Linn - love it /hate it/don't care I'll argue anyway thread!

Richard,

The fact remains that many other small manufacturers grew and prospered during the FE hegemony.

Take Meridian. When Lecson Metamorphosed into Meridian, I'll bet they were no bigger than Linn or Naim.

Yet despite Linn's alleged dirty tricks (although it sounds like good business sense from where I'm looking), Meridian grew and prospered. As did A & R Cambridge, and many others.

Mostly, the firms that went to the wall did so because they failed to compete. Sometimes (mostly) it was the classic engineer/tech with a good product and no clue regarding design/marketing. Reliability was also often a problem (Nytech).

In business, you try your level best to steal your competitor's customers. If you are succesful, you will drive your competitor from the marketplace.

Linn were just very succesful.

Chris

Chris

 

Who owns those companies now?

Remember Chris, I am just the piano player, some people don't like or feel threatened by the tune.

 

It doesn't matter who owns them now. Back then, they were all independant, all survived the FE onslaught & prospered. They did it by competing in the marketplace.

Chris

 

An extract from Review.



Can anyone tell me why this is complete tosh?

 

Well they didn't then and that is why they have failed into foreign ownership (no one does this from choice).

I am about the only company from those days still in the same ownership.

 

Linn and NAIM are still in the same ownership.

 

Sadly they were not typical of uk dealers in those days.

 

Or these days.

 

Because Chris Frankland wrote it?

(only joking Chris)

 

Perhaps, but I was thinking more along the lines of; NACA4 & Linn K20 were the same cable made by BICC.

 

But they were different colour.

 

Reminds me of the Which tumble dryer review where they gave highest marks and their recommendation to one of the most expensive dryers in the group.

Turned out they were all identical Crosslee dryers apart from the different facias (with different brand logos / fonts) and control knobs.

My housemate who worked for Crosslee's laughed his socks off over that.

 

Well i was just wondering if it's the new fashionable?

 

If any hifi companies failed during the eighties it's because they were not sufficiently well skilled to compete.

Having good product is not an arbiter of success- far from it. Many sellers of shit prosper while better products fall at the wayside, look at Betamax and VHS, Betamax was far superior from a technical standpoint, but VHS was better marketed and won out.

Sometimes skill in sales and marketing is needed to help even great product succeed.

 

I don't think the skill or marketing abilities of Linn (well IT and closest) are or were in question.

What is important is what this, and the clear bias in certain sections of the press and dealerships, had on the choices people were able to make.

The Betamax example is a good one. Clever marketing caused people to buy the inferior product, which neatly brings up back to the subject of the thread.

 

http://members.shaw.ca/mikesae/vereker.txt

 

I hold completely different opinions on these two companies and have plenty of respect for Naim. Don't care for all of the products, the fancy modern cabling solutions and that daft arm mostly but I've plenty of time for the electronics and the speakers are also fine if you like the very tailored sound on offer. The biggest plus is that they look after their customers and just about any product (exc some early CD mechs) right back to the old NAC12 and NAP120 period can be serviced.

The company approach to demonstrating kit is also quite different.
They just play the stuff without all that nodding, jigging about, running down the opposition or prattling-on about 'following the tune'.

 

Actually...


Betamax had a one hour record time compared to two for VHS. Not only was this more convenient for customers requiring one tape for taping a movie on VHS vs two tapes for taping on Betamax, it was far more attractive for rental businesses from a cost, merchandising and inventory standpoint. A better mousetrap in other words and nothing to do with marketing other than the consumer made the decision.

Betamax licensing and tapes cost more than VHS. A marketing choice and again, nothing to do with brainwashing. The consumer decided which format stayed and which one died. Sony made their own unfortunate choice which killed the format -not their agents.

Basically, the marketplace made the choice with VHS as it has with hifi equipment. Some of you don't give Joe Six Pack enough credit. Perceived value is damn near everything and when it comes to bang-for-the-buck, Joes collectively everywhere will usually make the most sensible choice. Folks wanted billions of knobs and blue meters back in the sixties, a built-in-a-bronx-garage-scottish-turntable with no knobs and better sound back in the FE days and cell phones and iPods today which easily fit in their jeans.

Tomorrow it will be something else and if you think a couple of slick salesmen will tell them what they'll want or get, you're seriously mistaken. No one on this planet ever spent $10,000.00 on a hifi because someone told them to buy it. They bought it because they wanted it.

 

i like lynn, i was her first boyyfriend, nice girl lynn was.

 

All of which could be overcome easily.

if you want longer playing times from Betamax only a lower tape speed was required. You then had the best of both worlds.

Pricing can be varied. It was a mass medium with tape sales in billions.

The simple fact is that those with power in the home entertainment industry at the time decided to push VHS and had the clout to do so.
As is often the case with consumer goods, quality and worth come second to how much cash you can prise from the consumer.