Levi's at Walmart...my point...read on

[Willow]

I have not posted much these days I have been reading lots not just on this board but many others. What I have noticed is that many speaker companies are selling their products at box stores. My point about Levi's at walmart is : theyare still Levi's made from the same company , yes maybe the lil tab on the back is a different color, but we don't knock someone down cause they bought them at another store and not a Jeans boutique.
There are many speaker makers that make great products, sure they may have a lesser quality product in the box stores but that lesser quality product is by far better than alot of those , hmm how to be polite here.....plastic encased HT systmes than can be purchased for a almost nothing.

To get back to my point now is that I am happy to see quality speaker companies selling their products to the mass market maybe in 100 yrs everyone will have a good system due to the fact that some peeps are intimidated to walk in to the higher end shops wich will sell the same speaker but at a tad highre price due to overhead and other factors.

Now Im not saying get rid of all the high end specialty stores not at all, but good on the companies trying to sell their quality (but budget) speakers to the mass.

I know this may cause lots of posts all I was trying to say was don't beat on the peeps who buy "mass market"

[Jim85IROC]

come on admit it... you buy your Levis at wal mart don't you?

[Worf101]

Levi's has closed it's last factory in North America... Just thought you'd like to know that. As for speakers I buy American, but used American cept for the second unit cheepo BIC America speakers for the bedroom. But I couldn't pay new boutique audio store prices for anything so I don't.

Da Worfster

[RGA]

This is a ludicrous example. You're assuming that Levis was a good brand or better than competitors like Wrangler. The Jeans are the same crap but everyone paid more because of HYPE, Brand Loyalty and Price etc.

It is true that some cheaper speakers are superior to more expensive ones but paying more in a speaker will yield advantages assuming it was designed well.

Wal-mart selling it's equally good no-name brands added with more prestigious jeans from Vercace/Guess etc practically killed Levis forcing them to (GULP!!) lower their prices and go to Walmart. Then Walmart probably squeezed the crap out of Levis on the margins like Walmatrt does to everythig and crippled them some more to the point where if the above poster is correct you won't see Levis ten years from now...if that long.

Polk Audio had a similar product....middle of the road speaker maker not bad not good. Was selling in the high end boutiques - far better British/EURO imports came in and ssome US makers kicked it up as well as Canada and The Boutiques dumped Polk...now they went to Future Shop and dropped the quality - some models are still good "VALUE" speakers - High end they are not.

[paul_pci]

This is a ludicrous example. You're assuming that Levis was a good brand or better than competitors like Wrangler. The Jeans are the same crap but everyone paid more because of HYPE, Brand Loyalty and Price etc.

It is true that some cheaper speakers are superior to more expensive ones but paying more in a speaker will yield advantages assuming it was designed well.

Wal-mart selling it's equally good no-name brands added with more prestigious jeans from Vercace/Guess etc practically killed Levis forcing them to (GULP!!) lower their prices and go to Walmart. Then Walmart probably squeezed the crap out of Levis on the margins like Walmatrt does to everythig and crippled them some more to the point where if the above poster is correct you won't see Levis ten years from now...if that long.

Polk Audio had a similar product....middle of the road speaker maker not bad not good. Was selling in the high end boutiques - far better British/EURO imports came in and ssome US makers kicked it up as well as Canada and The Boutiques dumped Polk...now they went to Future Shop and dropped the quality - some models are still good "VALUE" speakers - High end they are not.

I think the underlying question between your take and Willow's is whether subtle market dynamics (who sells what where and why) will ultimately benefit mass consumers in the end. I think that is something that is really hard to predict. We should not underestimate or pooh-pooh brand loyalty. Faced with a selection between Sony speakers and Polk speakers of the same price, which will the untutored consumer pick? My money is on Sony. I think this can be a very compelling question, Willow, but perhaps impossible to answer, in the end.

[Woochifer]

This is a ludicrous example. You're assuming that Levis was a good brand or better than competitors like Wrangler. The Jeans are the same crap but everyone paid more because of HYPE, Brand Loyalty and Price etc.

It is true that some cheaper speakers are superior to more expensive ones but paying more in a speaker will yield advantages assuming it was designed well.

Wal-mart selling it's equally good no-name brands added with more prestigious jeans from Vercace/Guess etc practically killed Levis forcing them to (GULP!!) lower their prices and go to Walmart. Then Walmart probably squeezed the crap out of Levis on the margins like Walmatrt does to everythig and crippled them some more to the point where if the above poster is correct you won't see Levis ten years from now...if that long.

Polk Audio had a similar product....middle of the road speaker maker not bad not good. Was selling in the high end boutiques - far better British/EURO imports came in and ssome US makers kicked it up as well as Canada and The Boutiques dumped Polk...now they went to Future Shop and dropped the quality - some models are still good "VALUE" speakers - High end they are not.

