On 2007-07-01 12:31:42 +0100, ":Jerry:" said:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message
...
On 2007-07-01 10:32:42 +0100, ":Jerry:"
said:



Even a straw man argument can be clearly explained, it doesn't
change
the basic merit of the argument used!

Possibly not. I think that there is plenty of merit or I wouldn't
have made the point.


Obviously, otherwise you would be trolling,

I'm not trolling at all. In that sense, the boot is on the other foot
for the suggestion that the perfectly well presented discussion points
are straw man. They are not.


but it still doesn't
change the fact

Your point is an opinion, like mine. Neither are presented as fact.


that much of your arguments fail into the straw man
castigatory.

Nope.

It isn't an issue of snobbery, but of making correct business
decisions by manufacturer and customer.

Yes, and allowing a chain store to market the product as unbranded is
not always bad,

It wouldn't have been but for the following two points:

- There are large numbers of Chinese generic tools on the market that
each look almost the same apart from a few tweaks here and there. As
a result, the mass market has become desensitised and the unbranded --
branded strategy is no longer of much use

- Kress has nothing really innovative to offer and so it would be
difficult for any selling points to be transfered and recognised in
going from unbranded to branded.



the German name "Kress" is to close to 'Krass' (with
the obvious English overtones)

I hadn't really noticed that, and I am not sure that I would have done,
or indeed that a lot of punters would either. OTOH, a product name of
Sparky sounds more like a make of cheap toy.


but if the same products are introduced
as an own brand but then later 'acquire' the "Kress" label people will
associate the shape and colour with the successful own brand IYSWIM.

I think that that would be a very long shot given the market conditions.




Creating and maintaining a brand purely on form without substance
obviously goes nowhere and it should be obvious from my comments
about functionality, accuracy, ergonomics and servicability that I
am very much talking about substance.

Which are all relative to what the tool will be asked to do, who will
be using it, how and were it will be used - someone who is up
scaffolding doesn't want a limited battery life on a coreless drill,
someone who is using the same drill for 8 hrs a day will want
something with good ergonomics and serviceability, someone drilling
holes that have to line up with a mating part will want accuracy, OTOH
someone doing a bit of DIY will probably only want functionality

Wrong assumption. "Doing a bit of DIY" does not mean that ergonomics,
servicability, accuracy and usability fall by the wayside. This is
the same incorrect logic that because something is for DIY it should be
cheap.


[1] -
that might even inclued what professionals think gimmicks (such as a
laser line, built in spirit-level or battery level LEDs). Non of the
above makes for a good or bad tool, only if they can do the *work
intended*, by the purchaser, within the *intended market* the
manufacture sold it in.

[1] it might not matter if the battery life isn't that great, they
won't be using the drill continually that they risk suffering from
blisters or the gear train over-heating and needing servicing nor that
the hole for hanging the picture is 3mm out of line to the marked
point.

Under many circumstances an error in positioning of 3mm results in
worthless job. This is using the argument that because it's DIY,
accuracy doesn't matter. Accuracy is accuracy whether a professional
is doing the work or anybody else.





Unfortunately, these are not enough. It's possible to build
perfectly good products. However, without the ability to
manufacture at the right cost point and to have the routes to
market, it goes nowhere and will ultimately fail.

Yes and DeWalt are just as capable of falling foul of that as Pro
Tools or B&D are, which is probably why they are now found in B&Q and
not jut trade outlets.

If you read the analyst reports, you will learn that the branded tool
manufacturers are placing product in B&Q etc. in order to maintain and
grow market share. This is precisely because they have worked out
that there is a certain, albeit small, amount of trade business in them.

Why do you think that the three major manufacturers have all gone into this?




Good market communications, product marketing and channel marketing
are essential to achieve the routes to market but unfortunately cost
a lot of money.

This is why I make the point about small manufacturers in western
Europe with high cost base, inadequate marketing and little or no
product differentiation trying to compete with the big boys. It
isn't a winning proposition, no matter how good the product might
be.


Except that the largest market for these small manufacturers is within
the easiest market to enter, the DIY market, not the difficult trade
arena.

You have got to be joking. The easier market to enter would be that
with good margins and where the manufacturer can have some USPs. Fein
has done this very effectively with their oscillating technology,
protected with a raft of patents and by selling into the upper market.

The "DIY" supermarket category is as cut throat as it gets. Products
have a model lifetime of ten minutes before the next gimmick is
required, it's a numbers game with retailers wanting hefty margins and
the manufacturer taking all the risk with returns. This is the market
of the volume Chinese production houses, not the small European
manufacturer.