Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Joules Newell]

Ok it goes like this.

A local nightclub owner wants to open a new venue.

He has a couple of sound engineers who get him an OK spec to send out for quoting.

He has decided on an established mid market digital mixing desk and goes in search of a supplier.

He approaches the manufacturer's main national distributor (part of a pro audio group of manufacturers)to find out "where to buy"

Next he gets a visit directly from the manufacturer's national distributor (who we buy from) They go in and push the sale further. They get to spec the whole install (Speakers, DSP, amps, desks, the lot)

Soon after he gets a spec list through from them at full retail price.

Within a short period he gets a second e-mail, this time from a pro-retail outlet (large web based vendor who he had no contact with prior to this visit) This e-mail informs the customer that he is offered 45% off list price on the job lot. The vendor then quotes a ballpark figure for installation without ever having visited site.

Standard dealer or installer discount on product from this manufacturer is 35% (even with a big order)

Ourselves and 4 other pro installers were in for the quote on this job, and most of us were looking at supplying some kit from this major audio manufacturer group.  How can we possibly do business this way?? What if all our suppliers did this??

By all means spec the job (if that's what they want) but costing it through at 10% below trade dealer price then handing the job to a pro-retail outlets who can't even be bothered to visit the site to cost the install isn't really on.

Worse of all there were holes in the spec big enough to drive a bus through. No racks for the amps. No multicore. No rack power units..... the list continued.

The question now is as an installer, What do we do regarding further sales of this manufacturer's product. They are some of the worlds biggest brand names, but there are many more out there.

The customer was kind enough to print out copies of the e-mail spec's      

[Hal Bissinger/COMSYSTEC]

This is nothing new. Blame the internet and blame the manufacturer. Many manufacturers are whores and will do anything to increase their sales including throwing us under the bus. Unfortunately little guys like us don't have the clout to put a stop to it by refusing to buy or recommend their products. They've already pretty much said "we don't need you".

About the only thing you could have done is tried to steer them to another "more friendly" product- if you had known what you were in for. Then again the whole setup with the customer searching for a supplier instead of relying on you should have sent up red flags. With that kind of attitude this could have gone sour any number of ways.

-Hal

[Dick Rees]

My brain hurts.......

[Brad Weber]

When you say they were a distributor are they the single point national distributor for a product or are they a company that usually acts as a product resource for installers and others that aren't direct dealers?  Do you have any dealership relationship with the manufacturer(s) involved?

[Adam Whetham]

Sounds like a "Family" of products who likes to talk amongst themselves... Around here all the dealers seem to get gossip of each other through the mother office... One of the reason's I'm not that fond of this group (If its the one I'm thinking of) as if I'm doing business with the group, i expect it to stay with that group. Not to be gossip going over to my competition...

I don't have an answer for you, Its very frustrating for myself also. I haven't found a solution.

[Mark Sprague]

It happens every day. I see it all the time(one of my biggest complaints about this industry as a retailer) We were quoting a new mic install for a school(20 Channels) with the whole 700 Mhz there had to replace theirs that they just bought 2 years earlier from a local production company used. Well I was up against the production company. Guess who won, yep not me, I couldn't get close to the price because of the discounts the other company got because the rep wants to get new product in their shop for them to use so to do that, they got a huge discount on the mic's.

But what you going to do. Tis life. Welcome to the ass backwards way of doing thing(and manufactures wonder why they are losing money, the school was going with these mic's if the price wasn't discounted 15%(think of the extra money for this manufacture)), Just wait till we compete with Best Buy's Geek Squad doing pro audio installs(I'm waiting for that next).

[Tim Padrick]

You should at least - in a dignified manner - let everyone up the chain know that you are not happy with how this was handled.  We (day job) did this when a manufacturer went around us on a festival ("yo - why are you are lending stuff out when we have a 1/4 mil of it in our rental warehouse?").  I don't think they did it again.

[Joules Newell]

Brad Weber wrote on Wed, 25 November 2009 03:31

When you say they were a distributor are they the single point national distributor for a product or are they a company that usually acts as a product resource for installers and others that aren't direct dealers?  Do you have any dealership relationship with the manufacturer(s) involved?

For all purposes they ARE the manufacturer.

I'm not going to name names but they are a group of a bunch of the worlds leading producers in each of their fields. (some US manufacturers, some UK)

Here in the UK this group of manufacturers has been under this one umbrella for many years.

Ultimately this will stop us and many others from specifying their product on installations.

Truth be told we re-spec'd the job with other manufacturers kit that could not be directly compared. Having done that we persuaded the client that whilst the other kit was cheap, it was badly spec'd. In the end we won the contract and have the install. What we are wondering now is whether to ever spec any of this "group's" kit again.

[Dick Rees]

J....

The same thing is going on around here.....from what I presume is the same bunch.......

[Gus Housen]

There is a local maufacturer in this area that is notorious for giving away the deal- although typically to a trunk slammer buddy

[Martin Thorpe]

i see this all the time too...

had a job i was quoting on only a couple of weeks ago, the specification was all functionality and performance criteria, nothing was actually named by make or model (even though the performance specifications were clearly derived from specific products)...

in the end a large proportion of this gear was derived from specific product, and even better it wasn't on the market yet... i later heard that there was only 1 bid for that project and that came from the manufacturer direct... just the way it is sometimes i guess... sad but true!

[Brad Weber]

Martin Thorpe wrote on Mon, 14 December 2009 00:20

i see this all the time too... had a job i was quoting on only a couple of weeks ago, the specification was all functionality and performance criteria, nothing was actually named by make or model (even though the performance specifications were clearly derived from specific products)... in the end a large proportion of this gear was derived from specific product, and even better it wasn't on the market yet... i later heard that there was only 1 bid for that project and that came from the manufacturer direct... just the way it is sometimes i guess... sad but true!

Just curious but was it that it was too much effort for anyone to develop a system that could be shown to meet the functionality and performance specified using other equipment or was it that there no other way to meet what was specified?  I'm not excusing that particular instance but the primary goal of bid documents is to define the design intent, the desired functionality and performance, and not to just be an equipment list.  So whether the problem was having a design intent that was developed based solely on employing certain equipment or it was that only certain equipment could support the design intent developed based on the user's needs is a big difference.

[Hal Bissinger/COMSYSTEC]

Martin Thorpe wrote on Mon, 14 December 2009 00:20

...in the end a large proportion of this gear was derived from specific product, and even better it wasn't on the market yet... i later heard that there was only 1 bid for that project and that came from the manufacturer direct.

I have seen this too. Specs written by a manufacturer or their rep in such a way that there is no "or equal". The idea of course is that it will only be possible for them to provide the equipment. I've seen it also with engineers and architects "on the take" from manufacturers.

-Hal

[John Roberts {JR}]

Hal Bissinger/COMSYSTEC wrote on Mon, 14 December 2009 12:03

I have seen this too. Specs written by a manufacturer or their rep in such a way that there is no "or equal". The idea of course is that it will only be possible for them to provide the equipment. I've seen it also with engineers and architects "on the take" from manufacturers. -Hal

It is just bid-ness for manufacturer's to write "architectural specs" that make their product look unique. It is mostly laziness keeping the consultants from doing their own research (like work) to write a less exclusive specification. While I doubt any(?) are literally on the take, some are very likely motivated by the knowledge that model XYZ has worked well for them in the past, and if they spec it so loosely that an inferior product gets bought, and doesn't work because of something they didn't specify, it could reflect poorly on them.

Of course there are probably some with relationships to dealer/distributors so there may be some quid pro quo going on, but I suspect it is mostly out of fear that some different brand or model may not work as well.

I found the fixed install market very conservative and resistant to change unless they are confronted by significant price advantages. Even then they must be forced by the customer to evolve. Often whining like a little girl.

JR

PS: I noticed in another post a mention of spec'ing in a product that wasn't shipping yet...  Anyone with an ounce of experience in that business knows better. Often the final payment for the whole job, can be held up because of only one missing box. If a new unit is that compelling, it is prudent to write in a substitution clause, so you don't go out of business, waiting for that one new piece to ship.

[Brad Weber]

John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Mon, 14 December 2009 15:01

It is just bid-ness for manufacturer's to write "architectural specs" that make their product look unique. It is mostly laziness keeping the consultants from doing their own research (like work) to write a less exclusive specification.

I've actually seen this much more often from dealers or EEs preparing specs than from actual consultants.

John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Mon, 14 December 2009 15:01

While I doubt any(?) are literally on the take, some are very likely motivated by the knowledge that model XYZ has worked well for them in the past, and if they spec it so loosely that an inferior product gets bought, and doesn't work because of something they didn't specify, it could reflect poorly on them.

It is true that the only valid basis for accepting or rejecting a product is the specs and drawings, not liking it or it not being "what you had in mind" is not a real defensible argument (not that it does not happen).  This also goes for accepting alternates and substitutions, listing a specific product rather than multiple products or some performance criteria technically makes only products that meet or exceed every aspect of the listed product to be acceptable.

John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Mon, 14 December 2009 15:01

I found the fixed install market very conservative and resistant to change unless they are confronted by significant price advantages. Even then they must be forced by the customer to evolve. Often whining like a little girl.

Price or significant performance increases.  And on the part of the dealer, perhaps profitability more than just price, they may not change just becasue something costs the Client 10% less, which might actually decrease their profit, but they might if it costs the Client 10% less and increases their profit.

John Roberts  {JR} wrote on Mon, 14 December 2009 15:01

PS: I noticed in another post a mention of spec'ing in a product that wasn't shipping yet...  Anyone with an ounce of experience in that business knows better. Often the final payment for the whole job, can be held up because of only one missing box. If a new unit is that compelling, it is prudent to write in a substitution clause, so you don't go out of business, waiting for that one new piece to ship.

Or because of one missing part of a solution that the Contractor already took a large loss on when the product specified by others never came to fruition.  I do believe that the party specifying the product has a liability to either specify products that are available or of the benefits of 'vaporware' are enough to justify the risk, to have a backup plan and to address any additional costs or effort required if the product is not available.

[Martin Thorpe]

Brad Weber wrote on Tue, 15 December 2009 00:17

Just curious but was it that it was too much effort for anyone to develop a system that could be shown to meet the functionality and performance specified using other equipment or was it that there no other way to meet what was specified?  I'm not excusing that particular instance but the primary goal of bid documents is to define the design intent, the desired functionality and performance, and not to just be an equipment list.  So whether the problem was having a design intent that was developed based solely on employing certain equipment or it was that only certain equipment could support the design intent developed based on the user's needs is a big difference.

Hi Brad... 100% design intent that was developed based solely on employing certain equipment... no doubt in my mind

you are right, the specification should clearly outline system intent and functionality, and this particular tender didnt have a lot of that (that said, it is only a smallish PA, ala one that is going to be cookie cut throughout hundreds of the clients facilitys and networked together, but depsite the limited detail, its not to hard imagine how a BGM mixer and a couple of paging microphones go together and the sort of functionality that is expected...)

anyway the biggest thing that made it hard to find a "equal" product was how the signals were reticulated and distributed... (proprietary bus made the system design work really well in this area specificaly)

anyway, im sure if there is anyone from aus on here, they might now which job im talking about now... maybe ive said too much

[Joules Newell]

OK here's the final lowdown on the story.

In the end we won the contract and the venue is now open and running.

Starts off with the client looking for a board that was way out of their budget. The board looked more like a TV shop than a sound board.

As they were in the market for such a prestigious product the national distributor (who is in effect the group of companies) decides to go have a sniff. The install as a whole is out for tender to a bunch of well established installers, all who have accounts with this "group".

The representative of this "group" go and see the client and ask to see what they need installing. The sales rep then goes away and builds an entire spec from the "group's" product. This spec is then e-mailed to the end client. The spec is a full retail list price of the specified equipment. The next e-mail the client receives is from the area sales manager (our area sales manager) telling them they will get 45% off the quoted list price.

All the other installers that were on this contract have accounts that can supply this product, but none have better rates than 35%

The "group" then decides to appoint an installer, this installer turns out to be an online pro retailer. This retailer then puts forward a price for fitting the equipment list they have been handed. They made no effort to go and see if what they were told was suitable, or even possible to fit into the venue. They made no effort to even see if the equipment was a whole system, or filled the clients needs.
As it happens the list of equipment was only the items that this pro group could supply from their catalogue. all the rest of what would be needed to make the venue work was missing.

When we approached our sales rep to see what was going on all we got from him was lies. He denied he'd ever quoted directly. (we had a copy of his original e-mail)

One of his lines to us was "Well when you get a sniff of a project you should tell us first so we can (assist) and make sure you get it" (more likely go and steal the job and give it to their preferred dealer) Further probing turned up the following policy they have. If an installer contacts them and runs with their spec they will make sure that none of their other installers can get anywhere near price wise. It's a case of who is the first on the phone to them, and who specs most of their product. There can be NO competitive tendering with their product range.

In the end we managed to swing the client by highlighting their incompetence, and the fact that they would be spending far more than they bargained for to get the system working.

One sticking point was the supply of two mixing desks that the clients engineers wanted.

These came from the "group". We were resigned to the fact that we would supply them to the client at our buy price just to get close to the original spec.
The deal was done and the client was happy to buy at the price we could supply at.

a week or so later the client got a call from our area sales manager telling them not to buy from us as he could "ensure" that they got them at a better price.
The next day he got an e-mail from a trade supplier quoting him 10% less than we can buy for.
We decided to approach this trade supplier for the same spec desk and got our usual rate.

Finally we persuaded the clint that a Yamaha M7 was better for a live venue than an SI2 so they lost this deal in he end too.

Ultimately the client has ended up with the best system possible. It's a stunning sounding system we've provided them with (All Alcons Audio, Yamaha DME DSP, Yamaha (peripheral) amps, and Turbosound monitoring) Better than the half a Junk But Loud system they were offered for peanuts

The irony of it all was that our original spec was to include their speakers in the club, their DSP & BOB units venue wide, and their desks. but as we could not feasibly supply within 20% of the price they pitched at we had to substitute the product for alternative solutions.

Also since this escapade we have swapped preferred DSP from their units to Yamaha DME.

Guess it turned out OK in the end, But it's a BIG warning to folks who think they are a distributor / installer of this groups kit. Not many clients will be as open as this one, and not many clients will tell all the other bidders that the supplier is blocking them out of the tender. Normally you'd think another supplier won it fair and square.

[Ivan Beaver]

I have a friend who had pretty much the same thing happen to him with "the group". except he lost.

It was a new theme park that he had been working on for quite awhile and the job looked like it was going to go to him.

He contacted "the group" for some help in the DSP networking side of things-as it was larger than anything he had done before.

The next thing he knew "the group" was contacting the customer directly and offering them the gear below dealer cost and going to get somebody to do the install-for a total price belwo what my friend was going to do.  Yes he is  legit dealer and installer-not a trunk slammer.

He ended up losing the job-and as a result-REFUSES to sell anything that "the group" has in its product line.

Beware-as the OJays said-(They smile in your face)
All the time they want to take your place
The back stabbers (back stabbers)

I'm glad your situation worked out for the good.

[Joules Newell]

For us the lesson here is not to trust or involve these people in our work.

If a client demands this equipment then so be it we will source it from a suitable location.

The warning is to watch your back when dealing with them.

If they want to be another Bose and manage all their installs (and who gets them) then fine by all means do so, but don't spin lies and deception to those who are selling kit for them.
Bose isn't exactly flooding the market in high end pro install, and surely that is a hint as to how the market works. This groups consumer brand is in many ways similar in market penetration, and the pro group is in reality insignificant in terms of sales. There have already been a few instances of "kit for free" on a job of a prestigious nature, and there is nothing that can be done to deal with that.

However as time passes they will find that they are about as popular as the bubonic plague with the people who are getting the major contracts.

I'm already starting to hear rumblings from people that we deal with that they too have had enough of this group of product.