whats with fender amp pricing in this country? are we being ripped off

Keira-WitherKay · 2011-04-15T08:29:44+00:00

sure you all read my post looking for a Fender princeton reverb reissue amp .here in sa the retail is 20 K and after discount it seems 13K is about the best price give or take a hundred or so from dealers .. .BUT i see they $900 - $1000 depending on the dealer in USA thats converted to R6.100 - R7000 or there abouts so why is the local price double (discounted) and more than tripled for retail......... we are being ripped off..by the Fender importers in SA ...btw who is the importer or is it a branch of Fender themselves or some other company .....cos i don't believe shipping will add that much to the amp .......... this is shocking ..cos most time i buy anything here i ussually check the international price and sure if in SA the price increases here by 10- to 20% sure i understand...and i know here the discounting off the "marked retail price" is also almost 30 % ..........but this is still doubling the price and thats after my "huge discounted price" ........... this should be investigated ...... cos i can't believe this is true or even legal , is this price fixing? AND WITH THE NEW CONSUMER LAWS CAN WE QUESTION THIS...... since right now i am quite willing to pay my 13K for this amp but shocked to discover if i was in states it would cost half of that... i'm feeling exploited ..and particularly angry enough to want to shake the tree and see what falls out ........ unless someone can explain this doubling of the discounted prices logically , maybe cos i'm missing something

Norman86

IceCreamMan wrote i am in the market for a small tube amp and started my investigations with a fender vibro champ.

Sweetwater has em at 239 dollas = 1673 +_
GAK (uk) has em at 239 pounds = 2629 - already a nice price increase

ZA - 5795 !!!!!!!!!!!!!! after discount i may get it for 4500 !!!

thats HUGE...at that price its scratched off my list

Exactly what led me away from wanting to buy a Fender amp. :-\
Ridiculous. imho of course.

Wizard

It's just utility theory.
If the perceived value is greater than the price, then buy it.
(irrespective of what it costs in outer Siberia ... which is irrelevant, since you don't live in outer Siberia).

I am acting as a mentor at work of young mentees.
They all compare themselves to each other, to see how well they are doing relative to each other.
We were advised to teach them to judge their goals on what they valued; irrespective of how others around them were doing.

Seems like similar advice.

To me this just sounds like a lot of people are not going to end up owning Fender amps because someone else (far away) has managed to get one cheaper.
But hey ... you're the one who ends up without the Fender amp.

Gearhead

Someone once said that if you buy something priceless for a lot of money, you actually get it cheap - then again he was a late 19th century art trader :?

Keira-WitherKay

Wizard wrote
To me this just sounds like a lot of people are not going to end up owning Fender amps because someone else (far away) has managed to get one cheaper.
But hey ... you're the one who ends up without the Fender amp.

well i can't speak for anyone else, but what stopped me buying the princeton (i had the money for it ) is that frankly it is not worth the price asked here..in real value.....as in what the actual amp is worth . cos in states it' 6.3 K .... here they wanted 13 K (after huge discount) and yes i do understand it's the way it is here....so i'm not argueing the cost of import or the extended route via europe , thats a moot point .......but i did finally realise if i buy it it's at such an inflated cost i realised that really qulity wise it's still only a 6.3 K amp ..... and all the extra fee is for middle men and import ... and in reality i really don't want a 6.3 K amp at double the price bad enough to pay that ........ i'm sure if i hold out i will pick one up 2nd hand .....cos i still love the fender princerton amp , but at a more value related price ........ as in closer to what the amp is really worth , and the realisty is yes i do GAS for a princeton but i know for a fact that my pro music career will not end if i don't get one.........

Cannon

Bought a Laney Cub12R - 15w All tube amp last year for around 3.5k! (new)
Put it next to the Fender Blues Jr. (almost identical setup - tubes and controls) Sounds better to me at a third of the price.

Well there u have it i guess!
8)

Norman86

Wizard wrote It's just utility theory.
If the perceived value is greater than the price, then buy it.
(irrespective of what it costs in outer Siberia ... which is irrelevant, since you don't live in outer Siberia).

