How to save Harley Davidison
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Proper oil for cruisers
Next: 9-11 was an inside job.
From: Vito on 13 Jul 2010 11:28 J. Clarke wrote: >> On 7/13/2010 2:20 AM, The Older Gentleman wrote: >>> don (Calgary)<hd.flhr(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. Or they wanted a brand new bike for $thousands less than MSRP had been a year or two ago with the Japanese government subsidizing the loss.
From: J. Clarke on 13 Jul 2010 11:03 On 7/13/2010 10:25 AM, Beav wrote: > > > "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. 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?
From: J. Clarke on 13 Jul 2010 11:21 On 7/13/2010 9:59 AM, TOG(a)Toil wrote: > On 13 July, 13:37, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > <snip> > >> Or they wanted motorcycles made by a motorcycle company and not a >> bowling-pin-setter company. > > Oh, that's *harsh* :-) > > Did you know that Norton Villiers Triumph, in the final months before > it went down completely, assembled exercise bicycles? 'Tis true. > Perhaps the sign of when a vehicle manufacturer is really on the brink > is when it starts to make sporting goods. > > <Thinks, and then Googles> > > Thought so. Porsche has made tennis racquets.... But Porsche never belonged to a tennis-racquet company. Back when I was in high school all my friends bowled, so I got dragged to the bowling alley regularly, where the "AMF" logo was prominently displayed at the end of every lane. AMF's major profit maker was those pin setters--Harley was a sideline. In 1981 Harley managed to escape from AMF, but the damage had been done.
From: TOG on 13 Jul 2010 11:57 On 13 July, 15:48, "tomor...(a)erols.com" <tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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! > I think you're forgetting the strength of Ducati in European markets, and especially their home market in Italy. In short, you;re taking a very US-centric view. Markets exist outside North America, you know, and Ducati outsells HD in them. As for brand recognition, Ducati, only a few years ago, was voted the world's top brand by... I forget who. Ducati's image is *incredibly* strong: there really is no other motorcycle builder who is so instantly identified with pure sporting motorcycles, except possibly MV. Just like Harley is instantly identifed with cruising/touring bikes[1]. Finally, if you think Ducati is trying to emulate Harley, you're living in a dream world :-) [1] Or "pig-iron sculptures" as they were once described.
From: TOG on 13 Jul 2010 12:00
On 13 July, 16:25, "Vito" <v...(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote: > J. Clarke wrote: > >> On 7/12/2010 11:32 PM, don (Calgary) wrote: > >>> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:39:47 -0700, sean_q_<nos...(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 I am pretty certain you are wrong here. What happened in the early 1980s was *not* foreseen nor wanted by Japan's government.And it wasn't government subsidies. When products do not sell, you cut the price and clear stocks. It happens *everywhere*. Most recently, I've seen all those 'England' football flags discounted from £1 each to just 10p in a local shop :-)) Is that dumping? No, it's not. Something very odd happened in the Jap bike industry in the early 1980s, and I'm still waiting to see if anyone else here knows what it was. |