improvements

[Delwin D Fandrich]

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Musselwhite" <john@musselwhite.com>
To: <pianotech@ptg.org>
Sent: May 04, 2002 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: improvements


> ....
> As I mentioned in a previous message, it's the same trend you see with
> other American musical instrument makers. Why should Steinway be any
> different? It is, after all, a publicly-traded company that needs to make
> rising profits in order to attract and keep investors.

Actually, it's true with most piano manufacturers world-wide. "New and
Improved" means new leg styles, new 'veneers,' and only very occasionally a
minor change in scaling. We have a long way to go.


>
> Since the number of pianos they can make in a year in NYC is pretty-well
> fixed ...

Well, not really. The NY facility is large enough to handle considerably
more production than it is currently putting out and manufacturing
efficiencies could make room for more.



> ... what other options do they have that won't compromise the quality of
> their instrument (the "Standard Piano of the World") in light of the
rising
> costs of doing business?

Many. To rely just on the marketing of an existing design -- regardless of
how good it may have been originally -- strikes me as dangerous. Consider
the example of Rolls-Royce. Or Steinway, for that. There have been several
periods in recent (by industry standards) history when the survival of the
company was in serious doubt.



>
> There are two obvious directions that have been
> very successful for other musical instrument manufacturers while retaining
> the integrity of their main products. They could make some of the cases
> more elegant and more expensive as well as more profitable, which they
have
> done, and they could start selling more inexpensive pianos made under
their
> auspices but with a different brand name made overseas, which they have
> also done.

Or they could start slowly and incrementally improving the performance of
their existing products without jeopardizing the multiple millions already
poured into one of the best marketing departments the industry has yet seen.
They could fill in some of the gaps in their product line; how about
bringing back the long A and the C with some appropriate updates to the
scaling, etc.?



>
> Sounds like a good plan to me compared to how the company was bled dry by
> CBS for two decades in the last century and we still have to put up with
> that whole era of their pianos.

In fact, CBS bailed out a company on the verge of bankruptcy, pouring in
millions along the way. How does this qualify as CBS bleeding Steinway dry?
It may be that some of the decisions made by CBS weren't always the best for
Steinway, but they did keep Steinway alive. One could make a pretty good
argument that in doing so Steinway was bleeding CBS dry.



>
> Regardless of the vintage at least Steinway
> has left us with a standard salvageable "carcass" in different sizes that
> we can restore, detail or customize at will. We should salute them for
> that, not berate them because their instruments have been basically the
> same for a hundred years.

They have, indeed. And I love to see them with an evolving product line
helping to insure their survival for at least another hundred years.
Criticism isn't always a bad thing, sometimes it can be quite helpful.

Regards,

Del