How to save Harley Davidison
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Proper oil for cruisers
Next: 9-11 was an inside job.
From: TOG on 13 Jul 2010 12:14 On 13 July, 16:03, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: <snip> > > 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? This is pretty much it. This is the sort of soul-searching that the British industry went through in the 1970s. Twenty years before, British bikes had ruled the roost. And then it all evaporated. The Japanese succeeded because they made bikes that were better engineered, better built, better priced, better equipped and better sold. They were just better. People ought to have learned to live with it by now, because bleating is senseless. The Japs did it better. Oh, and then they discovered how to build cars...
From: J. Clarke on 13 Jul 2010 13:41 On 7/13/2010 12:14 PM, TOG(a)Toil wrote: > On 13 July, 16:03, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > <snip> >> >> 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? > > This is pretty much it. This is the sort of soul-searching that the > British industry went through in the 1970s. Twenty years before, > British bikes had ruled the roost. And then it all evaporated. > > The Japanese succeeded because they made bikes that were better > engineered, better built, better priced, better equipped and better > sold. They were just better. People ought to have learned to live with > it by now, because bleating is senseless. Yep. The media message in the '60s was "you meet violent drug-addled lunatics on a Harley". The media didn't say much about Honda so their ad campaign "You meet the nicest people on a Honda" was very successful in establishing the Honda brand as something friendly for _nice_ people and even OK for your kid to ride to school. Of course Harley at the time hadn't quite grasped the notion of mass-market advertising--you'd see Harley ads in motorcycle magazines but I don't ever recall seeing one on TV in those days. > The Japs did it better. Oh, and then they discovered how to build > cars... And in 2010 that same loose collection of rubble picking bicycle shop owners is the fourth largest _car_ manufacturer in the US and the sixth largest in the world, and _the_ largest manufacturer of _engines_. And now Honda is picking GE's brains on making jet engines. But Harley soldiers along with their little limited production run of V-twins.
From: tomorrow on 13 Jul 2010 14:12 On Jul 13, 11:21 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > 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. Agree with the last sentence, but disagree that American Machine and Foundry's (AMF) major profit maker was those pin stters. From Wikipedia's history of AMF: "By 1961, AMF controlled and operated 42 plants and 19 research facilities scattered across 17 countries, producing everything from remote-controlled toy airplanes to ICBM launching systems. AMF was the builder of the launching silos for the Titan and Atlas ICBMs, and also developed the rail-car launching system for the solid-fueled Minuteman ICBM. In the late 1950s and early 1960s the company ran neck-and-neck with General Dynamics in the construction of nuclear power reactors." Oh yeah, they made automated bowling pin-setters, too. And today, that is their sole remaining business line. And they owned Harley-Davidson from 1969 to 1981.
From: tomorrow on 13 Jul 2010 14:18 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. 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. Others may have different opinions, of course.
From: The Older Gentleman on 13 Jul 2010 14:25
tomorrow(a)erols.com <tomorrowaterolsdotcom(a)yahoo.com> wrote: <snip> > > > > Non sequitur. "Because they did it here" does *not* mean "They did it > > there". "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" still holds good. > > However, it did provide a pattern of marketplace behavior that U.S. > (and other countrys) trade officials could (and did) consider in their > trade relations with Japan. And it almost certainly contributed to > the U.S. decision to impose the tariff on imported motorcycles over > 700cc in engine displacement. Possibly. If so, that was wrong. But the US has a long history of ignoring trade rules when it suits it. I really don't need to give examples. <snip> > > Certainly there were plenty of customers for Japanese big bikes. > However, that was not enough for the Japanese manufacturers. In fact, > sales figures showed that Harley-Davidson sales (though already > declining at the time for many of the reasons that you cite) suffered > disproportionately when the Japanese began selling their liter bikes > at prices below their own cost to make them, and warehoused tens of > thousands of bikes in 1981 and 1982, only to flood the market with > them at as little as 40% of their original msrp in late 1982, 1983, > and 1984. Even for people who might have been predisposed to buy a > Harley simply because it was American-made, that may well have > provided enough reason to switch. Yes, but you don't know *why* the market was flooded. it wasn't a deliberate attempt to dump. It really wasn't. <snip> > Because, ostensibly, the Japanese VASTLY overestimated the sales > growth curve of large displacement motorcycles in the U.S. based on > sales from 1978 through 1980, and produced approximately 1.5 times as > many motorcycles as the market could bear in 1981, 1982, and 1983. Partial reason. There was another, bigger one. I'm still waiting for someone to identify it. > > Rather suspicious is the fact that those very conservative companies > had NEVER made that mistake in the past, did NOT make that mistake in > Europe or Asia at the time, and have never REPEATED that mistake since > then. It's enough to make one wonder if it was, indeed, a mistake at > all. No, they made a single crucial mistake and have been smart enough not to make it since. <snip> > > Oh, it's a very successful American MOTORCYCLE company right now. > It's just not a particularly successful American FINANCING company > right now! ;-) Heh. That made me grin. It's probably true, too. <snip> > > Notice that those models now compete against their H-D competitors on > the basis of MERIT, since they cost very nearly the same as the Harley > models that they compete against? The new Honda Shadow RS, a DIRECT > competitor to the base 883cc Harley Sportster, does not sell for 1/3 > the price of the Sportster. In fact, it lists for MORE than the price > of the base Sportster. In 1981 the US dollar was worth 221 yen. Today it's worth 92. I think that is *far* more likely to be the cause of the rise in price of a Honda Shadow against a Harley, don't you? -- 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 |