How to save Harley Davidison
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Proper oil for cruisers
Next: 9-11 was an inside job.
From: The Older Gentleman on 14 Jul 2010 14:25 tomorrow(a)erols.com <tomorrowaterolsdotcom(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > It only seems odd until you realize that they make far more money (per > bike and overall) on their touring bikes sales in the U.S. (and, > worldwide, but let's stick to the U.S. market, where Harley *HAS* to > succeed before they even think about exports) than BMW does on theirs, > and that if they took every single one of BMW's touring bike sales in > the U.S. as a "conquest" with a newly developed BMW-like touring bike, > they would only increase their own touring bike sales by about 5 > percent, and doing so would cost them hundreds of millions of dollars > of development costs. > > They choose not to because doing so makes no financial, marketing, or > corporate sense whatsoever. > > Hell, I wish they would make all kinds if bikes that I would like, > just as I wish Ducati would make an updated version of the Super Mono. Oh, God, yes! > But fulfilling my wishes and desires doesn't necessarily make > financial sense to those companies, even though I'm probably more > likely to buy their products than 99.99% of all consumers. I think all this is fair comment, actually. But HD *has* to broaden its range. How does it do it, when the world associates it with a single sort of product? Porsche had the same problem. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: J. Clarke on 14 Jul 2010 14:13 On 7/14/2010 12:44 PM, tomorrow(a)erols.com wrote: > On Jul 13, 10:25 am, "Beav"<beavis.origi...(a)ntlwoxorld.com> wrote: >> "tomor...(a)erols.com"<tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:e01615b6-bff3-4b96-912f-95e75f447b3b(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 12, 10:39 pm, sean_q_<nos...(a)no.spam> wrote: >>>> tomor...(a)erols.com wrote: >>>>> What I want to know is how someone can claim that a nation's legal >>>>> response to an illegal trade practice by the company of another >>>>> nation, a legal response that did not put ANY money into Harley- >>>>> Davidson's coffers... >> >>>> Were there any govt loans or any other kind of direct aid such as >>>> subsidies or tax relief? I don't know for sure about this, >>>> but at least one blogger mentions loans. >> >>> There were no subsidies or loans. >> >>>> > ...can be described as a "bail-out" of Harley-Davidson. >> >>>>> It most assuredly was NOT a bail-out. >> >>>> Bail-out or not? Other factors aside, the answer depends a lot >>>> on your views on government intervention in a "free" market. >> >>> I'll echo Calgary's point that with the Japanese companies receiving >>> coordinated Japanese government assitance, and using profits earned >>> (legitimately) in other markets and from other products to subsidize >>> those products which competed with Harley-Davidson in the marketplace, >>> the market was hardly "free" prior to the impositon of the tariff. >> >> I'm interested to know which bikes the Japanese produced were in competition >> with Harley? Until they produced the Harely clones I can't think of one. > > I answered this question elsewhere in the thread. Short answer is > that the Japanese very quickly (1976, 1977, 1978) began making liter > and then liter-plus bikes styled as "cruisers" and "customs," see > Kawaski LTDs and Yamaha Specials and Honda Customs and Suzuki Low > Slingers for examples. Honda had been the largest motorcycle company in the world for 12 years by 1976. So where was Harley for those 12 years?
