Rickenbacker prices up 40%!

[bnt]

I wonder what proportion of their sales are in Europe, the UK in particular? The way the dollar exchange rate has collapsed, I suspect they figure they don't look so bad. Personally, they're too fashionable for me now.

[Musky]

Doubtless some of this increase is entirely justified, and John Hall's post does put some perspective on this. But the element of reducing demand is still there. A totally bizarre decision really, and something of a PR disaster IMO.

The price of a 4003 is now $2158, apparently up $400 on last year. I make that a 22.74% increase. The UK rrp was £1495, but I can't find any prices on the Rosetti site that might indicate how much they are going to sell for. Hopefully Rosetti or the dealers will absorb the price increase themselves, given that they don't seem to have passed on the benefits of the exchange rate. If not we're looking at a price increase of about £340 - though of course dealer prices have been about £300 less than that to date.

[SJA]

"Solder increased 116% in the last 15 months alone.

Copper has almost doubled since 2005, affecting brass components as well."

if that's the case, how come the price of electronic goods hasn't shot through the roof too?

how much solder and copper is in a bass or guitar, and how much in, say, a television?
I seem to recall that printed circuit boards have copper tracks.

Edited December 22, 2007 by SJA

[Happy Jack]

I'm no troll, but I'm bang alongside Mr. Hall on this one.

Why?

Because of my job - I'm the Finance Director for an international firm with annual turnover not a million miles away from that of RIC. If I did the same job for RIC, I'd have spent the last few years arguing strongly for exactly this change of policy.

Do I hate bass players, then? Erm ... no, I am one actually. Am I a greedy bastard or a fat cat? Chance would be a fine thing.

Look at the numbers. If RIC claim that they need to increase their prices by 40% to achieve balanced supply and demand, then (even allowing for some judicious exaggeration, cos I'm a cynical person) that still implies at least a 20% excess of demand over supply. Any economics student - you don't need to be a graduate for this - will tell you that your first course of action should be to raise prices.

Does this action hurt Ricky fans? Well, all those who already own Rickys, and who have therefore put their money where their mouth is, have just seen the re-sale and trade-in value of their instruments shoot up. I own two Rickys and I don't feel particularly damaged by this.

The people who have been potentially damaged by this are those who have yet to buy their first Ricky. How do we know they were actually going to buy one? We don't, do we? And if they now press ahead and buy one anyway, Rickenbacker's actions have guaranteed them even more exclusivity and more individuality.

Believe it or not, I'm not being paid by RIC to write this, nor does Mr. Hall still have the incriminating negatives.

I'm a businessman, and I'm well aware that if Fender / Gibson / Aria / Yamaha / etc. could put up their prices by 40% and get away with it, they'd do it tomorrow and never give it a second thought.

Wouldn't you?

[SJA]

yep, he's charging what the market will bear.

but his claim that supposed rising materials costs is a contributing factor seems like BS to me.

Edited December 22, 2007 by SJA

[Bassassin]

There's an interesting post on the thread about this on RickResource - basically it seems US businesses are obligated by law to do this sort of thing:

[quote]It is the job of finance companies and banks to make it less difficult for a consumer to buy a product, not RIC.

It is, by law in every one of our 50 US states at least, the sole job of every commercial corporation to serve the interests of the stockholders in making the most profit that it is legally possible to make. Lawsuits surround any corporation that would even for a moment try to make the mistake of characterizing itself as trying to make it less difficult to purchase a unit of its production at the expense of maximum profitability.[/quote]

With legislation like that, it's quite remarkable how affordable US retail prices appear in general, particularly compared to here.

J.

Edited December 22, 2007 by Bassassin

[jammie17]

[quote name='Bassassin' post='108329' date='Dec 22 2007, 09:31 PM']There's an interesting post on the thread about this on RickResource - basically it seems US businesses are obligated by law to do this sort of thing:

QUOTE
It is the job of finance companies and banks to make it less difficult for a consumer to buy a product, not RIC.

It is, by law in every one of our 50 US states at least, the sole job of every commercial corporation to serve the interests of the stockholders in making the most profit that it is legally possible to make. Lawsuits surround any corporation that would even for a moment try to make the mistake of characterizing itself as trying to make it less difficult to purchase a unit of its production at the expense of maximum profitability.



With legislation like that, it's quite remarkable how affordable US retail prices appear in general, particularly compared to here.

J.[/quote]




Ric is a family owned business. No stockholders. It comes down to this, Mr. Hall can do whatever he pleases with that company. You may complain, but every single bass will be bought. The used ones, that have always either held their own or gone up in value will now continue to do so, at a greater rate. Everything goes up in manufacturing costs. If you want to keep the jobs in the U.S.A., you gonna have to pay. If you ship/move it overseas, (as with Ampeg) then many will complain about the quality, (or lack of) why did they do it, how come the prices aren't cheaper and such.

I too was looking to get another RIC since I sold my Black 4003 for medical bills...I probably won't be able to afford a new one now, but that's life guys....sad and frustrating as it may be.


EDIT; About 1 year ago, I was having an in depth discussion with someone who was connected with a bass manufacturer. This manufacturer sold their product for x amount of dollars to him. He then sold it to us, the customer. I was surprised at the retail price as compared to the distribution price. The manufacturer could of easily added a hundred dollars on his price, but did not. I was told that it was important for that manufacturer to get as many instruments into as many musicians hands as he could. I thought that was a VERY stand up attitude to have. They also recently raised their prices, but not anywhere near 40%. I will not guess as to why, but my OPINION is, the guy wants his instruments to be as affordable as he can make them. Hat's off to that manufacturer for that.

Edited December 22, 2007 by jammie17

[jammie17]

[quote name='Bassassin' post='107646' date='Dec 21 2007, 02:09 PM']A message, then, for Mr John Hall of RIC.

It is this:



If that's what you want, then that's what will happen.

And those who can still afford, or aspire to the real thing will import, because no doubt US prices will remain about 45% lower than UK ones. And UK, and other non-US dealers will stop bothering to try & sell Ricks, and probably sell copies instead. Rickenbacker International Corp won't be very "international" any more. Not that it really is, anyway.

Jon.[/quote]


Well thanks for showing us what some of the rate increase is about. All those who buy the fakes.....Mr. Hall has to pay legal fees for his copyrights> Well done sir.

[tempo]

Mmm... 40% on top of what are nearly british custom made prices.. .. to some enthusiasts with more cash than sense, fair enough!

On a side note, I played my 1st Ricky last week, it was nice, but no better than any £500 instrument to me, put it in line with a USA deluxe fender... Neither my cup of tea. It was going for £900, in almost new condition. (Curlys, Liverpool)

[Bassassin]

[quote name='jammie17' post='108362' date='Dec 22 2007, 11:13 PM']Well thanks for showing us what some of the rate increase is about. All those who buy the fakes.....Mr. Hall has to pay legal fees for his copyrights> Well done sir.[/quote]
With all due respect - bollocks. The instrument in the picture was built over 30 years ago, by a long-defunct Japanese manufacturer I guarantee you've never heard of. Furthermore, it isn't a "fake" - none of the copy instruments from this era made any attempt to pass themselves off as the genuine article.

At the time the young Mr Hall was off having failed business ventures that were nothing to do with the family business or guitar building at all, while his dad ran Rickenbacker - or Electro-String Instrument Corporation, as it was at the time. Rickenbacker International Corp didn't exist until Hall Jr took over the business, and surprise surprise, [b]none[/b] of the design elements were registered as trademarks until the early years of this decade. Which is why the vintage copies piss off Mr Hall so much - their very existence threatens the validity of his trademark registrations (note - [i]not[/i] copyrights) and this is probably why he's quite happy to leave builders like John Birch - who have been making a very high-end, hand-built Rick lookalike since the early 70s - alone.

Now kindly explain to me, utilising a few facts, if you can manage it, quite how the existence of a few cheap, rubbish modern copies, and a handful of vintage collectables are causally connected to a 40% price hike. My point (since you plainly didn't read what I said) was that making real Ricks even more unaffordable will simply make the demand for copies higher. And we all know how markets respond to demand, don't we? Unless they're Mr Hall.

J.

[jammie17]

[quote name='Bassassin' post='108404' date='Dec 23 2007, 02:36 AM']With all due respect - bollocks. The instrument in the picture was built over 30 years ago, by a long-defunct Japanese manufacturer I guarantee you've never heard of. Furthermore, it isn't a "fake" - none of the copy instruments from this era made any attempt to pass themselves off as the genuine article.

At the time the young Mr Hall was off having failed business ventures that were nothing to do with the family business or guitar building at all, while his dad ran Rickenbacker - or Electro-String Instrument Corporation, as it was at the time. Rickenbacker International Corp didn't exist until Hall Jr took over the business, and surprise surprise, [b]none[/b] of the design elements were registered as trademarks until the early years of this decade. Which is why the vintage copies piss off Mr Hall so much - their very existence threatens the validity of his trademark registrations (note - [i]not[/i] copyrights) and this is probably why he's quite happy to leave builders like John Birch - who have been making a very high-end, hand-built Rick lookalike since the early 70s - alone.

[i][b]Now kindly explain to me, utilising a few facts, if you can manage it, quite how the existence of a few cheap, rubbish modern copies, and a handful of vintage collectables are causally connected to a 40% price hike. My point (since you plainly didn't read what I said) was that making real Ricks even more unaffordable will simply make the demand for copies higher. And we all know how markets respond to demand, don't we? Unless they're Mr Hall.[/b][/i]

J.[/quote]


Hmmm well let's see..you come out with a song. It's copyrighted and published..and someone buys your cd (song) and puts it, (a copy) on the net....without your permission of course costing you income for something you created....

There are more than "A few" copies of Rics out there taking away income from a company that created the instrument. That makes the company file lawsuits to protect their copyright, and image, likeliness..etc. and that costs money. And the market will respond to the demand just fine for those that buy fake, Illegal products. People will always look for a fake product to fool others or just to try and say they have the real deal. Rolex watches for example. Human nature. Gotta love the internet and all it brings with the touch of a button. Ebay even has credit payments now for your items. You do seem to have a dislike of Mr. Hall, at least I get that feeling from your post.

Anyway, thanks for your reply.

Edited December 23, 2007 by jammie17

[Happy Jack]

[quote name='jammie17' post='108415' date='Dec 23 2007, 07:12 AM']Hmmm well let's see..you come out with a song. It's copyrighted and published..and someone buys your cd (song) and puts it, (a copy) on the net....without your permission of course costing you income for something you created....[/quote]

Well, having established my credentials as a non-hater of Mr. Hall or RIC, and as an owner of genuine Rickys, let's take a look from the other side.

Jammie, it's usually worth the effort of actually reading Bassassin's posts. Ignorance of this topic is no defence when so much information is freely available to you.

Bassassin's point is that RIC / Rickenbacker / John Hall Jr. do NOT have any form of original [b][i]copyright[/i][/b] on any aspect of the distinctive Ricky shape, any more than Fender do on the P-bass or J-bass shapes.

RIC have very recently (the last 10 years) started to register their distinctive features in the USA, use those registrations to take legal action against anyone in the USA who tries to sell a 'copy' of a Ricky (whatever that means, exactly), and put legal pressure on US-based organisations like eBay to prevent them from allowing the sale of 'copy' Rickys anywhere in the world.

Bear in mind that the vast majority of 'copy' Rickys were made long before RIC decided on this change of policy, and that the vast majority are bought & sold outside the USA. Living in London (that would be "London, England" to an American), I am not subject to US law and have no wish to become so. If I want to buy a copy Ricky, that's up to me.

You presumably believe that John Hall is a businessman protecting his legitimate interests, and that is definitely one reasonable interpretation of his actions. Another equally reasonable interpretation is that this policy is a combination of cultural imperialism and legal imperialism which looks pretty grim to non-Americans, and which often verges on being just petty.

Please understand that I am NOT flaming you, or trying to do so. Had RIC (or its predecessors) taken out copyright on the distinctive features of the 4001 during the 60's then we wouldn't be having this conversation. The whole point is that they did not, and that by their current actions they are effectively turning many thousands of innocent people into retrospective miscreants, and potentially subject to legal action in the USA.

Edited December 23, 2007 by Happy Jack

[kevbass]

I will never buy a Ric simply because they are such a bunch of piss takers, a 40% hike due to increased costs on materials blah blah, if thats the case why arent other bass companies all hiking their prices up by 40% to compensate like Ric feel it nessecary to do? Its pure money making, plain and simple.

[Bassassin]

Jack - thanks for clarifying my points far more eloquently than I could!

Jammie - I don't dislike Mr Hall, or have any issue with the majority of his business practices. I've had personal email correspondence with him over the sale of vintage copy instruments - I'm a collector & enthusiast of the 70s Japanese copy era basses & guitars, and didn't understand RIC's policy regarding their sale. To me, it seemed that suppressing the sale of these instruments simply had the effect of making them more desirable & forcing prices up - in the UK, a vintage Rick copy can sell for only a bit less than a used Rickenbacker, so encouraging this seemed self-defeating.

Mr Hall pointed out that under US trademark law, the mark owner [b]has[/b] to be seen to take action against all & any infringement - if they do not, the mark passes into the public domain in perpetuity. Therefore I understand - and (grudgingly) support RIC's actions. I have massive respect for John Hall's integrity as a businessman in his absolute refusal to compromise the nature & quality of his product - and he is in a fortunate position in that the market (up to now) can bear this.

I remain, as yet, unconvinced that this recent price increase is an absolute necessity, though. What you have to understand is that in the UK, Rickenbackers are already positioned as a high-end, expensive product, far more so than in their home market, and a 40% price increase will make this already scarce & expensive instrument utterly unachievable for many. There is currently a fashion-led demand for Rick instruments, and you can be absolutely certain that unscrupulous importers [b]will[/b] rush to fill that gap, with shoddy imported copies. Which was my original point.

Yes, RIC will incur some legal expenses in protecting their designs, but that is going to be the case for any business in a similar position. However, how would you propose to make existing copies (most of which were made in the 1970s) go away? All RIC are doing is hiding them from view - that's all they can do.

And I'll reiterate once again - making their product more unaffordable will only encourage the manufacture, import, sale & popularity of even more copies, and RIC will have to take time & spend money attempting to prevent this.

I don't own a Rick, but I do love them, and I've wanted one since I first saw Geddy Lee wielding one, back in the day. And as I've told Mr Hall - the day RIC reissue a 60s/early 70s 4001, with checker binding, toaster, full-width glitter inlays, wavy Grovers, the works - will be the day I flog my JapCrap & place an order. Even at the new prices. Probably.

J.

[Musky]

[quote name='synaesthesia' post='108428' date='Dec 23 2007, 09:25 AM']I've owned several Ricks and still have 2. I've been in touch with John Hall on a few occasions since the 80s. RIC is a company building a specialist instrument for a specialised crowd. You can't compare a RIC to a contemporary design like say a Fodera. They appeal to a completely different crowd as does Alembic.

A. They know that they feed a constant baying crowd wanting Ricks and more Ricks. RIC are ALWAYS in a seller's market position.
B. They know that the demand is greater than they can meet now.
C. The QC of a new Ric is as consistent as it has ever been. So no real special mojo with an older Ric, a well kept Ric is as good as any other well kept Ric. No funny CBS fender , Norlin Gibson, Baldwin Gretsch lottery hokey pokey.
D. They have no expansion or offshore production plans and are likely never to have either as long as J Hall is CEO.
E. If you think their relationship with customers is bad, RIC will pull a dealership from distributors or retailers if they don't meet RIC's terms, they have done so on several occasions. Ask Jim Duncan of Southpaw guitars, not only was he a RIC dealer, he was a LEFTY only RIC dealer. They no longer carry RIC intsruments.
F. This marketing reputation has been there for a long time, don't expect ay change soon. They have been like this for a very long time and not only survived but remained profitable and look to remain profitable from demand.
G. As long as there is commercially crap music, and as long as there is a X factor, American Idol etc... there will be a strong indie/prog/I want to be different/ crowd that will play Ricks and every once in a while the Ric sound becomes 'fashionable".[/quote]

Like you, I own 2 Ricks - a '68 4001S and a 4003 (I used to have a 4001 as well, but thought that was just being greedy ). So I'm far from immune to the attraction of Ricks.

I'm aware that RIC are entirely within their rights to up their prices dramatically, and given the demand this is entirely rational. I also feel that John Hall is fetishisising his product as much as some of his customers do - he appears to feel that he builds a quality high end product that merits prices to match. But in terms of pure quality I don't think they really stand up to the bespoke makers his prices are beginning to match. Effectively telling his customers that "I'm upping my prices just because I can" was never going to win many friends, and I find it a frankly baffling decision to make that announcement. There were enough people who thought Ricks were overpriced as things stood, and this is just going to fuel things. It may have been a rational decision based on demand, but people tend to have a notion of a 'fair price' which judging by plenty of comments RIC have now overstepped.

As for quality control, there's no way either my 4003, nor my old 4001, hold a candle to my 4001S - an opinion backed up by many others who've played it. And I've seen plenty of threads elsewhere bemoaning the set up on new Ricks. RIC have been riding on a high for several years in terms of fashionability, but that's not always been the case. The most I paid for any of my basses was £275 - not much more than I might have expected to pay for a Precision at the time - and the fashionability of them seems to go in cycles. I'm not sure that this price increase will do much for getting them into the hands of the young bands that tend to drive their perceived desirability. Doubtless there will still be a strong demand from aficionados and a heritage market though.

I've been far from impressed with RIC's attitude to spare parts for some time and, for me, this price increase has just served to take more of the shine off Rickenbacker's reputation.

[jammie17]

[quote name='Happy Jack' post='108489' date='Dec 23 2007, 11:26 AM']Well, having established my credentials as a non-hater of Mr. Hall or RIC, and as an owner of genuine Rickys, let's take a look from the other side.

Jammie, it's usually worth the effort of actually reading Bassassin's posts. Ignorance of this topic is no defence when so much information is freely available to you.

[b]Bassassin's point is that RIC / Rickenbacker / John Hall Jr. do NOT have any form of original [b][i]copyright[/i][/b] [/b]on any aspect of the distinctive Ricky shape, any more than Fender do on the P-bass or J-bass shapes.

RIC have very recently (the last 10 years) started to register their distinctive features in the USA, use those registrations to take legal action against anyone in the USA who tries to sell a 'copy' of a Ricky (whatever that means, exactly), and put legal pressure on US-based organisations like eBay to prevent them from allowing the sale of 'copy' Rickys anywhere in the world.

Bear in mind that the vast majority of 'copy' Rickys were made long before RIC decided on this change of policy, and that the vast majority are bought & sold outside the USA. Living in London (that would be "London, England" to an American), I am not subject to US law and have no wish to become so. If I want to buy a copy Ricky, that's up to me.

You presumably believe that John Hall is a businessman protecting his legitimate interests, and that is definitely one reasonable interpretation of his actions. Another equally reasonable interpretation is that this policy is a combination of cultural imperialism and legal imperialism which looks pretty grim to non-Americans, and which often verges on being just petty.

