Taylor's Advertised Pricing Policy

[PF]

ERM

From what I have read, your views are what Taylor intends - face to face contact with the actual guitar you want to buy, not a picture of it in a cut rate store's mag.

I am left-handed and have bought enough Taylors to know exactly what to order to satisfy me. If I could A/B Taylors in my local store I would. Unfortunately, my local stores are big chains that will not stock lefties of quality. Consequently, the store I ordered with is small (Mass St. in KS) and out of my area but has given me such individual attention that I know I will buy there again. Furthermore, the price beat the chain's.

I read on other forums posts by people who have some problem with Taylor: marketing policy, tone, you name it. This is really the LAST place I would have expected to read emotionally deflammatory statements about the company and/or its products. Especially when there are other forums that would jump on a negative Taylor statement like a fumbled football. Guess its no fun preaching to the choir.

[GordonHLau]

Originally posted by J.R. Rogers:
A quick scan of how much used Taylor guitars are going for on Ebay reveals that most guitars sell for 55% or more of their retail "list" price depending on the model.

That doesn't sound right. You can get a brand NEW Taylor at many dealers for XX% below their retail list price (I won't mention these dealer's names out of respect to this forum). If the above 55% or more figure were true than all used Taylors sold on ebay hold at least 92% of their value. I find that a bit hard to believe. However, if you include resellers who sell brand new Taylors via ebay (I don't know if they are dealers or not) and I've seen quite a few, than I can easily believe this figure.

--Gordon Lau


[This message has been edited by J.R. Rogers (edited 12-13-2000).]

[Mark in San Jose, CA]

Originally posted by PF:
ERM

I read on other forums posts by people who have some problem with Taylor: marketing policy, tone, you name it. This is really the LAST place I would have expected to read emotionally deflammatory statements about the company and/or its products.

While I don't subscribe to a conspiracy theory behind Taylor's advertising policies, I do disagree with most aspects of it, specifically in reference to the ability to advertise that a vendor simply carries the line and what inventory is in stock (not necessarily pricing). I do understand and appreciate the desire on Taylor's, and the TF administrator's, part to not engender a Guitar Center-like atmosphere (although I note the irony that GC is one of Taylor's largest distributors) re: pricing.

In reference to making "emotionally deflammatory" (sic) statements, I'm not sure I understand what PF means. I thought the purpose of the TF was to be able to communicate thoughts in a positive ("happy"), open and honest manner re: the subject, i.e. Taylor Guitars, with the understanding that specific comments relating to model pricing are restricted. I don't think that the use of critical thinking (the ability to evaluate ideas, policies or, even, products) was disallowed in the TF. I don't believe any of the comments I have made regarding this topic were anything other than trying to get a better understanding of the "why" behind Taylor's advertising policies. I believe J.R. and others have done a good job providing more of that background information for this topic.

Rather than think that the TF is the "last place" to have an open, informative dialogue, I would prefer to think that is should be the FIRST place to do so. After all, since this is an independent forum--not operated/owned by Taylor--a certain amount of difference of opinion should be appreciated/tolerated in the interest of expanding our understanding and appreciation for these incredible guitars and great company.

[PF]

Mark,

My comments were not directed at you. My first post made an observation. Later, that post was used by another in a negative tirade to defend a position. I have no problem with you Mark. But I am not going to let another person reference my statement incorrectly without a correction.

Criticism? Yes! I'm all for it. But there is a difference in constructive criticism and bashing. What I mean by "emotionally deflammatory" is a statement that is not constructive criticism, but instead a negative statement of opinion that is not based on facts and is little else than name calling. Your original post was NOT a problem. Unless I (and others in this thread) misinterpret "Martin Lover"'s writings above, THOSE statements read as a rant.

"THey have the resale values of taylors and their list prices. THEY DON"T HOLD THEIR VALUE!!", is not constructive. This has the tone of anti-Taylor postings found on other forums. Is it necessary? Does it solve anything? Even the poster's handle "Martin Lover" indicates the potential that this person has an ax to grind against Taylor. It also supports the negative attitude displayed in the post.

For the record, I also believe Taylor's ad policy for dealers is excessive. But I understand it. Martin allows advertising. Their wait time for custom is close to a year. I believe that Taylor is trying to hold demand down so that they can keep up with orders. The 512C I ordered will take 8 weeks. That is more reasonable. I can order a guitar from Ted Thompson and it would take less time than from Martin. And he works alone. Yet I love my Martin OM-21 and will not bash them (or any other company) over policy.

And they do hold their value in a private sale. Maybe not all the way up to the level claimed by the administrator, but close enough and certainly on par with other major factory brands that produce guitars of the same age in the same price range.

So if a poster is going to go on about something and use my post incorrectly to prove a point, I feel it is necessary to set the record straight.

