Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Can't we all get along guys? - Considering how much 'keeper' music is in my collection from more than a decade ago, no one can argue that the lack of technology is keeping them back. You just need to keep your inner gear-whore in check, and compromise your direction to suite your tools. - It's not only to be expected that if an engineer makes something cool, they get to charge what the market will bear - it's only fair. This isn't a charity, though after seeing how much time and effort that the Aurisis guys have put into the looping phenomenon, we might forget this. They are doing this to please themselves - not others - just like we make music primarilty to please ourselves, and not others. Otherwise, we'ld be doing something other than art; charity work comes to mind. - Stuff costs what it costs. There are people who's entire careers are spent figuring out how much musical gear should sell for. I'm sure that they all do their homework regarding price point versus volume. Idle mailing list chatter isn't going to do a better job. - Every year, the gear coming out is doing way more for way less cash - exponentially more, and driving the old stuff down? Do you remember when owning an eventide harmonizer was an object in same realm as a 911 GT2? You can buy a used one for less than the price of a new EDP. Do you remember when the idea of recording audio into a computer was a fantastical idea? We are on the verge of reliable, low latency, live audio DSP using consumer laptops. Some people on this list surely remember when a 6 second delay box cost several thousand dollars... - There's a thriving used gear market, where I do virtually all my shopping. Finally, - Kim is, by far and away, the crankiest member of this list, and so there no point anyone else here trying to compete for the title. bIz ------------ http://www.groovetronica.com - "Well, it hasn't made it into our playlist, I'm afraid. It's summer so there are no djs here to listen to and play music, so we're just playing automated music right now." ------------ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kim Flint" <kflint@loopers-delight.com> To: <Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2003 5:00 PM Subject: Re: Cranky Kim > At 01:44 PM 8/26/2003, Greg House wrote: > >--- Kim Flint <kflint@loopers-delight.com> wrote: > > > At 09:41 AM 8/26/2003, Greg House wrote: > > > >Kim wrote: > > > > > >Whether poor people think it is expensive or not doesn't really > > > > > >matter, because no matter what price it is they don't ever buy >it > > anyway. > > > > > > > >This sounds like a very cynical take on things. Getting things into the > > > >"impulse > > > >purchase", or even the "minimal thought" price ranges certainly DO > > increase > > > >sales...especially for "take it or leave it" type specialty items. > > > > > > that's exactly what I said in my original message. I also pointed out that > > > the people making impulse buying decisions are not poor people. >People > > with > > > money make impulse buys. The thread was about poor people complaining > > about > > > the prices of things they can't afford, and I pointed out that their > > > complaints fall on deaf ears because they never buy anything anyway. They > > > don't. > > > >Yes, but there ARE people in the midline. People who have some, but not >a > >whole > >lot, of disposable income. I think I fall into that category. I can > >occasionally > >come up with the cash for a $100-500 purchase, but not real often. I think > >there > >are a lot of people in this type situation. I sure know a lot around here. > > Sure, and those the people who drive Hondas and not BMW's. They play DL-4's > and not stereo echoplexes. That's life. If you want a high performance > thing, it will cost you more money. If you don't have the money you don't > get it and you settle for something lesser. That doesn't mean there is no > market for high performance products at higher prices. It just means the > market doesn't include you. > > All I'm trying to point out to you here is the primary customers for >music > gear are mostly people who have money. It's a different set of people >from > those who consider themselves musicians. $1000 may be expensive to you, but > there really are a lot of people in the world for whom it isn't. Those >are > the people who buy music gear. That is why $6000 Les Pauls sell well >also. > > Just because something is beyond your budget doesn't mean it doesn't sell > well. The Echoplex price might be more than you can afford, yet at that > price they sold every single one they were able to make. That makes it > really difficult to understand how the price was too high. It's an easier > argument to say it was too low. > > > > > >I think this is the reason the Boomerang never really "took off". It > > was about > > > >$200 too expensive. > > > > > > the boomerang has stayed in production for a long time and seems to >do > > just > > > fine. I see people with them all over the place. Where do you get the > > > impression it hasn't done well? > > > >I base that on the ratio of people I hear talking about how cool the thing > >is and > >how many actually have one. > > That's sort of anecdotal. Look at it this way. They put the product out >in > the mid-90's. The sales have been good enough to support the company to > this day, as it is their only product. It's available in all the major > catalogs, it's in stores, and advertised in guitar magazines. In the > musical instrument industry, that's pretty successful. > > > As it is, the price alone relegates it to specialty market > >status. > > They only cost about $450! That's near the low end of music gear pricing. > It is a specialty product though, as any dedicated looping device would be. > If anything, that justifies higher prices, not lower. > > Another way to look at these items is by their competition. The >Boomerang, > as a competitor, has a lot fewer features than the Echoplex. The >Boomerang > costs $450, the Echoplex costs $800, somewhat less than 2x higher. That > makes sense. If you want more features you pay more, if you don't want them > maybe the Boomerang is a better choice and you can save $350. The DL4 costs > $250. It has less looping features than the Boomerang, and the