Peeved in Pennsylvania... (long)

[BobDavis88@AOL.COM]

Brian Trout writes:

> What is the piano industry coming to?  Is this garbage becoming the "norm"?
>  Does every single new piano that comes out have something wrong with it?

YES. And, despite my best efforts, every rebuilding that leaves my shop is 
flawed. But see below. 

>  I've become very frustrated.  I see people with limited means buying these
>  pieces of junk thinking that they're pretty good pianos, when in fact, many
>  of them have major defects from the very start.
>  
>  I know I shouldn't take it personally, but my heart aches when I have to
>  deal with this stuff.  I feel violated.

Brian,
There, there. It is the nature of a competitive market, and we customers are 
getting exactly what we have asked for. We, the buying public, are given a 
spectrum of choices between high quality/high cost and low quality/low cost. 
It is really a very refined system, and has given us generally useful 
products at ever-lower prices.

A manufacturer first tries to make a product as best he can, then price to 
cover his costs plus as much profit as the desire for the product will bear. 
A second maker comes in, and first one then the other shaves a bit off the 
profit margin. Then one makes a cheaper version via more efficiency. Then one 
via risking more defects. The public rushes to it, essentially casting its 
vote. No blame ensues to the maker, nor to his employee who is pressured to 
produce beyond his limits. The calculated risk that non-functional products 
will slip through is known by the manufacturer, and it is disingenuous to 
suggest that the public REALLY deepy down believes it can get a $50K piano 
for $5K. Well... we might believe it, but..Duh....

The highest price maker will most likely lose UNLESS the price is tolerable 
for the quality or perception of quality (Bösendorfer, Steinway, Mercedes), 
and lowest quality maker will eventually (?) lose sales as his products 
become too risky (Aeolian, Yugo). A small top and bottom remain, and a wide 
and varied middle. I would rather have my Dodge Neon and $65,000, than either 
a Mercedes or a Yugo+$75,000. Others would choose some other tradeoff. You 
probably know from rebuilding that raising the reliability of an operation 
from 98% to 99% seems to about double the cost.

We don't need to take it personally. By buying a cheap product, the customer 
is assuming the risk that the defects are small enough they won't interfere 
with the use to which he wants to put the product. If some get in his way, he 
can then hire you to fix the ones that do, and still potentially be ahead. If 
a defect has potential catastrophic consequences, it's different: there is a 
certain point at which the defect takes the product out of what might be 
called the "implied range of risk." There is no rule for this; it's your 
call. The responsible thing both to the customer and the dealer is to report 
it and explain the potential consequences, without malice. If the dealer 
chooses not to deal with it, then you have to decide if his values disagree 
with yours enough that it is no longer right to continue in his employ.
Cheers,
Bob Davis