piano manufacturers

[Delwin D Fandrich]

To: Stephen Birkett, et al

Stephen,

It was not, nor has it ever been, my intent to “blame” the Japanese for
the troubles of either the US auto industry during the 70’s and 80’s,
nor for those of the piano industry of today. The leaders of certain
Japanese piano companies, notably Toyota, Nissan, and Honda (with autos)
and Yamaha and Kawai (with pianos), simply took advantage of the
complacency that the leaders of the US companies exhibited, as well they
should. They are not to be “blamed” for this. If anything, they are to
be respected for being shrewd and responsible businessmen who
successfully responded to an opportunity for the good of their companies
and their stockholders.

As you say, all analogies break down past a certain point, but allow me
to stretch this one just a little bit farther: The argument is made that
the piano market is “saturated” and to a point, this is true. However,
the auto market has been saturated for decades. Very few automobile
owners today really NEED that new car they’re going out to buy. I don’t
NEED that new Jaguar XK-8 I lust after. But, I sure WANT one. Why? Well,
besides having one of the most sensual shapes ever put on an automobile
(a subjective perception, to be sure) it is also a better car than the
one I drive today. The auto industry (both domestic and foreign) has
continued to research and develop and design increasingly better and
more desirable products that quite a few million people each year decide
they NEED. Enough so to spend a sizable portion of their annual incomes
on them.

If the piano market is indeed saturated, then to a large degree it is
because the industry has written off a huge segment of its potential
on-going market: those who own older, but still “serviceable” pianos.
The owner of a 10 year old Ford Taurus has good reason to consider
trading in his now used, but still serviceable, car to buy a new Ford
Taurus. The owner of a 40 year old Baldwin R has no incentive to trade
in his now used, but still serviceable, piano to buy a new Baldwin R.

In contrast, we often sell remanufactured and moderately redesigned 60
to 100 year old grand pianos for higher prices than their new
counterparts can command. We are able to do this not because they are
rare or because of their ornate veneers and casework—black is black,
after all. Rather they are perceived by their musician-purchasers (most
of whom are brutal comparison shoppers) to be better musical instruments
than the new instruments of similar make and model. Whether this is true
in fact or not is another debate; we think they are and so do the
buyers. The point is that this phenomena does not exist with any other
product I can think of except for some other musical instruments: My
partner would never give up his old Sax for a new one of the same make
either. (I know, occasionally certain old cars are sold for truly
astronomical prices, but this is because they are exceedingly rare. They
are valued because they are rare, not because they are considered to be
better automobiles than their new counterparts.)

While the market seems to clearly have shifted to the grand piano, I’m
not altogether sure the vertical piano has to be completely written off
quite yet. Certainly, the low end of the domestic vertical piano market
is gone to the electronics and the low-end imports. But there is still a
sizable segment of the musical public that has a need for a good
mid-size to large vertical. Especially so, if one were to have a viable
upgrade to offer to the existing base of piano owners. Acoustically we
still have a long way to go with both grand and vertical pianos.

I agree with you about the need for on-going basic research; it should
be a priority for all manufacturing companies, whether they are building
pianos or widgets. But it is a phrase and a concept that is viewed with
some skepticism by many of today’s corporate leaders—sadly, with some
justification. The payback time—if there is a payback at all—is simply
too long to sell the need for it to today’s stockholders. Neither group
perceives basic research to be necessary or even valuable. In part, this
is because to date there has been very little correlation between basic
research and the acoustic performance of real world pianos.
Unfortunately, there has been a failure to translate the results of the
research that has already been bought and paid for into viable new or
improved products. 

There are a lot of reasons as to why this is so, but this post is
already getting overly long. Basically it is due to the past failure of
our domestic companies to effectively integrate the basic four: Product
Planning , R&D, Design and Manufacturing. The direct relationship
between the lack of a dynamic and effective product development program
and the declining rate of pianos sales has yet to be understood.
Whatever the reason, the result is that it will be very difficult to
convince any domestic piano company of the need for additional basic
research until at least some of the results of all of that existing
research actually show up in useable and successful products. Although,
I hope I’m wrong about this, I’ll be really surprised if I am.

The last sentence from your recent post pretty well sums up what I have
been trying to say for some years now: “We need to recognize that the
piano has not been (and never will be) "perfected", but instead is like
fashion and has to change in concept, sometimes subtly, sometimes
dramatically, but it has to respond to the current fashion to meets
prevailing social and aesthetic requirements.” At a time when our
industry should be dynamic and evolving, it seems to be stagnating. I
agree with you that is not at all too late to revive a battered domestic
piano industry. But a lot of people are going to have look at things in
some radically new ways and then really scramble to make it so.

ddf