Gano, Ken wrote:
>
> The economic theory here is flawed. Yes, the current stock may go cheap,
> but the lack of competition and the loss of another source (particularly
> one marketing unique or otherwise unobtainable parts) can ONLY serve to
> drive prices up in the long term.
This is quite likely true, Ken. A case in point--while what I describe
is a different market, the rules still apply. I work for a large transit
bus manufacturer. Each transit bus manufacturer attempts to supply spare
parts from their own resources for their own product, with varying
degrees of success. A small number of manufacturers attempt to supply
parts for as many makes as possible, including their own. Until
recently, there were two majors in the market--our authorized parts
supplier, and another run by another manufacturer. That other
manufacturer, through very shoddy business practices, went bankrupt.
Our authorized supplier bid against us (it's a long story--our
authorized supplier has a five-year non-competitive agreement with us
arising out of terms of sale of our company to new owners) in bankruptcy
court for the defunct manufacturer's parts operation and won. Now this
very large parts supplier to the market has a virtual lock on the
business, and prices are already going up and service may, in fact, be
worse than it was from them previously. And, since the defunct
manufacturer's no longer building buses, the new owners of their parts
operation have a captive market. Sound familiar? <g>
I see three principal domestic suppliers mentioned on the list: TRF,
Moss, and VB. It is reasonable to suggest, as you do above, that were
one of those to submerge, that it would not induce greater competition.
In fact, the prices would probably rise. One is a good deal more careful
about one's back in a three-way gunfight than one would be with only one
opponent.
> I haven't seen the flyer causing the current ruckus, but how professional
> can it be to air credit problems with your customers?
Not very, I think, with reservations. It's commendable to be honest
about difficulties, and to describe the means by which those
difficulties are being solved. I see lots of the former, and little of
the latter. That might be why the tone of TRF's letters in this list
seem a bit desperate.
> I purchase from TRF,
> but only because they are not the 800 lbs gorilla in the market, I like
> their credit card policy and they put on a good bash in the summer. I
> would probably buy a lot more with they had a useable catalog and didn't
> attempt to put some sort of fairy tale spin on everything they touched.
Funny thing... some people I know swear by TRF, but I haven't bought
anything from them yet. I read a message here recently which said the
writer had been told by TRF that only existing customers would receive
current catalogs... guess that means I won't be buying anything from
them in the future.
I've been writing and producing parts books or associated with that part
of our business for six years, and from that work, it seems almost too
simple to say that if I don't know a part number, I can't order a part
with the reasonable expectation of getting that for which I ask. And one
has to have a catalog for that.
Everyone is looking for ways to trim costs--VB does their catalogs in
newsprint. Fairly cheap to produce. Moss catalogs are slicker and more
expensive--that always makes me think such a presentation is reflected
in the parts costs (and they have no GT6 catalog, or didn't the last
time I checked).
What do TRF's catalogs look like? TeriAnn Wakeman makes frequent
reference to "glovebox" catalogs--are these composed of frequently-used
service parts only (belts, hoses, points, plugs, etc.)? This makes me
wonder if, in fact, there aren't many parts available from TRF for
specialty niches such as late TR3As and Bs, as TeriAnn suggests. Folks
can't buy what is not offered. That seems a terribly simple truism in
the American business world. If the management of TRF hasn't figured
that out, then they may not fare well in the future. Which I think would
be to the detriment of the consumers.
> Waiting for the flames.
Flames, Ken? Here? Nahhhh. <g>
Cheers.
--
My other Triumph doesn't run, either....
|