of things less than £1000 would still make the saving worthwhile- also I may buy the dearer guitars if I were getting a better price on them.

I don't buy PRS here because I don't think they're worth £2k+, not because I'm not willing to spend £2k on a guitar if I did think it were worth it.

:)

I don't want to extend the debate unnecessarily ( :P !), but I still think a major issue with importing expensive guitars is not being able to try them first. 

OK, that applies to UK mail order too, but if I buy something from (say) Guitars4you and I'm not happy, I know I can return it for a refund and it's only cost me £20 or something.

If I have to return a guitar to the USA or Japan its potentially going to cost me well over £100 (especially with full insurance), plus it takes forever, you have to fill in Customs declarations etc and there's the risk of damage in transit (in both directions).  Doesn't take long to use up that big saving.  And what price do you put on inconvenience?


(None of this stops me buying guitars on eBay, but I would be very hesitant about buying a PRS or upmarket Gibson, just because of the higher sums of money involved)

Oh, I agree- it's certainly not black and white.

However, for my own personal situation, most of the stuff i want to buy I have to buy sight unseen anyway as the shops here don't stock them.

Granted sending back abroad is much more costly- but again it's a cost/benefit kind of thing, and depends on each item, how much it costs, etc..

Funnily enough I'm really wary about buying from Ebay- much more so than the majority of you guys are. :lol: So I certainly understand and sympathise with the cautious approach. 

[Philly Q]

Funnily enough I'm really wary about buying from Ebay- much more so than the majority of you guys are. :lol: So I certainly understand and sympathise with the cautious approach.  

I'm generally more confident buying from an individual on eBay than - by mail order - from a dealer (UK, leaving aside the "importing" debate for a moment).

Of course you have to take that leap of faith of trusting a stranger (their feedback and the general vibe of the description in their ads helps with that).  Once you've done that, you've got (usually) loads of photos of the actual item (not a "stock" photo like GAK and many other dealers use).  And you can ask questions and get (usually) honest answers.  If they're anything like me, they're scrupulously honest because they don't want any comeback after the sale!

Whereas with shops, they usually can't be bothered to take photos and they're much less responsive to queries.  When I ask my standard question ("how much does it weigh?"  :roll:  :lol: ) I've more than once had shops send me an answer which turns out to be (at best) a lazy guess or (at worst) an outright lie.

[dave_mc]

i'm not sure where i stand on the ebay thing... :lol: after that last bc rich fiasco (i did finally get my money back, which is the main thing, but i wasn't too impressed with ebay's system of resolutions- thanks to all you guys for your help in getting it sorted, by the way, i didn't want to bump the thread any more, lol), i think i currently trust the e-bay-only sellers the least...

i don't mind buying from shops or manufacturers on ebay if i'd otherwise just be buying from their websites...

obviously that's only based on anecdotal evidence...

[Twinfan]

I think the price you charge should be related to how much it costs to produce :)

So you'd ignore development costs, advertising costs so people knew your product actually existed, market positioning against competitors etc?

Plus as JPF says, cost is an indicator of quality.  Look at how many watches Rolex sell easily for £4000+.

[jpfamps]

^ I think the price you charge should be related to how much it costs to produce :)

 

So what would a reasonable formula for production costs versus price be?

[Philly Q]

Plus as JPF says, cost is an indicator of quality.  Look at how many watches Rolex sell easily for £4000+.

True, but once you've achieved that perception of quality for your brand, it gives you carte blanche to charge much higher prices and make higher profit margins (and you get into that strange upper echelon where some customers actually want to pay more because they see it as a status symbol).

Whereas a no-name competitor may make a product almost as good but be forced to operate within much tighter margins simply to sell their product.

Which takes us back to the old "double or triple the price for 10% better quality" which particularly applies to guitars.

(I'm not disagreeing with the principles, it's just "market forces", innit?   )

[nfe]

I think the price you charge should be related to how much it costs to produce :)

So you'd ignore development costs, advertising costs so people knew your product actually existed, market positioning against competitors etc?

Plus as JPF says, cost is an indicator of quality.  Look at how many watches Rolex sell easily for £4000+.

Development costs are production costs. Advertising costs need to be factored in.

Generally I think moral pricing is a reasonable markup over total overheads. But virtually no business in a capitalist world is going to follow that thinking. It does irritate me when people charge excessive prices purely to insinuate a level of craftsmanship. In guitar terms charging top flight handbuilt prices for guitars that absolutely are not handbuilt. Irritates me more when these companies fill their advertising with guys holding planes stood amongst piles of curled woodshavings, right enough :lol:

[AndyR]

:lol:

I just knew I didn't have to respond to "I think the price you charge should be related to how much it costs to produce"...

I can see that way of thinking, Dave (mc). But it ought to be: "I think the price you charge should be related to how much it costs to get it to the customer". Even then, I'm not happy with it.

In general, I'm a firm believer in "the price you charge should be related to how much you think people will pay". If that's less than it costs you to get it to market, then you haven't got a viable product.

If you get it wrong either way, too low, too high, you won't be making/selling the stuff for too long.

There are times when setting a lower or higher price might be a good idea - but these decisions should be made for business reasons, not altruistic reasons. Otherwise you're not running a business. Unless you've got a lot of capital behind you and don't have to make money to eat and pay your bills, then you'll need a new job sooner or later.

When you've hit the big time, and have this wonderful reputation that sells units without you doing anything, and you can afford to do things in vast quantity cheaper, then you might bring the unit price down considerably. You might even market it as "we're good folks, we bring you quality stuff at what it costs to produce rather than charging some huge mark-up... cos we believe in [wotever]"

But that message ain't what it's really about - it's not altruistic and for the people at all, it's all about stuffing other people (the opposition) good and proper... It's "hey! mebbe I can shift more units than my competitors".

If you can get your price low enough, it'll even be cheaper than some of your competitors can even make the thing!! Woo! Result... get out of that and stay fashionable you b@stards...

All the while you're doing this, you'll probably be able to ignore the fact that you've deprived some of these now unfashionable competitors of their livelihood and made them go back to where ever they came from. But it's all cool, cos you can tell the marketplace "we only charge what it cost to make".


Stuff is only ever going to be worth what people are prepared to pay for it, no other figure applies.

You could legislate that some other figure applies - but that would mean either that you and I will have to pay a WHOLE LOT MORE, or there'll be less stuff available because no-one will be able to afford to make or market it.

EDIT: nfe posted while was typing. He said some of mine more concisely than I did and covered some other ground. I can't be @rsed to go and change it again... so I'll just add this little appendix:

I too get irritated when folks claim something is something it's not... but on the other hand, it still comes down to what is the finished product actually like (including the name on it) and do people want it at that price. If folks don't want it, the company wasted it's resource developing that strategy, nobody will buy it. If folks do want it, then they're making and marketing stuff that sells. So I am kind of left with a feeling of "good luck to them"...

[dave_mc]

So you'd ignore development costs, advertising costs so people knew your product actually existed, market positioning against competitors etc?

Plus as JPF says, cost is an indicator of quality.  Look at how many watches Rolex sell easily for £4000+.

no, i'd be including those obviously.

So what would a reasonable formula for production costs versus price be?

well if i were in business i'd like to think i'd charge what it cost to produce the item- including things like wages, r&d, stuff like that (including any other inherent costs you can think of).

I'm not saying i'd mandate it or anything like that. I'm just saying that's what i'd do, and what I think other businesses should ideally do. It'd (presumably) be pretty easy to work out, considering they're already setting prices based on some kind of formula.

I realise they won't. :lol:

True, but once you've achieved that perception of quality for your brand, it gives you carte blanche to charge much higher prices and make higher profit margins (and you get into that strange upper echelon where some customers actually want to pay more because they see it as a status symbol).

Whereas a no-name competitor may make a product almost as good but be forced to operate within much tighter margins simply to sell their product.

Which takes us back to the old "double or triple the price for 10% better quality" which particularly applies to guitars.

(I'm not disagreeing with the principles, it's just "market forces", innit?   )

+1

I mean I understand how the market works. That doesn't mean I agree with it.

Development costs are production costs. Advertising costs need to be factored in.

Generally I think moral pricing is a reasonable markup over total overheads. But virtually no business in a capitalist world is going to follow that thinking. It does irritate me when people charge excessive prices purely to insinuate a level of craftsmanship. In guitar terms charging top flight handbuilt prices for guitars that absolutely are not handbuilt. Irritates me more when these companies fill their advertising with guys holding planes stood amongst piles of curled woodshavings, right enough :lol:

+1

(a) I can see that way of thinking, Dave (mc). But it ought to be: "I think the price you charge should be related to how much it costs to get it to the customer".

(b) In general, I'm a firm believer in "the price you charge should be related to how much you think people will pay". If that's less than it costs you to get it to market, then you haven't got a viable product.

(a) that's what i meant, obviously.

(b) I just don't agree with charging what you think you can get away with. I just disagree with the principle of it.

EDIT: if you can make something cheaper than other people and put them out of business because you can make it and sell it cheaper than they can, I have no problem with that. That's actually one of the few bits of capitalism that I don't have that much problem with (by that i mean there's lots of capitalism i don't agree with, but if we're gonna have capitalism, that's pretty much an inherent part of it). :?

Maybe I've completely misunderstood what you're saying, but you seem to be saying, "good luck" to firms which can talk people into buying stuff even if it's overpriced, yet feel sorry for firms if they go out of business because they can't compete as they don't build as good a product or can't make that product as cheaply. :?