Good gawd, now you're an expert on the apparel industry as well. For a company that's been around for 150 years and that generates $4 billion a year in sales, Levi's is strugling with the same cost squeeze and massive retail shift that every other mass market apparel manufacturer is caught in. (I analyzed the apparel industry in L.A. a few years ago, so I know a little bit about this subject) Since 1997, the share of retail sales generated through mall-based retailers (which is Levi's main market base) has been cut nearly in half. General merchandise stores like Costco, WalMart, and Target have basically turned the established retail paradigm upside down, and that's why malls are struggling and why Levi's basically had to get into the discount store channel.

If anything, Levi's efforts to maintain their N. American operations and avoid outsourcing until their losses started mounting is what kept the discount chains out of the picture altogether. Only by shifting to those cheap labor production facilities could they produce something low enough in price for WalMart to sell.

Even so, WalMart and Target make up a small proportion of Levi's sales, so I don't see how doing business with WalMart will "cripple" Levi's and put them out of business within 10 years. (I mean, if going into WalMart means that they can't make money, why would they go into that distribution channel in the first place?) If anything, expanding into discount stores stopped the bleeding, and has helped maintain their market share. Your points about them reflect more personal bias than anything close to logical. (Levi Strauss is based in San Francisco, and is one of the city's bigger employers, so their ups and downs get regularly documented in the local press)

The jeans that they sell at WalMart have cosmetic differences in the material and the cut from what gets sold in other department stores. And that's the same kind of between for example a Levi's 560 and a Tommy Hilfiger jean as well -- that and the price. I've looked at the cheaper Lee and Wrangler jeans, but I stick with Levi's simply because those other jeans aren't very flattering, and I don't believe in paying $100 for a pair of designer jeans either (even if the younger market sees value in that).

Fashion is cyclical and for all of the various trends that have knocked Levi's down over the years, they have a uniquely iconic status, which is something you cannot underestimate. Wrangler, Lee, and other competitors do not have the same iconic status that Levi's does, and because of this Levi's always managed to come back despite often boneheaded moves by their mangement. Levi's would'nt have maintained their market position for 150 years if their brand status and consistent product quality didn't mean anything. I mean, how often do you see Jordache, Gloria Vanderbilt, or even Guess jeans anymore? Each of those brands had their moment in the sun, and then faded out when newer designers emerged. If anything, Hilfiger, DKNY, or Versace will give way to other trends long before Levi's goes away.

As far as speakers go, it matters where they are sold only if the process of building the economies of scale necessary to produce product in mass quantity results in erosion of product quality. Or if the process of going mass market results in a shift in the types of products that they are able to distribute. Perfect example of this is JBL, which destroyed its long-established good will and brand loyalty within two product cycles of going mass market. But, that case had a lot to do with dealers dumping the brand en masse, not necessarily because the quality of products that they sold went down but because JBL was now doing business with the enemy. Losing their specialty dealer network meant that they no longer had distribution for their midlevel and flagship speakers, which are too expensive to be sold through mass market stores. And the newer lower priced products that got introduced for the mass merchandisers were inferior to what was formerly sold through specialty dealers. The perception of JBL as mass market junk stems from the fact that their best speakers are not sold in North America, largely because they fumbled away their dealer network.

Yamaha's an example of a brand that was historically able to charge a premium over comparable mass market brands like Pioneer, Technics, Sony, JVC, or Kenwood by maintaining a presence exclusively with specialty retailers and regional chains. They decided to go into Sears and Best Buy about five years ago by rebadging their products with different model numbers and withholding the midlevel and flagship products from the mass merchandisers. So far, they haven't gotten dumped the same way that JBL did in the early-80s, but a couple of the dealers I've talked to are none too happy with Yamaha's strategy and the relationship is somewhat tenuous. Five years in, I haven't really noticed any decline in Yamaha's product quality, but if Yamaha dealers dump the brand like JBL dealers did, then Yamaha could find itself relegated to the entry level market with no outlet for their higher quality offerings.

[omikey]

A sales person in Tweeters told me last week that they are in the process of discontinuing the Boston Accoustics line ..... ;-(

If that's true, I wonder who will carry BA

Anyone else head anything about that ?

[RGA]

Good gawd, now you're an expert on the apparel industry as well. For a company that's been around for 150 years and that generates $4 billion a year in sales, Levi's is strugling with the same cost squeeze and massive retail shift that every other mass market apparel manufacturer is caught in. (I analyzed the apparel industry in L.A. a few years ago, so I know a little bit about this subject) Since 1997, the share of retail sales generated through mall-based retailers (which is Levi's main market base) has been cut nearly in half. General merchandise stores like Costco, WalMart, and Target have basically turned the established retail paradigm upside down, and that's why malls are struggling and why Levi's basically had to get into the discount store channel.

If anything, Levi's efforts to maintain their N. American operations and avoid outsourcing until their losses started mounting is what kept the discount chains out of the picture altogether. Only by shifting to those cheap labor production facilities could they produce something low enough in price for WalMart to sell.