Again, I have nothing against you Mark. I believe your criticism is constructive. My complaint is with unconstructive criticism

[J.R. Rogers]

Originally posted by GordonHLau:
That doesn't sound right. You can get a brand NEW Taylor at many dealers for XX% below their retail list price (I won't mention these dealer's names out of respect to this forum). If the above 55% or more figure were true than all used Taylors sold on ebay hold at least 92% of their value. I find that a bit hard to believe.

Hi, Gordon. I'd rather not entertain a pricing debate, but personally I've received more than 55% of retail on average from the handful of guitars I've sold on Ebay. Does everybody? Certainly not. However, I think on average, the resale value of a Taylor is very high, and I'll leave it at that.

J.R.

[GordonHLau]

Ooops, I re-read you post JR and I missed the "on certain models" qualifier. This I can believe. I've seen some Brazilian Rosewood models, a Koa model and a Cujo model that easily sold for more than the 55% retail price you mentioned on Ebay. But I think on average, a 'pre-owned', non-custom or non-limited model would sell for less than 55% of the retail list price.

--Gordon Lau

[imnojimi]

E-bay seems something of an odd animal. I've seen what appear to be excellent guitars go un-bid. I've twice seen guitars identical to ones that I own sell for almost exactly what I paid for them, new at my local dealer. If Taylor is attempting to assert a protectionist ideal all I can say is that it does me no good to demand such a low price that I put my dealer out of business, where would I play all this cool lumber. So anyway,J.R., this is quite a site, great idea and thanks for all the effort it must take. You must have way more energy than I do!

[PF]

I think this thread's been played out.
If I didn't know any better...

[PF]

Don't "Stifle" Edith - just get me my beer here...

State your mind (if you really feel its your calling to do so).

I don't even own a Taylor right now. I have owned 4 in the past and none of them suited me as well as my Martin OM-21 (even the 814CE) or I would still own them. But that is an individual thing. I hope to own one that does in the future and am happy for the others who have Taylors that bring them joy. I admire and understand the company and its policy. Ain't that America? Home of the Free! (Little pink houses for you and me)

BTW - are you Martin Lover?

[J.R. Rogers]

Yes, PF. That was Martin Lover. He keeps coming on here using bogus e-mail addresses. His M.O. is always the same, though. Register and then immediately begin to bash Taylor, this forum, and the administrator that keeps deleting him. Obviously a very bored and very sad person, who seems to care a lot about the way Taylor does business, even though he's "not an owner", and claims to not care about the company. If I didn't know better, I'd think he's really a disgruntled dealer who lost his Taylor dealership or something. Nobody else seems to so vehemently hate Taylor's dealer policies. Most of the rest of us don't care. I find it silly how he can't leave it alone, though. Does he think he's trying to "convert" people from Taylor to Martin or something? hehehe I just don't get it.

J.R.

[This message has been edited by J.R. Rogers (edited 12-18-2000).]

[swoodnj]

Geez, go away for a few days and come back to all this crap! Hope this is the end of this thread...

[GRW3]

Hey, how about if we just don't allow this as a topic anymore? This is an affinity group so we don't have to put up with it. There are other forums, like RMMGA and Acoutic Guitar, for public rants.

------------------
George Wilson

[J.R. Rogers]

I agree. But, I want this to be a place for people to ask questions and get answers. I think that the person who started this topice genuinely had that in mind. I'm hoping that we can get beyond it now. I don't want to police this forum to death.

J.R.

[This message has been edited by J.R. Rogers (edited 12-18-2000).]

[PF]

To JR and All Concerned:

I didn't mean to drag this out with the guy. But it was obvious from the style of prose that it was the same poster under yet another alias. Unfortunately, I also know how hard it is to lock out permissions in this situation.

My suggestion for the future concerning obvious problem cases (not the well meaning people with a minor gripe) is to simply not respond to their posts. They will eventually get bored and decide to pick on some else on the bus. Since I egged him on I apologize and will not do it again.

[Mark in San Jose, CA]

As the original "postor" (sp?) for this topic, I just want to say (again) I appreciate the information and constructive responses. PF, thank you for clarifying your response--I didn't take your response personally, but thought it would be a good idea for me to clarify where I was coming from (as opposed to, perhaps, others' motives...)

Although I don't feel like I need further explanations on the subject, I can't help but notice the amount of interest in the topic. As a thought, JR, perhaps you could include more of the background for the TF/Taylor policy on pricing discussions up front when people first register. (I know there is some information, but maybe a little more elaboration for newbies--why's, wherefores, history, etc.) BTW, JR, you do a tremendous job with the site; I don't envy your moderator role, however... Do you get a badge and a retirement system for the "policing?!"