#21
|
||||
|
||||
The last hard figure for gross sales I had was $40m.
I believe they do not count Chinese workers at all in any of the figures. The cost shift era of globalization is winding down. It costs more to rent an office in Hong Kong or Shang Hai than New York. If I had one wish, it would be for a company already in the hobby distribution channel such as AT or Quest, to co-op add smaller vendors to the flow. Jerry |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Very interesting idea. Hadn't really thought of that. Most of the mainliners want to just re-badge the product. It would work, up to a point. What do you do when the co-op'd product starts out-selling the main vendor??
__________________
Bravo52 -------- Jerry Little TRA #11767 Level 1 |
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
The main vendor smiles all the way to the bank. Besides that, a rising tide lifts all ships. Near as I can tell it takes a fat old man to realize that. Jerry |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Jerry, If I'm understanding your concept here, it's basically that one vendor -- whichever one already has the equipment and the labor force -- acts as the manufacturer for themselves and a collection of the smaller design houses. They combine all of the purchases of resources to get the lowest price-per-unit, and do as much of the labor as needed to package up the products. Each house gets to keep its own "personality" and name brand, but all are sold to the distribution channel as if they were equally as large a name brand as the manufacturing group. The profit delivered to the smaller houses would be proportional to however much of the final work they provide themselves. The manufacturer group collects a percentage of the final profits and distributes the remainder to the smaller house. Am I close to what you have in mind?
__________________
Craig McGraw BARCLONE Rocketry -- http://barclone.rocketshoppe.com BARCLONE Blogsite -- http://barclone.wordpress.com BARCLONE Forum -- BARCLONE Forum BARs helping BARs SAM 0044 AMA 352635 |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You are not serious?
__________________
Angelo Castellano Sunward Group Limited www.sunward1.com www.sunwardhobbies.ca info@sunward1.com CAR S573 L2 TRA 11312 L1 NAR 87131 www.facebook.com/sunwardrockets |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Yes but I presume each brand would manufacture and package locally and ship en-masse to the distributor drop-ship style. (the publisher) Here's 2 reasons why this would work. 1. 40/25/10 (zero labor to main) 2. The main sells motors. 3. See #2 4. 60% of kits are never built, under 15% of motors are never flown. Jerry Last edited by Jerry Irvine : 04-11-2009 at 10:07 PM. |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Probably over 90% of Estes sized rockets are flown in back yards, football fields, baseball fields, soccer fields, etc. by just one, two, or maybe three people. Assuming they find out about the NAR (most probably never do), they either don't have a local club, or don't care to be involved with one. They don't see a need for NAR benefits, therefore the $62 seems astronomical. Even if they thought they might like the magazine, it would still be astronomical. Sure, $62 is a drop in the bucket compared to what some people spend on things now days, but most people buying rockets from WalMart wouldn't spend the extra money for the membership.
__________________
I love sanding. |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
Agreed. That's why I proposed the $9.95 "crippled membership", which for all practical purposes causes someone to pay you ten bucks to capture their name, in exchange for a magazine, a crippled membership and crippled benefits.
As for the concatenated brands, with drop shipping to distributors and gathered order process, that pretty much describes Amazon.com. Dude, there used to be an entire company that sold shock cord mounts! I would settle for a $4.95 crippled NAR membership personally. Jerry |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Growing up in the 70's, I had very limited money for rockets. Early on, I think I spent maybe $15-20 the whole year and only was able to fly once or twice a year out in the pasture. I would have liked the NAR membership and magazine, but I just couldn't afford it. I didn't need any of the benefits, so I never joined until I was in my 20's. If there had been a crippled version, just the magazine and a feeling of belonging to something for just a few dollars, I might have gone for it. The crippled NAR membership number could begin with an asterisk or a letter to signify no benefits if the NAR wanted to do it. It might increase membership numbers, and increase magazine sales, but a considerable percentage of current members might switch and total membership income might even decrease.
__________________
I love sanding. |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I'm pretty sure NAR could afford to issue a real number (incenting you to renew it some day), ONE magazine, even if were a special annual "free membership issue", and the "right" to contact a local club by email at zero cost to anybody, and for only $0.02 more an invitation to a local launch where you can see "big ass rockets and motors flown"! A 100% membership (3500) decrease from 12 issues to one on the magazine would barely be a blip in revenue compared to 1% of Estes customers sending money at $4.95 crippled and 5% renewal @$62. Just "marketing" Jerry Armchair rocketeers never cancel. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|