Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Forum What's A Name Worth??

Many (if not most) of the old names have owners already. If one wanted a particular name, research would be required to find out to whom the name belongs and for what the owner would be willing to sell it (if, of course, the owner is willing to part with it).

Even if a name is not currently owned, using a now-defunct piano brand name for purposes of misleading the public could be very problematic. There are, of course, good reasons to use an old manufacturer's name, but misleading the public is not one of them.

Are you Saying that Samick, Young Chang, Pearl River, Gibson, Baldwin,Wurliter, Yamaha, and the designed by Steinway Series are misleading the public?? If A Company gives a accurate historical timeline of the brand, and makes it clear the transparent truthful facts about the current product line Are you saying That this is misleading? Young Chang Built Grands for Baldwin And Wurlitzer. Was this Misleading?? Larry Fine reports that Samick Has developed or is developing from old engineering records the Wm Knabe line. It is said that they are even shiping back old Knabe Models for Further Product Development. Is This Misleading the Public?? Does a Company not have the right to develope new product specifications or totaly new product designs. Can a company not change it's manufacturing location??

Baldwin (now part of the Gibson family of brands) DID change it's manufacturing location and is one of the few American companies to do it that way. Companies like Samick, Young Chang and Pearl River have never hid the fact that they are Asian companies. Other names like Kohler and Campbell, Knabe and Wurlitzer are where the confusion comes in. These are names that are purchased and used on instruments that have little or nothing to do with the original companies. Persoanlly, as a classic Knabe owner, I'm glad the Samick is trying to reproduce the Knabe line by going back to the Knabe roots and recreating the piano from there, but it's hardly a matter of Knabe moving its manufacturing location. When Aolean took over Knabe, Mason and Hamlin and Chickering those companies ceased to exist except on a fallboard. Is the new Mason the same as the old Mason and was the old Mason the same as the really old Mason? The irony is that the new Mason is probably closer to the really old Mason than just the old Mason.

All I am saying is that it is misleading to say that a piano was made in the USA if it was not made in the USA. This is true with any product in any genre. If a salesperson induces a person to buy a piano by saying that the piano was made in the USA, and the piano was made elsewhere, it is misleading.

That is ALL I am saying. Of course the truthful sharing of truthful information is not misleading.

A few years ago I consulted a piano manufactuer that was in the process of buying rights to a reasonably well known brand name.

I can't reveal the details but the name sold in the mid 5 figure range.

Thank-You Steve that's what I Was currious about. Marty thanks for your thoughts as well

So a reasonably well known mid level company name would go for around $50,000 give or take as of a few years ago in Steve Cohen's personal experience. Sounds like a deal. Of course when you buy a name you buy the good and bad part of the name. Anybody want to snatch up Lester while the gettin' is good?

It is. See Rich's post for a great example of some of the things you are paying for when you buy a Steinway. He brings up quite a few areas of "branding" that I did not mention.

My basic point is, within a certain small margin, the cost of materials, and the labor costs, and the machine costs, and the warehousing costs, and the distribution costs, etc. are all approximately the same. So the greatest variability in the price of a piano is the actual brand itself.

Now, I also want to address another good point you bring up, which probably amounts for the second greatest variability in cost: technological capability, specifically during the actual process of manufacturing the piano.

Here, you are absolutely 100% correct. The tighter the specifications, the harder it is to manufacture the piano to those specifications. So, companies with higher tolerances will produce cheaper pianos, and companies with much lower tolerances will produce far more expensive pianos. The tighter the specs, the higher the cost. However, companies also get very good at learning how to do this cheaply over time, because it saves on operating cost. So after a hundred years, most piano companies with big, old, prestigious names should be able to do this in a very cost-effective manner.


Now, I could not say for certain which cost outweighs the other because I'm obviously not privy to all of their itemized internal costs, but after reading through Steinway's annual report a couple of weeks ago, I have to believe that it is branding that costs more than anything else in the retail price of their pianos. I would probably also put Bosendorfer in this category. I must say, the finest piano I ever played was a Bosendorfer, but again, I don't see a $130,000 difference between a Bosendorfer and a Steinway. Or a $200,000 difference between a Bosendorfer and a Boston.

