Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22771452)

I'm not familiar with business school terminology, but I'm delighted that you think I'm on to the kind of concepts that very successful business people use!

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22771452)

I believe I also used the term "too big to fail" about Specialized. And that certainly may be true - that even something potentially damaging like direct to consumer might not matter to a company with that much of a following.

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22771452)

However, the point remains that the biggest cycling brands flourished by selling exclusively in shops while a number of other brands seemingly went nowhere moving to direct. You can poo-poo that factoid and pretend that consumers are different people than they were 10 or 20 years ago. But I don't think so. I've always found Trek in particular to be one of the more lackluster product lines - but here we are with Trek owning something like a quarter of all bike sales. How did that happen, considering they refused to sell direct and rigorously enforced dealer agreements for the first fifty years?

So I could be totally wrong, but I am speaking from history.

Originally Posted by Koyote (Post 22771467)

That was not a compliment. Those are the sorts of terms used by poorly-trained MBA students.



"Too big to fail" means something very different than your suggested usage. You can read about it here.



You are speaking about history. Others are talking about the present and the future.

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22771474)

I know nothing about the present.

Originally Posted by tomato coupe (Post 22771477)

Something we can finally all agree on ...

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22771479)

All you seem to post about is other people. Do you own a bike?

Originally Posted by tomato coupe (Post 22771258)

Selling items based on their specs vs. price value is exactly how things should work. Selling items based on price alone would be a race to the bottom.

Originally Posted by tomato coupe (Post 22771285)

Ummmmm ... Apple most certainly sells items by specs vs. price. If you want a higher spec processor, you pay more. Same with Cadillac -- if you want a higher spec engine, you pay more.

Originally Posted by tomato coupe (Post 22771309)

I've never been a fan of Cadillac. (Actually, I can't stand them.) But, they have always been at the forefront of putting new technology in their cars, and that technology costs a lot of money. So, no, they are not priced higher than other cars just because they are fashionable.

Originally Posted by tomato coupe (Post 22771325)

That's right, they once offered a low price model that was basically a re-badged Chevy. Guess what? It failed because it was a high price Chevy. The existence of that low price model, however, does not mean Cadillac doesn't put new technology in their other models.

Originally Posted by tomato coupe (Post 22771480)

Let's see ...



Not about other people.



Not about other people.



Not about other people.



Not about other people.

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22771481)

And not about bikes.

Originally Posted by tomato coupe (Post 22771482)

Everyone of those posts was in response to something you wrote. The reason they're not all about bikes is because you steered the discussion away from bikes.

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22771486)

I used simple examples to try to explain how bike industry stuff works. You turned them into their own discussions by refusing to understand that they were illustrations, not subjects. (Did you not understand that?)

Originally Posted by tomato coupe (Post 22771487)

When you post something that is wrong, it is legitimate to point out that it is wrong. When you follow that up with an illustration that is wrong, it is also legitimate to point out that it is wrong. You don't get to cry foul afterwards because your illustration was poorly chosen or not about bikes.

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22771491)

Have I cried foul? I've just pointed out that you can't possibly stay on topic because you're a troll, not a bike lover.

Originally Posted by tomato coupe (Post 22771492)

Again, you took it off topic. I did not. Anyone can read the thread and confirm that.

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22771500)

Who would want to read a thread full if your personal attacks and arguments about whether YOU think a Cadillac is a good example or not.

Originally Posted by tomato coupe (Post 22771502)

Where are all these personal attacks?

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22771504)

Come on. Isn't that something we can all agree on?

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22771452)

while a number of other brands seemingly went nowhere moving to direct.

Originally Posted by prj71 (Post 22771776)

So what brands are these that went nowhere selling direct?

Originally Posted by prj71 (Post 22771776)

So what brands are these that went nowhere selling direct?

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22771869)

Litespeed and Kestrel, off the top of my head.

Originally Posted by Koyote (Post 22771878)

​​​​​​https://cyclingindustry.news/canyon-...new-cfo-joins/

Originally Posted by CrimsonEclipse (Post 22771883)

Is Kontact one of those "toxic members" I keep hearing about?

Originally Posted by Kontact (Post 22771916)

An odd comparison. Kestrel and Litespeed were prestige brands when they were in bike shops, like Moots is today. Now they are value discounters, like Canyon has always been. Trek can becone like Canyon, by lowering all of its prices.