From: J. Clarke on 14 Jul 2010 14:30 On 7/14/2010 12:39 PM, tomorrow(a)erols.com wrote: > On Jul 13, 3:31 pm, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> On 7/13/2010 2:18 PM, tomor...(a)erols.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jul 13, 11:03 am, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >>>> On 7/13/2010 10:25 AM, Beav wrote: >> >>>>> "tomor...(a)erols.com"<tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:e01615b6-bff3-4b96-912f-95e75f447b3b(a)y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >>>>>> On Jul 12, 10:39 pm, sean_q_<nos...(a)no.spam> wrote: >>>>>>> tomor...(a)erols.com wrote: >>>>>>>> What I want to know is how someone can claim that a nation's legal >>>>>>>> response to an illegal trade practice by the company of another >>>>>>>> nation, a legal response that did not put ANY money into Harley- >>>>>>>> Davidson's coffers... >> >>>>>>> Were there any govt loans or any other kind of direct aid such as >>>>>>> subsidies or tax relief? I don't know for sure about this, >>>>>>> but at least one blogger mentions loans. >> >>>>>> There were no subsidies or loans. >> >>>>>>>> ...can be described as a "bail-out" of Harley-Davidson. >> >>>>>>>> It most assuredly was NOT a bail-out. >> >>>>>>> Bail-out or not? Other factors aside, the answer depends a lot >>>>>>> on your views on government intervention in a "free" market. >> >>>>>> I'll echo Calgary's point that with the Japanese companies receiving >>>>>> coordinated Japanese government assitance, and using profits earned >>>>>> (legitimately) in other markets and from other products to subsidize >>>>>> those products which competed with Harley-Davidson in the marketplace, >>>>>> the market was hardly "free" prior to the impositon of the tariff. >> >>>>> I'm interested to know which bikes the Japanese produced were in >>>>> competition with Harley? Until they produced the Harely clones I can't >>>>> think of one. >> >>>> And I wanna know what other products Honda was making. As for "profits >>>> earned in other markets" why didn't Harley figure out how to use its >>>> profits in the US to play in those "other markets". >> >>>> Harley came into existence in the US in 1903. 45 years later Honda came >>>> into existence. Between 1903 and now Harley has grown to about a 4 >>>> billion dollar a year company. Between 1948 and now Honda has grown to >>>> a 100 billion dollar a year company. Seems to me that Harley's been >>>> sitting on its butt for most of that time while Honda tried a bunch of >>>> different stuff and gone with what worked and dumped what didn't and all >>>> the while worked for a reputation for quality. >> >>>> You can say what you want to about "coordinated Japanese government >>>> assistance" and "using profits earned in other markets" but the fact >>>> remains that a company that in 1948 was a loose confederation of bicycle >>>> shop owners picking over the rubble for the parts to make scooters had >>>> by 1964 become the world's largest motorcycle company. So what was >>>> Harley doing in those 16 years and why wasn't Harley able to do it with >>>> a 45 year head start? >> >>> Different companies pursue different business philosophies; not all of >>> them want to become huge megacorporations whose original core business >>> is merely a sideline for them. >> >> So between 1948 and 1964, what was Honda making besides motorcycles? > > I have no idea, nor do I care. You are the one who argued about "huge megacorporations whose original core business is merely a sideline". In 1964 Honda was the largest motorcycle company in the world. So were they or were they not at that time a "huge megacorporation whose original core business is merely a sideline"? >>> Different countries produce different corporate cultures, and those >>> different cultures result in hugely different corporate practices. >> >> So you're saying that it is inherent in the Japanese culture that >> Japanese companies want to become the largest and most successful >> producers in the world of whatever it is that they make, but in the US >> it is to be a second-rate niche player? > > No, you said that. I said nothing of the kind. So what did you intend? >> You seem to be forgetting that >> once Harley-Davidson was the largest motorcycle manufacturer in the >> world, with subsidiaries and licensees all over the place including Japan. > > I'm not forgetting that. I'm not discussing it, either. Of course not, because there's no way that you _can_ discuss it without recognizing that the market was Harley's to lose and lose it they did. >>> At no point did I claim that Harley-Davidson was a "better" company >>> than Honda (or any other company) nor did I say that people should >>> favor their products over the products of Honda, if they prefer Honda >>> products. >> >> Well, that's the thing, by 1964 far more people, the world over, >> preferred Honda motorcycles to Harley-Davidson. > > I'm aware of that. I'm not discussing that, nor do I have any > interest