Is there a difference? Absolutely, I agree with you. A Bosendorfer and a Boston are not the same piano. But the biggest difference I can find is the name on the piano.




Rich- Saw your post. Excellent observations. I only chose Steinway in my example because it's the company whose structure I am the most familiar with. I read their entire annual report a couple weeks ago for the "Anybody can afford a piano if they really want to" thread, and I just haven't gotten around to doing so for any other major company in the industry.

These costs are NOT the same. In some factories the instruments are hand-made by highly skilled labor, while in other the "labor" is done by CNC. Labor rates at Steinway as well as in Germany are exponetially higher than in China or Indonesia.



If a factory is using CNC, often tight specs are far less expensive than the same task performed by skilled labor.
Manufacturing any of the top tier pianos is far more expensive than manufacturing a more mass-produced product. Labor costs per piano are FAR greater in a hand-made piano.

Steve - wait!

Are you saying that it actually costs Fazioli significantly more to produce their F212 grand than it does Sejung to manufacture a Falcone 208?

Is that what you are saying???

Jeez. Knock me over with a feather.

You bring up a very good point that I had not specifically included. Thank you.

Let's look at it: if I understand what you are saying correctly, in purchasing a top-tier piano, what we are actually purchasing is an outdated method of manufacture that is far more expensive than more modern forms of manufacture, but not necessarily any better. Do I have that correct?

Derulux: I hope that you are not seriously arguing that paying people a decent salary to make glorious pianos is outdated. I also hope that you are not seriously arguing that a Fazioli, Steinway, or Bosendorfer is "not necessarily any better" than the cheapest mass-produced piano. And just think what your arguments would mean for the luthiers of the world!

I apologize if I have had a sense of humor failure here. It is hard to tell from your posts whether you mean it or not. I am inclined to think that Steve Cohen is correct in taking you seriously and in his response to your remarkable implication that labor costs are the same all over the world, and it is hard to imagine that anyone could neglect this fact and make any argument that depends on such a profoundly ignorant view.

Sure - you have it correct....except for the part about "not necessarily any better." Case in point - Kawai RX series vs. Shigeru Kawai.

According to Larry Fines pianobook, after a certain point costs increase dramatically for even tiny improvements in quality. Therefore, pianos that strive for quality above a pricepoint are going to be dramatically more expensive. According to Steinways own advertising, they strive to make the best piano possible and sell it at a price consistant to the quality. Many companies strive for price point above quality. There has been a good bit of talk here about Hailun and if they were able to produce a piano that would compete with the best of the best. That's not the reason for Hailuns existance. They are meeting their goals just as they are, making a decent piano at an affordable price. That's much different than Steinway, Bosendorfer, Fazoli, Ravenscroft, Stewart and Sons, etc. To say that a Steinway, or Fazoli uses out of date manufacturing is a total mischaraterization. A more accurate statement would be, Steinway and other top tier companies use artisan hand labor and a lot of it.

I've never understood how Mason & Hamlin can still claim, with a straight face, to be Made in the USA, given that their iron plates, piano actions, and the cases for their uprights are not.

Mike

It was not ignorance, my friend. It was simply a lack of addressing the entire topic in my original post. I admit this discussion has gone directions I did not intend or foresee, but I am happy to indulge. I have thought this through thoroughly, but I'd rather not post a book in the forum, so I try to stick to one topic at a time. However, the issue is so deeply complex, that I can see how it might come off that way. For that, I do apologize. The last thing that I am (or desire to be) is ignorant. I am the first person to either A) admit I don't know something, or B) stand corrected when someone does correct one of my inaccurate facts. (I actually do research nearly all of them before I post.)

Yes, I intend the train of thought to be serious and also coherent (which, per above, it might be a little short). I feel very strongly that there are some entrenched ideals that are completely challengeable and I am simply doing that. I understand if it is not a popular sentiment; I simply hope I bring up some thoughts people may not have considered before.


Since you bring it up, let's discuss decent salary. The technicians make one. The executives (which I have previously mentioned) do not. I would never begin to insinuate we should take a dollar or a dime away from a technician whose job is vital to the instrument. I do believe executives are egregiously overpaid.

