I wrote :
> I mean, where's the profit if the machine lasts for twenty or thirty years ?
The profit in the above is garnering respect of the consumer and capturing market share for having the best
product of that type out there. Ariens did that. They established their huge market share on the phenomenal
reputation of their machines.
Ah, the good old days... Judging from the history of the Ariens company, found at :
http://www.ariens.com/corporate/aboutus/history.aspx
we probably have Dan Ariens to blame (I bet he went to business school, and if
not his VPs certainly did :-)
The problem as I see it is that the business world has replaced the idea that a good
product is something that is well made and preforms well, with the idea that a good
product is something that can generate a maximum of profit - at the expense of quality
and performance if necessary. A good product is something that sells, not necessarily
something that works and lasts.
Unfortunately for us they don't teach mechanics in business school.
I can't see this philosophy lasting forever. I wonder when the decision was made to
sacrifice quality for quantity. It would be interesting to know if there could have been
a sustainable point on the chart that was reached by maintaining quality, lowering
production and increasing prices instead of lowering quality, increasing production
and lowering prices. I suppose there'd be a problem if it turned out that they would
have had to charge $10,000 for a Pro model. I was expecting to pay close to $3000
for my 9526 (I paid something like $2400 for my 1024 back in 1999) and was surprised
when I found out the price, thinking it was a pretty good deal. Until I found out why.
Here's an article that sort of describes what happened to Ariens :
http://www.mrotoday.com/mro/archives/Cover%20stories/AriensON03.htm
Paul
This message was modified Dec 7, 2008 by pvrp