Monster cables

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <crbrnh0rtq@news2.newsguy.com>,
William Eckle <abuse@wmeckle.com> wrote:

> Hi Gang:
> Interesting article in Forbes magazine regarding cables and
> Monster Cable.
> http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1998/ [...] print.html

This is really old news. Besides the "shocked, shocked" revelation that
retail stores like to sell high-markup accessories, the article contains
the claim that "Monster accounts for 2% of retail sales volume but 30%
of gross profit." This is suspect on mathematical grounds: how thin must
the margins be on the remaining 98% of sales?

If true, we should thank Monster that any stereo store is still open.

Stephen

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

William Eckle wrote:
> Hi Gang:
> Interesting article in Forbes magazine regarding cables and
> Monster Cable.
> http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1998/ [...] print.html

I work in high-tech, and get frequently solicited for overpriced and
underperforming software and hardware. These junkets are a joke compared
to the stakes high-tech sales play for... one sale and you retire to
Bermuda, those kind of stakes. All for products with much higher costs:
purchase the software for $x, then pay us $y to implement it for you,
then pay us $z every year to keep it running.

Monster cables are a bargain.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <crfe330hp5@news3.newsguy.com>,
MINe 109 <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:

> In article <crcsmm02rgn@news2.newsguy.com>,
> Billy Shears <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <crcd9602ohj@news3.newsguy.com>,
> > MINe 109 <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <crbrnh0rtq@news2.newsguy.com>,
> > > William Eckle <abuse@wmeckle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Gang:
> > > > Interesting article in Forbes magazine regarding cables and
> > > > Monster Cable.
> > > > http://www.forbes.com/forbes/1998/ [...] print.html
> > >
> > > This is really old news. Besides the "shocked, shocked" revelation that
> > > retail stores like to sell high-markup accessories, the article contains
> > > the claim that "Monster accounts for 2% of retail sales volume but 30%
> > > of gross profit." This is suspect on mathematical grounds: how thin must
> > > the margins be on the remaining 98% of sales?
> > >
> > > If true, we should thank Monster that any stereo store is still open.
> >
> > That figure was only in regards to a small chain: "At Ken
> > Crane's, a chain of eight stores based in Hawthorne, Calif.,
> > Monster accounts for 2% of retail sales volume but 30% of gross
> > profit."
>
> If the result isn't typical, why report it?

Because that is what journalists do. Maybe it's typical, maybe
it's not. There's no way to tell.

> And how about the margins on
> the remaining sales?

They are poor.

> Ken Crane's should reevaluate its product line if the claim is true.

Give em a call.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

In article <crmqs401tdr@news1.newsguy.com>,
"Espen Braathen" <espen-b@online.no> wrote:

> "MINe 109" <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
> news:crfe330hp5@news3.newsguy.com...
> > In article <crcsmm02rgn@news2.newsguy.com>,
> > Billy Shears <w.ramey@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <crcd9602ohj@news3.newsguy.com>,
> > > MINe 109 <smcatut@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > > That figure was only in regards to a small chain: "At Ken
> > > Crane's, a chain of eight stores based in Hawthorne, Calif.,
> > > Monster accounts for 2% of retail sales volume but 30% of gross
> > > profit."
> >
> > If the result isn't typical, why report it? And how about the margins on
> > the remaining sales?
> >
> > Ken Crane's should reevaluate its product line if the claim is true.
>
> Or the staff at Ken Cranes are exceptionally good at pushing cables with a
> 50% profit...

If the staff is so good, why is Monster only 2% of sales?

Let's try a little experiment: KC's sells one Monster a year at $2 out
of overall sales of $100. If Monster is 50% profit, accepting your
figure, then $1 is "30% of gross profit," which is $3.33. If Monster is
100% "profit", that's still only $6.66 gross profit for sales of $100.

Maybe that's a believable rate of *net* return but not so much for gross
when high-end is typically 50% or more "mark-up". Maybe Ken Crane's
isn't a high-end store, and Monster isn't a high-end product, in which
case we may as well be talking about over-priced kitchen gadgets and
supermarket shelf-space.

Stephen