I am acting as a mentor at work of young mentees.
They all compare themselves to each other, to see how well they are doing relative to each other.
We were advised to teach them to judge their goals on what they valued; irrespective of how others around them were doing.

Seems like similar advice.

To me this just sounds like a lot of people are not going to end up owning Fender amps because someone else (far away) has managed to get one cheaper.
But hey ... you're the one who ends up without the Fender amp.

The point is... People dont mind paying more... but double and 3 times the USA retail price is just not on.
that, after the importer buys at a lower wholesale price, NOT USA retail.
So other plans are made, other amps are bought, and fender loses out due to their pricing stupidity!
As was said, consumers are more savvy to prices these days! so while many people will get taken for a ride, many wont.
they'll just take their money away from the brand they wanted to support in the first place!

Cannon

Hence my move to Laney!
8)

arjunmenon

Cannon wrote Hence my move to Laney!
8)

Not a bad amp. I played through one recently and was impressed.
My only concern was that it broke up quite early and that it's a mild overdrive (doesn't do a good saturated sound).
Still a good amp though.

Back on the Fender pricing topic, although i agree with Brent to a large extent, i wish pricing was a bit more reasonable.
Case in point, i bought something this past week that was originally marked at close to 10K, but thanks to a b'day sale i managed to get it for 5.5K.
Now, i don't believe that i bought the item at cost or at a loss to the retailer. So what stopped the retailer from sticking a price tag of 5.5k or 6k on the item in the 1st place? I'd have bought it sooner and the retailer would have been able to move more of the item quicker.

On the same topic, something that annoyed me was seeing a Musicman JP6 for R 17900 odd, marked down from approx. R 32k.
I don't think somebody who bought one for even R 23 - 25k would be happy seeing something like that.

StephenG

Arjun Menon wrote
Now, i don't believe that i bought the item at cost or at a loss to the retailer. So what stopped the retailer from sticking a price tag of 5.5k or 6k on the item in the 1st place? I'd have bought it sooner and the retailer would have been able to move more of the item quicker.

there must be proper marketing boffs on here that can answer that one - but basically it doesn't quite work like that in the real world...

its something like = there are a limited number of people that will by an item, the price tag merely dictates how long its takes them to make the purchase at a certain price...

lowering an items price drastically will NOT actually increase the number people buying the item by any significant margin that would compensate for the lower profit earned...

or something like that..

so say there will be a maximum of 10 people in cape town that will buy that amp over the space of a year. lowering the price to sales prices all year may just encourage 12 people to buy the amp and not 10, which does not offset the lower profits on the sales price.

arjunmenon

StephenG wrote
Arjun Menon wrote Now, i don't believe that i bought the item at cost or at a loss to the retailer. So what stopped the retailer from sticking a price tag of 5.5k or 6k on the item in the 1st place? I'd have bought it sooner and the retailer would have been able to move more of the item quicker.
there must be proper marketing boffs on here that can answer that one - but basically it doesn't quite work like that in the real world...
its something like = there are a limited number of people that will by an item, the price tag merely dictates how long its takes them to make the purchase at a certain price...
lowering an items price drastically will NOT actually increase the number people buying the item by any significant margin that would compensate for the lower profit earned...
or something like that..
so say there will be a maximum of 10 people in cape town that will buy that amp over the space of a year. lowering the price to sales prices all year may just encourage 12 people to buy the amp and not 10, which does not offset the lower profits on the sales price.

Good point Stephen. But this can only be ascertained if there is market saturation, i.e. a scenario like, only 10 out of 100 people play fender amps and out of 10 only 5 will want to own fender amps, but the remaining 5 may become fender amp owners. In this instance, you know your saturation point. However, in the case of budget equipment or lower price brackets, brand loyalty is easier to shake, i.e. a scenario like Squier vs. Ibanez GIO vs. Cort etc. Here, a client can be made to shift his loyalty.
Lastly, if the idea of marketing isn't to gain market share (through a good mix of the 4 Ps - Product, Price, Promotion and Place of sale/distribution), then it becomes niche marketing. And if it were the case of just marketing to a niche, then retail is the wrong way to go about it. They should rather consider custom orders and save money on overheads.
Just my 2c, and i'm no boffin. I'm open to correction.

StephenG

Arjun Menon wrote
StephenG wrote
Arjun Menon wrote Now, i don't believe that i bought the item at cost or at a loss to the retailer. So what stopped the retailer from sticking a price tag of 5.5k or 6k on the item in the 1st place? I'd have bought it sooner and the retailer would have been able to move more of the item quicker.
there must be proper marketing boffs on here that can answer that one - but basically it doesn't quite work like that in the real world...
its something like = there are a limited number of people that will by an item, the price tag merely dictates how long its takes them to make the purchase at a certain price...
lowering an items price drastically will NOT actually increase the number people buying the item by any significant margin that would compensate for the lower profit earned...
or something like that..
so say there will be a maximum of 10 people in cape town that will buy that amp over the space of a year. lowering the price to sales prices all year may just encourage 12 people to buy the amp and not 10, which does not offset the lower profits on the sales price.
Good point Stephen. But this can only be ascertained if there is market saturation, i.e. a scenario like, only 10 out of 100 people play fender amps and out of 10 only 5 will want to own fender amps, but the remaining 5 may become fender amp owners. In this instance, you know your saturation point. However, in the case of budget equipment or lower price brackets, brand loyalty is easier to shake, i.e. a scenario like Squier vs. Ibanez GIO vs. Cort etc. Here, a client can be made to shift his loyalty.
Lastly, if the idea of marketing isn't to gain market share (through a good mix of the 4 Ps - Product, Price, Promotion and Place of sale/distribution), then it becomes niche marketing. And if it were the case of just marketing to a niche, then retail is the wrong way to go about it. They should rather consider custom orders and save money on overheads.
Just my 2c, and i'm no boffin. I'm open to correction.

you had me at 'Good Point Stephen'......................

arjunmenon

StephenG wrote
Arjun Menon wrote
StephenG wrote
Arjun Menon wrote Now, i don't believe that i bought the item at cost or at a loss to the retailer. So what stopped the retailer from sticking a price tag of 5.5k or 6k on the item in the 1st place? I'd have bought it sooner and the retailer would have been able to move more of the item quicker.
there must be proper marketing boffs on here that can answer that one - but basically it doesn't quite work like that in the real world...
its something like = there are a limited number of people that will by an item, the price tag merely dictates how long its takes them to make the purchase at a certain price...
lowering an items price drastically will NOT actually increase the number people buying the item by any significant margin that would compensate for the lower profit earned...
or something like that..
so say there will be a maximum of 10 people in cape town that will buy that amp over the space of a year. lowering the price to sales prices all year may just encourage 12 people to buy the amp and not 10, which does not offset the lower profits on the sales price.
Good point Stephen. But this can only be ascertained if there is market saturation, i.e. a scenario like, only 10 out of 100 people play fender amps and out of 10 only 5 will want to own fender amps, but the remaining 5 may become fender amp owners. In this instance, you know your saturation point. However, in the case of budget equipment or lower price brackets, brand loyalty is easier to shake, i.e. a scenario like Squier vs. Ibanez GIO vs. Cort etc. Here, a client can be made to shift his loyalty.
Lastly, if the idea of marketing isn't to gain market share (through a good mix of the 4 Ps - Product, Price, Promotion and Place of sale/distribution), then it becomes niche marketing. And if it were the case of just marketing to a niche, then retail is the wrong way to go about it. They should rather consider custom orders and save money on overheads.
Just my 2c, and i'm no boffin. I'm open to correction.
you had me at 'Good Point Stephen'......................

? Does that mean i win this round?

StephenG

Arjun Menon wrote ? Does that mean i win this round?

well i am not entirely sure, but some how i think you have convinced me to pay for your amp?? ??? ??? I need to read this all again, cause I am sure it aint right somewhere! ??? ???

arjunmenon

StephenG wrote
Arjun Menon wrote ? Does that mean i win this round?
well i am not entirely sure, but some how i think you have convinced me to pay for your amp?? ??? ??? I need to read this all again, cause I am sure it aint right somewhere! ??? ???

Lol. If it makes any difference, i'd love a 65 princeton or the reissue.

« Previous Page