Even so, WalMart and Target make up a small proportion of Levi's sales, so I don't see how doing business with WalMart will "cripple" Levi's and put them out of business within 10 years. (I mean, if going into WalMart means that they can't make money, why would they go into that distribution channel in the first place?) If anything, expanding into discount stores stopped the bleeding, and has helped maintain their market share. Your points about them reflect more personal bias than anything close to logical. (Levi Strauss is based in San Francisco, and is one of the city's bigger employers, so their ups and downs get regularly documented in the local press)

The jeans that they sell at WalMart have cosmetic differences in the material and the cut from what gets sold in other department stores. And that's the same kind of between for example a Levi's 560 and a Tommy Hilfiger jean as well -- that and the price. I've looked at the cheaper Lee and Wrangler jeans, but I stick with Levi's simply because those other jeans aren't very flattering, and I don't believe in paying $100 for a pair of designer jeans either (even if the younger market sees value in that).

Fashion is cyclical and for all of the various trends that have knocked Levi's down over the years, they have a uniquely iconic status, which is something you cannot underestimate. Wrangler, Lee, and other competitors do not have the same iconic status that Levi's does, and because of this Levi's always managed to come back despite often boneheaded moves by their mangement. Levi's would'nt have maintained their market position for 150 years if their brand status and consistent product quality didn't mean anything. I mean, how often do you see Jordache, Gloria Vanderbilt, or even Guess jeans anymore? Each of those brands had their moment in the sun, and then faded out when newer designers emerged. If anything, Hilfiger, DKNY, or Versace will give way to other trends long before Levi's goes away.

As far as speakers go, it matters where they are sold only if the process of building the economies of scale necessary to produce product in mass quantity results in erosion of product quality. Or if the process of going mass market results in a shift in the types of products that they are able to distribute. Perfect example of this is JBL, which destroyed its long-established good will and brand loyalty within two product cycles of going mass market. But, that case had a lot to do with dealers dumping the brand en masse, not necessarily because the quality of products that they sold went down but because JBL was now doing business with the enemy. Losing their specialty dealer network meant that they no longer had distribution for their midlevel and flagship speakers, which are too expensive to be sold through mass market stores. And the newer lower priced products that got introduced for the mass merchandisers were inferior to what was formerly sold through specialty dealers. The perception of JBL as mass market junk stems from the fact that their best speakers are not sold in North America, largely because they fumbled away their dealer network.

Yamaha's an example of a brand that was historically able to charge a premium over comparable mass market brands like Pioneer, Technics, Sony, JVC, or Kenwood by maintaining a presence exclusively with specialty retailers and regional chains. They decided to go into Sears and Best Buy about five years ago by rebadging their products with different model numbers and withholding the midlevel and flagship products from the mass merchandisers. So far, they haven't gotten dumped the same way that JBL did in the early-80s, but a couple of the dealers I've talked to are none too happy with Yamaha's strategy and the relationship is somewhat tenuous. Five years in, I haven't really noticed any decline in Yamaha's product quality, but if Yamaha dealers dump the brand like JBL dealers did, then Yamaha could find itself relegated to the entry level market with no outlet for their higher quality offerings.

Woochifer attacking without reading taking words out of context because he's just so pissed off for some reason - must have read the Current CR on the Focus and just can't admit he's wrong.

Tell me Woochifer what exactly is that you do for a living you seem to work everywhere. Let me guess your some sort of survey analyst.

Read the ****ing post carefully. Then you babble on about something entirely different. Levi's which was once considered an up-market jean is no longer considered as such - same for JBL and Polk audio. And they will NEVER get that title back. Yes it's all about public perception. Mercedes is considered an up-market car because it's expensive - they've been making garbage for 30 years - well accorduing to CR and the Lemon-Aid - but the PERCEPTION is there that it's a superior car - "German Engineering" like that means anything. If Mercedes started selling at Kia prices they would not house the perception amongst the rich and have the snob appeal - Levis in Walmart to stop the bleeding - Polk at Future shop to stop the bleeding is correct - it's a long slow death instead of a quick one. Read the post again and look for the word(s) IF and THE ABOVE POSTER and IS CORRECT.

And you're admitting that they have bleeding to stop. Cyclical hogwash - support it with facts - since you supposedly have them reference them - you went to grad school and yet you post the most uninformative statistics that help no one.

" WalMart and Target make up a small proportion of Levi's sales"

Statistic referenced by independant? Walmart here outsells the rest of the mall put together I would bet. When you can sell Suede Jackets for $29.00Cdn versus the Lether store's $400.00 - grante the latter is a bit better but it doesn't LOOK better. If the former lasts 1/3 as long buy 3 and you're still ahead. Gee I wonder who sells more coats.

"(I mean, if going into WalMart means that they can't make money, why would they go into that distribution channel in the first place?) "

Well if they're such an insignificant portion of sales as you claim why risk losing a prestige name - why do they NEED Wal-mart? They would rather sell a Jean they can make $5.00 off and sell 300 over a jean they can make $10.00 and sell 10. Or take jobs and ship them to China. Either route does not help American consumers because if all the jobs leave you got nobody who can afford your wares. Ford knew that when the company was formed.

"I don't believe in paying $100 for a pair of designer jeans either (even if the younger market sees value in that). "

And? I have nothing against the Jeans...I own them.


As for Yamaha - There is not a single hi-end dealer in British Columbia carrying Yamaha anymore - Future Shop bought them up. But then it's not like Yamaha is high end anyway.