How to save Harley Davidison
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Proper oil for cruisers
Next: 9-11 was an inside job.
From: S'mee on 13 Jul 2010 10:27 On Jul 13, 6:37 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 7/13/2010 2:20 AM, The Older Gentleman wrote: > > > > > > > don (Calgary)<hd.f...(a)telus.net> wrote: > > >> I am the last one to condone governments messing with the free market, > >> but it wasn't a free market. > > > For bikes, it was. > > >> The Japanese had already screwed it up. > >> They had used similar techniques in the past to dominate the consumer > >> electronic product business. > > > Non sequitur. "Because they did it here" does *not* mean "They did it > > there". "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" still holds good. > > > The Japanese did not screw over HD's business. They weren't even making > > the same sorts of bikes[1]. They had a zillion different models and > > (unsurprisingly) a lot of consumers decided they'd rather be riding a > > big bike that didn't shake itself to bits all the time. Or they just > > preferred the Japanese style. Or they just didn't like HD's style. > > Or they wanted motorcycles made by a motorcycle company and not a > bowling-pin-setter company. and not a very good at that job either. IIRC
From: Beav on 13 Jul 2010 10:25 "tomorrow(a)erols.com" <tomorrowaterolsdotcom(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. -- Beav
From: TOG on 13 Jul 2010 10:39 On 13 July, 13:33, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Yep. Because they, like the American consumer electronics industry, > thought they ruled the world and found out that they didn't. And they > _still_ have refused to diversify their product line. > I think this is a key factor. "It's been good enough since 1908, so it's still good enough" is understandable arrogance, but arrogance nonetheless, especially in today's world where the pace of change is so much faster. BMW realised it had to diversify its range. Triumph realised it before BMW which (I believe) may have given BMW a bit of a wake-up call. Remember Triumph's stillborn Hayabusa-beater that just missed production? And then there's Ducati... *Sigh* Much as I love Ducati, I think they've got to move the same way. More entry-level bikes. I think the new Multistrada is a good styart - it's the first Duke that I've seriously considered buying since I bought my 750SS in 1997. I probably will buy one, actually. Ducati so *nearly* fell into the same hole as HD has.
From: tomorrow on 13 Jul 2010 10:48 On Jul 13, 10:39 am, "TOG(a)Toil" <totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On 13 July, 13:33, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > Yep. Because they, like the American consumer electronics industry, > > thought they ruled the world and found out that they didn't. And they > > _still_ have refused to diversify their product line. > > I think this is a key factor. "It's been good enough since 1908, so > it's still good enough" is understandable arrogance, but arrogance > nonetheless, especially in today's world where the pace of change is > so much faster. > > BMW realised it had to diversify its range. Triumph realised it before > BMW which (I believe) may have given BMW a bit of a wake-up call. > Remember Triumph's stillborn Hayabusa-beater that just missed > production? > > And then there's Ducati... > > *Sigh* > > Much as I love Ducati, I think they've got to move the same way. More > entry-level bikes. I think the new Multistrada is a good styart - it's > the first Duke that I've seriously considered buying since I bought my > 750SS in 1997. I probably will buy one, actually. Ducati so *nearly* > fell into the same hole as HD has. Ducati would certainly like to haved the market position, sales history, and brand recognition that Harley has. In fact, they have been trying strenuously for at least the last ten years to emulate Harley in many ways. Just look at their Monster ads for an example!
From: Vito on 13 Jul 2010 11:25
J. Clarke wrote: >> On 7/12/2010 11:32 PM, don (Calgary) wrote: >>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:39:47 -0700, sean_q_<nospam(a)no.spam> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Bail-out or not? Other factors aside, the answer depends a lot >>>> on your views on government intervention in a "free" market. >>> >>> I am the last one to condone governments messing with the free >>> market, but it wasn't a free market. The Japanese had already >>> screwed it up. They had used similar techniques in the past to >>> dominate the consumer electronic product business. >> >> What techniques, making a better and more technologically advanced >> product? >> No, by government subsidizing of products that didn't sell. |