in it. So what do you have an interest in? >>> All I said was that, in my opnion, the temporary tariffs that the U.S. >>> government placed on certain imported motorcycles with engines >>> displacing over 700cc in response to verified unfair trade practices >>> practiced by some U.S. motorcycle importers did not constitute a "bail- >>> out" of Harley-Davidson. >> >> Harley had been begging for those tariffs for more than 30 years when >> they finally got them. > > Cite, please. <http://www.ianchadwick.com/motorcycles/triumph/time03.html> Read the entry for 1951. >> So I guess that those "verified unfair trade >> practices" were being implemented in 1952 when Honda's major product was >> a 50cc clip-on engine to be attached to a bicycle. > > Why on esrth would you guess somethign like that? Because you are asserting that Harley was demanding protective tariffs due to unfair trade practices. Since they started demanding those tariffs in 1951 in response to unfair trade practices by the Japanese it must have been because they feared an influx of bicycle motors. >> At the time Harley >> claimed that it was Triumph that was "dumping". > > Really? Cite, please. <http://www.ianchadwick.com/motorcycles/triumph/time03.html> Read the entry for 1951. >> That's always been >> Harley's excuse--they can't compete because the other guys are >> "dumping". > > Really? Other than the 1984 tariff, can you provide something to > support that contention? <http://www.ianchadwick.com/motorcycles/triumph/time03.html> Read the entry for 1951. >> And we're going to keep hearing Harley whine about it until >> some hapless Chinese outfit that doesn't know any better is stupid >> enough to buy them out (the Japanese were never quite that dumb). > > Strangely enough, the Japanese companies have been much harder hit by > the current global economic downturn than Harley. Yeah, Honda's profits for 2009 were down to only a quarter of Harley's entire sales. > And just when was the last time Harley "whined" about the Japanese (or > any other) competition? Oh, yeah; it was when they petitioned the > government for relief from the PROVEN unfair trade practices that the > Japanese motorcycle manufacturers were engaged in 26 years ago. After whining about it from 1951 on. > As I said, others may have different opinions. I don't happen to > agree with your opinion. Harley's steadfast resistance to being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century is not a matter of opinion. >
From: J. Clarke on 14 Jul 2010 14:41 On 7/14/2010 12:58 PM, tomorrow(a)erols.com wrote: > On Jul 14, 2:13 am, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older > Gentleman) wrote: >> Beav<beavis.origi...(a)ntlwoxorld.com> wrote: >>> I'm interested to know which bikes the Japanese produced were in competition >>> with Harley? >> >> None, unless you assume that every big bike is a competitor. >> >>> Until they produced the Harely clones I can't think of one. >> >> Nor can I. >> >> But people prefer to believe they've been beaten unfairly. > > But of course, the Japanese WERE gunning for Harley-Davidson in the > early 1980's. The historical record leaves no doubt about that. And, > of course, the Japanese WERE competing unfairly in the U.S. motorcycle > market in the early 1980's. Again, the historical record leaves no > doubt about that. > > And of course, in the U.S. market, the Japanese have been soundly > beaten by Harley-Davidson ever since the playing field was leveled. > The historical record leaves no doubt about that. Uh huh. A less than 50 percent share of one segment of the market is hardly "soundly beaten" and the US market is the _only_ one in which Harley is a significant player. Honda and Yamaha are the #1 and #2 producers of motorcycles in the world, while where is Harley?
From: Beav on 14 Jul 2010 15:13
"tomorrow(a)erols.com" <tomorrowaterolsdotcom(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:30610aee-7bbc-4b1d-af6e-bc68d8a2b2dc(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > Different companies pursue different business philosophies; not all of > them want to become huge megacorporations whose original core business > is merely a sideline for them. > > Different countries produce different corporate cultures, and those > different cultures result in hugely different corporate practices. > > At no point did I claim that Harley-Davidson was a "better" company > than Honda (or any other company) nor did I say that people should > favor their products over the products of Honda, if they prefer Honda > products. > > All I said was that, in my opnion, the temporary tariffs that the U.S. > government placed on certain imported motorcycles with engines > displacing over 700cc in response to verified unfair trade practices > practiced by some U.S. motorcycle importers did not constitute a "bail- > out" of Harley-Davidson. Ok, not a "bail-out". We'll call it a "Life-saver" instead. > > Others may have different opinions, of course. Never! :-) -- Beav |