Herein lies a conundrum, a paradox if you will. In order to make the piano more affordable to the American consumer, we must do one of two things: manufacture them where it is cheaper to do so, or mechanize and automate the process. This will allow the companies to sell the piano cheaper. However, manufacture overseas takes away American jobs and American income, so unless that person can find another job, the end might not be exactly what the means intended. (See reason #374 on this list of "why are we in a recession right now")

So, my original argument is rather simple: I have stated in the beginning that what you pay for firstly and mostly in a top tier piano is the brand, the name. This is, by the way, common of all brand-name products and luxury goods. I had thought this would be an accepted fact, but it has been very surprising to see the number of people who do not know this or believe it. Everything else about the products can be done for nearly the same cost. These companies simply choose not to. A "handmade" instrument is a luxury good, and can be charged at a luxury price. No one would pay $135k for a machine-made Steinway or $175+k for a Bosendorfer if it was machine-made. Can a machine make it? I don't doubt it. They make just as intricate products in other industries. Should a machine make it? This is a different conversation entirely, and one I did not initially mean to entertain because it is more subjective..

I hope this helps to clear up some of the things I have been saying?



Translation: marketing. I'm not saying they don't accomplish what they set out to accomplish; Steinways are fine pianos. But this is a marketing line.


Translation: they can charge more. This is a common tactic of a luxury good producer in order to raise prices and, as a result, increase margin. Make fewer of them. Make them "hand made". Do this, and you can charge a fortune IF your brand name is consistent with your desired image.

Just like Charles Walter has the audacity to claim that their instruments are made in the USA because they use Renner actions and Kluge keys.

Both M&H and CW pianos are assembled in the USA. As long as QUALITY standards are maintained, who really cares where some of the parts come from. Well - apparently YOU care !!

Derulux, my friend, I am sure you are quite a nice fellow, but may I remind you that you said this:

"My basic point is, within a certain small margin, the cost of materials, and the labor costs, and the machine costs, and the warehousing costs, and the distribution costs, etc. are all approximately the same. So the greatest variability in the price of a piano is the actual brand itself."

And this is simply wrong. Sorry, it is just wrong.

You are correct in stating that luxury goods carry larger dollar margins than other goods (typically) - perhaps not larger percentage margins however, mind you. And specifically in the case of Steinway the largest dollar gross margin (and percentage margin) goes to the dealer - not the factory. That is just a fact. And that is due to marketing, in that you are correct.

I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but aren't you the person who attempted to "analyze" the Steinway annual report for us just a short time ago? I hate to tell you this but your "facts" were quite a bit off the mark. As the old saying goes - "Don't quit your day job"

Hello, there. I certainly hope that I am an agreeable person, but I leave that up to others' perception. I am perfectly fine disagreeing with someone, and do so quite often on subjective matters. However, I tend to do one of two things when people misquote facts: get roiled up or walk away. I know I should just walk away every time, and this is why: "Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with expertise." (I thought you might appreciate the saying, since you used one of your own.) But I don't always do it.

Now then, you are correct. I did say that. I amended it in a later post (I am not above amending or changing statements as they are corrected/brought into new light), but that seems to have been ignored. So, I will attempt to do so again.

I said this:


For clarity's sake, everyone would be correct in saying I probably should have said this:


With that subtle change in wording, the rest of my diatribe would seem to hold. However, as I said, some people have brought up good discussion, and I enjoy it. So I hope we don't stop here..

One more saying, this one to counter yours: "If I agreed with you, we'd both be wrong."

"Are all" and "Should all be" are entirely different concepts and change the whole premise.

As pointed out often, labor costs are a significant factor and subject to many complex factors.

Material costs "are all" or "should all be" applies to neither premise. Check the costs of graded lumber and you will find significant differences.

The Steinway 'brand' has proven itself to be one of the very finest pianos ever built. It is able to command the price. It is sold in a free market economy. What any given product is "worth" is more than the sum, monetarily, of its parts. I use "parts" to include more than just the components which comprise any given piano.