construction > isn't as rugged. If the extra features of the Boomerang are important to > you, the additional $200 may be worth it. If not, well get a DL4. > > > > > >Likewise with the EDP. The high entry price restricts it to > > > >people who REALLY WANT it, and that means it'll never be a big seller. > > > > > > Every EDP that has been made was sold at about that price. The new > > Echoplex > > > Plus version seems to be selling fine. Clearly the market did not >have a > > > problem with the price. > > > >But how many more could have been made and sold if the price was lower? > > Which part of "it sold out" isn't clear? They made all the ones they had > capacity to make. They all got sold. 100% capacity used, 100% sold. Not > many businesses can say that. Based on that they've now increased the > capacity to build more. Those new units are now selling fine, even though > the price is higher and they haven't really started their marketing > campaign yet. Once they get the marketing in gear it will probably sell > more units, by increasing awareness of it. > > >I can't > >tell you how many times I've talked to people about loopers and stuff, > >described > >the EDP to 'em and watched their face fall when they hear the price. >It's like > >those guys Mark talked to recently. > > Yes, I felt the same way when I saw how much a 911 GT2 cost. But seriously, > if $800 is a lot to them, then they aren't a customer for a high end looper. > > > > > What happened to you is the market priced you out of the picture. I guess > > > your fellow loopers have more money than you, as plenty of them are > > willing > > > to pay more than you've got. Sorry if that makes you feel bad, but that is > > > a problem for you and not the Echoplex. > > > >I suppose it is. But really, I'd love to see the EDP have more broad market > >appeal, and I don't think it ever can at the price it sells at. > > I guess I'm baffled how you reach that conclusion. Look at the prices of > other gear. Mid-range synths and samplers cost much more than the Echoplex. > High end gear in other categories costs WAY more. > > So here you have what many people consider a high-end looper in the > echoplex. The best there is in many people's eyes, and it costs $800. > Alright, fine, you have to get two for stereo, but that also gives you some > nice multi-loop functions. That's $1600 for a high-end stereo looper. Let's > compare to street prices of other top gear: > > Eventide Eclipse: $2000 > Eventide Orville: $5000 > Eventide DSP7000: $3400 > Korg Triton 88key: $3400 > Korg Triton rack: $1450 > Korg D16XD: $2000 > Yamaha dig piano: $3500 > Yamaha 9000: $3200 > Yamaha Motif 88key: $2800 > Yamaha AW2816: $1800 > Yamaha RS7000: $1400 > TC finalizer: $2400 > TC fireworx: $1760 > TC G-Force: $1440 > TC M3000: $1500 > Gibson Les Paul Custom: $3200 > Access Virus C $1500 > Nord Modular: $1450 > Roland VS2480 $3800 > roland V-Synth $2300 > roland Fantom s88: $2900 > roland xv-5080 $2000 > roland mc-909: $1500 > Kurzweil K2661: $2400 > Lexicon PCM-81: $2000 > Lexicon MPXG2: $1450 > > You see? It sits right in there pretty well. None of that stuff is > affordable for you, yet it all sells well. > > > > > In fact, Electrix would have sold the same number of Repeaters if their > > > price had been higher. > > > >Probably, given that their marketing was so incredibly poor. They designed > >a box > >for DJs, only half marketed it there, and then found that DJs didn't >want the > >box. Other musicians wanted the box, but most never knew it existed. > > It was advertised in Guitar player and keyboard for about a year before >it > came out, and reviewed in all those magazines. I think everybody had a > chance to learn about it. Just not that many were interested in getting a > looper. The market size is finite, yet growing slowly. > > > > > I still would have bought two, and somebody else > > > would have bought yours. They might still be here if they had done that. > > > They essentially gave money away with each one they sold. > > > >They scrapped their entire product line in favor of this one nitch >market > >product. It seems poor planning to toss out the bread and butter before your > >flagship product is doing really well, much less before it was even released. > > it sounded like desperation to me. Liquidate everything in a last ditch > effort to get cash. One major mistake they made, related to another thread, > is not realizing just how hard it is to develop a functional looper. They > had no idea what they were getting into and didn't devote enough >resources > or time to it. So it was a year late, and they ran out of money. > > > My > >observation from talking to people is that a lot of them really like the > >idea of > >an advanced looper until they hear the price. At that point they say something > >like "I think I can probably be happy enough with my DL4" or something > >like that. > > if that is all the functions they need and they just want to dabble in > looping a bit, then they are right. They would be happy with the DL4 and > that is what they should buy. Why should they start out with the high-end > product? As they learn more about looping they may start wanting a higher > end product with more features. Then the price of an echoplex might be > worth it to them. > > > > > >That doesn't mean I like it that way. It's just sad to me that more > > people > > > >don't see the point, to where it could sell enough to be a > > > >good selling item. > > > > > > I don't know where you guys get this "poor selling" impression. It sells > > > great, given the size of the market. I certainly wouldn't mind if 100 > > times > > > more units got sold. Then I could get my car. But that requires expanding > > > the market, not lowering the price. Better visibility and wider > > interest in > > > looping would do that. Hopefully those things will come. > > > >One mechanism for expanding your market, if there's public interest, is in > >pricing a product where your customers can afford it. > > Well, that's what I've been trying to point out. It is priced where the > customers can afford it. That's why they keep selling all of them. > > kim > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > Kim Flint | Looper's Delight > kflint@loopers-delight.com | http://www.loopers-delight.com > >