Please understand that I am NOT flaming you, or trying to do so. Had RIC (or its predecessors) taken out copyright on the distinctive features of the 4001 during the 60's then we wouldn't be having this conversation. The whole point is that they did not, and that by their current actions they are effectively turning many thousands of innocent people into retrospective miscreants, and potentially subject to legal action in the USA.[/quote]
[i][/i]

Guys, it's pretty simple. For whatever reason Ric felt, they did not need, seem to feel the need, want, whatever reason, back in the day, they now have trademark, copyright, or whatever right to protect their bass/guitars from being Illegally, ILLEGALLY copied and manufactured by unauthorized companies.

[i][b]"cultural imperialism and legal imperialism" [/b][/i] You have GOT to be kidding....right? The company wants to protect its product. You're too funny. Must be that English, (London, England) humor.

Now as far as when Bassassin's fake knockoff was made, it was made for one purpose only. As a cheap copy of a popular, quality instrument. As Bassassin's has stated now, their will be a growing market for these Illegal knockoffs, in part due to Mr. Hall's raising of his prices. The other part due to people who buy cheap knockoffs of REAL products.

[i][b](whatever that means, exactly)
[/b][/i]

Now please, you guys in London, England know what a copy is.

Now as long as there are people with Bassassin's attitude, that seems to believe that owning a knockoff of a product is ok, then there will be a market for these products. Just as many feel it's ok to download pirated, illegal music without paying for it/the artist. And I FULLY support the artists going after people stealing in this way.....(gotta love the internet)...

So now, Mr. Hall has raised the price on a product that he manufactures, and the implied "Threat" is, "Well he'll get his, because there will be MORE knockoffs now".

So, Bassassin, if Charmon raised the price of toilet paper 40 %, would you protest this by buying an off brand copy of it?.... Then again, if you really want to save money, you could "recycle" the paper your chips were wrapped in.

Edited December 23, 2007 by jammie17

[bass_ferret]

Cant think of much else that has not increased in price since 2001.

[Happy Jack]

Talk.

Talk remains cheap.

[jammie17]

[quote name='bass_ferret' post='108601' date='Dec 23 2007, 04:27 PM']Cant think of much else that has not increased in price since 2001.[/quote]

Unfortunately, neither can I. Especially if it remains to be manufactured in the USA.

[bass_ferret]

[quote name='Happy Jack' post='108603' date='Dec 23 2007, 04:30 PM']Talk.

Talk remains cheap.[/quote]
Off topic - but WTF is that picture?

[Bassassin]

[quote name='jammie17' post='108591' date='Dec 23 2007, 04:02 PM']Now as long as there are people with Bassassin's attitude, that seems to believe that owning a knockoff of a product is ok, etc, etc, etc [i]ad infinitum[/i][/quote]



Jammie - there's really[i] no point at all[/i], is there? I guess there's only a limited number of times I can make the [b]same point[/b] over & over before it finally sinks in that you're just not reading a single word I've said, are you? The essence of debate is that you listen to & understand the other person's argument, and the perspective they're coming from, and then reply with a structured and reasoned response. Instead, you're just making stuff up that I have not said.

There's just no point at all.

J.

[jammie17]

4003
Bound body and neck, full inlay, wired for stereo
2159

2008 retail price for a 4003.


Rickenbacker 4003 Bass Fireglo
is $1,949.99 from a manufacturer's list price of $2,159.00

Yup, they have gone up in price, but that's what happens when you make one of the best musical instruments in the world. Quality will always cost.


"The essence of debate is that you listen to & understand the other person's argument, and the perspective they're coming from, [i][b]and then reply with a structured and reasoned response"[/b][/i], (You mean like this?)


Would do you well to read your own reply....

Edited December 23, 2007 by jammie17

[Waldo]

[quote]up, they have gone up in price, but that's what happens when you make one [b]of the best musical instruments in the world[/b].[/quote]

If you say so!

[jammie17]

[quote name='Waldo' post='108670' date='Dec 23 2007, 07:04 PM']If you say so![/quote]

Arguably, one of the best.

[Waldo]

[quote name='jammie17' post='108671' date='Dec 23 2007, 07:08 PM']Arguably, one of the best. [/quote]


Hehe, that's better