restocking fees

Here is a different view:

I would not mind paying a reasonable fee for trying out a product directly from the manufacturer. 20% might seem much but taking the chance in reselling of used products might come out the same anyway.

Frankly, over the past year I have bought many items directly from the Manufacturer (Fi, Wright, Cain, Pass). Compared to regular retail through dealers these products are already discounted and don't have the high mark-ups. A restocking fee, so that one can try out such products directly from the manufacturer, are reasonable. If the manufacturer would have to resell the demo he would have to offer it at a 20% discount anyway.

Overall, I would welcome a change in the retail system:
- Products direct from manufacturer
- 60 day at home trial of either designated demos or
- 60 day at home trial with new product, but restocking fee of 10-20%

The current dealer system is the most useless thing to me: An 2 hour in-store audition under unknown environment just does not help much; a 2 day at home trial is better but not enough either. A longer at 30-60 day at home trial with reduced prices from the start (as there is no dealer needed then) sound much better to me.

And no, my whole reasoning doesn't have anything to do with my moniker :).
Just someone who welcomes longer trial periods.

Rene

My point is that those companies I mentioned in my last post create a climate that will make it difficult for high end manufacturers to demand restocking fees.

As is aparent from the responses to this post, many here seem to expect service for free. I personally like Mitch2 idea the best: Having a travelling demo piece of equipment with no pressure to purchase would be ideal and I think viable in North America.

Of course, the market will decide, but if restocking fees will help small amnufacturers survive so be it. Maybe we should call these fees rather equipment trial charges as there is a service provided; retocking does not seem the correct term as the items will not (or at least should not) be sold as new again, as it would be if an item in a store is "restocked".

Rene

Jea48:

The two remaining dealers in my area will check out a
piece of demo equipment for a home audition. Screw that waiting for
something that is being shipped. I'll take the local dealer first over mail
order.

I know we have a different "buying philosophy" here. But to be
even more controversial: Yes, I would buy from the small manufacturer rather
than supporting the local dealer, even with a reasonable "equipment
trial charge". At least in that case, I know that 100% of my investment
goes to a person with skills and creativity, who puts all their effort in making
a good product. The point here is not really to save a few bucks. Being in a
"business" where creativity is most important, I would rather
support the source directly, than people just selling the ideas. In addition, as
mentioned above, checking out equipment for only two days or a weekend is
insufficient IMO.

As for local dealers, I would steer the business model in a completely
different direction: Rather than mainly providing sales service, I would prefer
their position rather as an advisor and service provider. A good example
would be to provide detailed room acoustics improvement and system setup
experiences much beyond what current dealers do, but more in the style of
acoustics companies (e.g. Rives Audio).

Just a slightly different view…

Rene

P.S. Pass’ First Watt effort is almost a direct distribution model where one
dedicated person/dealer distributes everything directly and equipment is
shipped directly from the factory. And it is interesting to see what additional
creativity it allows for the manufacturer (Pass).

Jea48:

Jmho I don't think you know how it works. The
manufacture needs the dealers. In case you didn't know it, dealers do not sell
the manufactures product on consignmemt. They pay upfront for the product
plus shipping. If you were to call a Hi-End manufacture like krell, or ARC, bet
you would find they like it just the way it is.

Traditionally that is the way it is and I have no doubt that you are
right. As a consumer my vote is for a direct distribution system. I know from
certain British Hifi components that dealt exactly as you described with their
dealers. Just strengthening my point that this is a dealer-sold brand not
worth supporting. And you are again right that many big companies do prefer
the status quo.

The current rise in small manufacturers shows that my views do work though.
Take a look at the list of manufacturers that make excellent products and get
away without dealers: Tyler, Omega, Fi, Welborne, Wright, Zu, Moscode, ZYX,
Amazon, Galibier, Teres, Redpoint, Bent Audio, K&K, Dodd Audio, JuicyMusic,
Transcendent Sound, Audionote Kits, Trichord, VH Audio, Ridge Street Audio.

What do you want to bet that the dealer has already
bought and paid the manufacture for his product and the manufacture is
holding the items for the dealer to ship to the dealer's customer, drop
shipping. It saves the dealer money. Just call "Pass" and see if he will sell to
you direct.

Try calling Renohifi and find out whether he paid for all 100 FirstWatt F3, F2
and F1 - I doubt it. In that case it is an exclusive distribution deal of a
singular specialty line.

Another case in point: Magnepan - take a look at their success of their
directly distributed MMG speakers. They would never be able to hit that price
target by going through a dealer network. The point here is that times did
change: With the presence of the Internet, manufacturers do not rely on
dealers anymore to address the small audiophile target audience. IMO the
internet achieves this much more efficiently.

Bottom-line is: This thread addresses restocking fees charged by
manufacturers (which are often small). It did not ask about restocking fees for
online Vendors and dealers. For small manufacturers it does make sense IMO
and is fair. The added diversity and possibility to be more creative is worth
supporting.

Just my 2c for the third time... :)

Rene