Re: Brand Loyalty - A little controversy


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Jay Bertolet on July 20, 2000 at 16:02:17:

In Reply to: Brand Loyalty - A little controversy posted by Daryl Hickman on July 20, 2000 at 13:55:41:

Good question!

First, the automotive example you gave actually provides the answer to the question you pose. Car manufacturers are now required to disclose what percentage of a car is made or assembled in a specific location.

And the reasons would be the same for tubas. Buyers should know who manufactures their instrument. But sellers don't want to disclose that either because there is a negative stigma attached to that knowledge or because a positive stigma means that buyers will buy the stencil horn, presumably for cheaper, rather than the top line horn.

For example, if you knew that a Kia Sonata was made by the same factory as made Mercedes Benz autos, would you be nervous about purchasing the Kia? If you had a reasonable expectation of the two cars having even a similar level of quality, would it be worth it to shell out $35,000+ instead of $10,000? I see the stencil game this same way. If that tuba Joe S. sold (or didn't sell) on eBay was indeed a Rudolf Meinl product, I bet the factory would not want anybody to know that considering the difference in price between that tuba and their standard production line. Especially if the two tubas were virtually identical except for the name, which is the case with many of the Cervany stencil horns.

Despite the ramifications to their business, I think tuba manufacturers have an ethical obligation to disclose where (and who) makes a tuba that bears their name. Otherwise, their name doesn't really mean much.

My opinion for what its worth...


Follow Ups: