Interesting....

Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
W

witz1976

Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
2,144
Location
Bucksport, Maine, USA
I have been reading about how everyone is in a tizzy about how our vendors are discontinuing our favorite pen kits and replacing them with gaudy, blingey, pimped out kits. However no one has really asked the question as to why they are doing this. Clearly there is something going on within the industry where the classic styles that we knew and loved are getting replaced with more bling, but what is the reason for this? Is it perhaps that the public's tastes are going towards these styles? Perhaps it is an aim for ladies who it seems to me are left out in the higher end pen market.

Our vendors are risking thousands of dollars on these new kits because they must know something we do not. I am curious to see what is said behind their closed doors and what will come out next.

Just my .02 cents, comment if you wish, but I ask let it be constructive rather than pimp crystals suck and lets do a group buy comments. I am really trying to figure out the reasoning for what we are seeing.
 
Signed-In Members Don't See This Ad
We are but a tiny portion of the pen turners out there . As a group we have started to get big heads thinking we are the major players but in reality our group is just a drop in the bucket . The vendors like PSI and CSUSA sell far more kits then our little group buys . They know what they are selling and buy and sell accordingly .
 
I agree that it looks like they are catering to a, i hate to say 'new' market, but one that has been overlooked to a degree. Obviously women have really been enjoying some of the 'purse' pens, diva, princess and the like...even the Sierra has the more feminine Elegant Beauty....I think like any business they would want to take advantage of an upswing in the newer interest in these styles. I personally don't think they need to get rid of the other kits, but should just add to them..
just my .02
 
Dan,

When the existing pens came out (Emperor then the rest), many of us said "Oh great---SCREAMS China". Now, we are looking to continue to purchase those.

I think the manufacturers think as long as it looks different from the last models, we will buy them and learn to like them.

(One exception was the Phallic-shaped nib on the rollerball---THAT they replaced!!)
 
Other forces at work

Low end and even some of the mid-range pens are now available finished to go to Wal-mart....as low as $2.00 each in quantity already finished. The low end kit market is already swamped and competition is fierce. So where is there for them to go?

They have to stay in the low end market to get the beginning turners, they offer $500.00 lathe and kit and tool starter sets for a reason, the high end buyer doesn't need that. However, given the competition in the low end market they can't raise prices much there.

They have to go with costlier kits. I'm sure the lines they are dropping are lines that while they might be selling ok, are not very profitable and are not going over well with their resellers. No one is going to drop a profitable line in favor of something new, that might or might not be profitable. It seems to me that they want to move up...the "high end" is going to be higher.

There are more women in the executive offices than ever before and in the custom pen market that is going to have to be addressed. Women do, in general, have smaller hands than men and will want different colors in custom pens....that's not all bad because women also lean more toward color coordination between assesories and their clothes so they might be inclined to buy more pens than men would.

In addition, many of the styles have been out for 10 years or more and all things have a life cycle. Some might be just getting long in the tooth.
 
The answer may be simpler than you think.

Selling pen kits is a retail business. One of the most critical elements in retail management is inventory turnover, calculated as cost of goods sold divided by average inventory.

Unless scarcity is expected, a high turnover ratio is better than a low one. Holding cost per unit is reduced. Net income is increased. Risk of obsolescence (or falling out of style) is decreased.

I would dare say that our vendors turn over slimlines, Europeans and cigar pens at an order of magnitude greater than they turn over Emperors, Imperials and Lotuses.

How many folks would complain if they discontinued slims, Euros or cigars?

Just some food for thought.
 
You are absolutely correct, Lou however why are the vendors all risking a new product with all the bling when it could be a potential low turnover product?
 
One possibility: THEIR upside outweighs THEIR downside.

THEY are getting better pricing than Smitty and I (horrors) So their margins justify the risk.

What you perceive as diamonds, they are buying as "plastic chips" and gaining margin.
 
My guess, and that's all it is, would be that the vendors are seeing a slowdown in the kits which are being discontinued and they are testing new styles to generate greater turnover on their higher end merchandise. Clearly they are betting on the new kits generating a higher turnover ratio than the ones which are being replaced. In retail, if you're not moving forward you are falling behind.
 
I'm reading all of our guesses and came to the conclusion we're all just guessing, maybe we just should call Ben Williams the GM of CSUSA or Darrell Nish the President and ask.........................why, without asking them to give up any secrets as what their plans are in replacing the discontinued items.
 
I can't say I understand it, but here are a few examples of business failures.

Edison Records (1929)
Studebaker (1933)
Lionel Corporation (1934)
Rolls Royce (1971)
Atari (1983)
Worlds of Wonder (1988) Anyone remember Teddy Ruxpin?
Crazy Eddie (1989)
Orion Pictures (1992)
Lionel Corporation (1993) Again!
Commodore International (1994)
Best Products (1996)
Montgomery Ward (2001)
Planet Hollywood (2001)
Polaroid Corporation (2001)
Schwinn Bicycle Company (2001)
Mattress Discounters (2003)
Columbia Music and Video Club (2005)
Tower Records (2006)
CompUSA (2007)
Bennigan's (2008)
Reader's Digest Company (2009)

I don't know about the rest of you, but I spent money with all but the first four on the list!
 
OKLAHOMAN said:
I'm reading all of our guesses and came to the conclusion we're all just guessing, maybe we just should call Ben Williams the GM of CSUSA or Darrell Nish the President and ask.........................why, without asking them to give up any secrets as what their plans are in replacing the discontinued items.
Click to expand...


Let's see, who would be the biggest customer of CSUSA that I know????


HHHHHhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmm

OKLAHOMAN!!!!!
They wouldn't offend a customer and they would understand that HIS business plan needs to mirror THEIR business plan.

Let us know how that goes, Roy!!!
 
Ed, you wouldn't say that if you knew the last time I talked to Ben, but I'll call him in the morning to feel him out.
 
Lou Studebaker went under in 1963, the last car they built was the 1964 Avanti top speed 160 MPH it would out run a Ferrari or Aston Martin. and you forgot to add Packard to the list.
 
OKLAHOMAN said:
Ed, you wouldn't say that if you knew the last time I talked to Ben, but I'll call him in the morning to feel him out.
Click to expand...


"Out of character" as it is for me, time to be serious: I doubt that Ben is involved in the design and planning. I suspect only Mr. Nish will really know why they are making the current plans.

(Anthony may know him pretty well, he spends a few bucks there every June)
 
bitshird said:
Lou Studebaker went under in 1963, the last car they built was the 1964 Avanti top speed 160 MPH it would out run a Ferrari or Aston Martin. and you forgot to add Packard to the list.
Click to expand...


If his list were intended to be all inclusive, he would have had to mention:
2000-2001 "Everything--dot com"


And my PERSONAL FAVORITE: Global Crossing (I really was BRIGHT on that one!!)
 
Last edited:
bitshird said:
Lou Studebaker went under in 1963, the last car they built was the 1964 Avanti top speed 160 MPH it would out run a Ferrari or Aston Martin. and you forgot to add Packard to the list.
Click to expand...


Well Ken, Packard actually merged with Studebaker in the mid 50's. Possibly 56 or 57. They still built cars, but it was in the Studebaker assembly plant. Also how about Auburn, Accord, and even Tucker.
 
Nash

EBorraga said:
bitshird said:
Lou Studebaker went under in 1963, the last car they built was the 1964 Avanti top speed 160 MPH it would out run a Ferrari or Aston Martin. and you forgot to add Packard to the list.
Click to expand...


Well Ken, Packard actually merged with Studebaker in the mid 50's. Possibly 56 or 57. They still built cars, but it was in the Studebaker assembly plant. Also how about Auburn, Accord, and even Tucker.
Click to expand...
Packard, Studebaker and Nash (and I believe Hudson) merged to become American Motors in the Late 1950s or early 1960s. Nash Rambler became Rambler American and a Studebaker model were produced...Nash, Packard and Hudson were discontinued immediately.
The Tucker never really got off the ground. Somewhere around 50 were hand produced, I believe that none were sold in the open market.
 
I still get CompUSA flyers and they've still got a website, and I believe some stores...every company that goes bankrupt does not necessarily go out of business.

International Harvester....had it's biggest profit ever in about 1980 and went belly up in about 1982 or so...couldn't believe it, our local IH dealer was selling their tractors right and left and all at once they were disappearing and JI Case was using their name.
 
Just another thought on the many thoughts out here. Keep in mind, companies have made pens for over 100 years. We find that some of the kits we purchase are modeled on some of the "Big Pen Makers" old lines. For example the Parker Retro is one that appears over 70 years ago. So, what's to say, the kit pens wont see the same lifecycle? Look at clothing, I see "Acid wash" jeans appearing again, Bell-Bottoms, Golf shirts, etc.

Just my Canadian 2 cents worth.
 
Could be.

Displaced Canadian said:
At one time International Harvester was the largest employer in the United States if my sources are correct.
Click to expand...
I don't know that for sure, but would not be surprised. IH was formed by combining 5 companies and offered all kinds of farm equipment. I did find out that it was 1984 (so I think the bankrupcy was in 1983 rather than 1982) that JI Case bought some of IH's assets and marketed International as Case-International.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom