toxoplasma_gondii wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 17, 2020 12:00 am
We have to just assume that the company's restructuring into a pseudo-worker's cooperative (which they constantly promote as an inherent good) could not have any effect upon their business decisions?
Seems you're the one making assumptions here. We don't have to assume anything. We can agree that the change in business structure has an effect, and still disagree about whether that effect is positive or negative. Clearly, you see it as negative.
You don't think these worker-owners would have an incentive to maximize their income and short-term benefits?
No more so than the realization that this short-term focus could lead to company failure which means they no longer have a job. I trust the employees understand this.
You don't think that collective decision-making might result in a minimization of risk and resorting to the status quo?
Unless you're intimately aware of exactly how the employee-ownership is arranged, you're just making biased guesses. Employee ownership is NOT synonymous with "leaderless" and neither is it inherently devoid of hierarchy. The result might follow your above concern. However, there's an equal possibility it might not.
Worker-ownership makes good sense for a business like a food co-op, which is oriented around a local community, but in the competitive global synth market the advantages are questionable.
Employee owned companies do fine in other global competitive mfg markets. There's nothing inherent in "employee-owned" to support your position. Details matter. Do you have those for moog? I do not, but then, I'm not making the assertion that they're messing up either. If Mike set this up as one would a food co-op, he's made a big mistake. I doubt he did that and the little that was shared in articles I read at the time -across both synth and non-synth business journals- did not see any standout red flags. Fortunately there are *many* other business arrangements falling under "employeee ownership" which do not look, or act like a food co-op. Your personal myopia is showing.
Meanwhile, Sequential operates with a very small team of only like 5 or so people (can't remember the exact number), while the actual manufacturing is done by a nearby business (unlike Moog, none of their manufacturing is outsourced to China).
Sequential KBDs are of Chinese origin. I'm not positive, but I think the nearby mfg you mention is setupp as a subsidiary of DSI/Sequential.
They produce some of the highest-quality gear I have ever had the pleasure to own,
It's quite easy to find literally a hundred plus posts online which disagree with you on this. Everything from encoders to pots to firmware to screen printing.
Is Dave Smith's company somehow less ethical because it's not "worker-owned"?
Only hear your voice making this straw man argument.
As a logical consumer, I want to get the most bang for my buck. While I am willing to pay a higher price (within reason) for build quality, sustainable production, and such, how many hipsters Moog is able to employ in Asheville is honestly not my concern.
Nor should it be. You,like everyone else gets to decide if a price is too high or not. You seem frustrated that moog is successful with prices you feel are too high. As soon as you add "within reason" to your price concern, you've made it subjective and personal. You don't like their prices, you're free to buy something else. Do you also complain about other high-priced consumer gear?
This second section below appears to address points Imade rather than the post you quoted.
Do you agree that poor, innocent Moog Music simply cannot afford to do SMT runs? If they thought that there would be so little desire for this product that it didn't make sense to produce any more than a small handful at extremely high cost,
Pleasr re-read what i wrote. You've missed the point. It was not that moog "cannot afford to do SMT runs". Nor was it the idea that they'd sell so few as to make that a lesser option. The point is that they made a choice to make a certain product a certain way (TH), and as part of that choice, see the value in the variable run size this TH choice allows.
You seem unable to accept that they've made a business decision you disagree with.
maybe they should consider making a product that people actually want?
Maybe you could consider that you are NOT part of target market for this product? And accept that "people actually want" *this* vocoder, made *this* way. Moog music Inc has done a pretty good job of assessing and providing for their market. Since that market appears not to include you, why do you fault them for not meeting your personal expectations? I'll bet they will have plenty of customers for this vocoder, at this price.
I personally would have little interest in this devices even if it was $1,000 because the vocoder in my VC-340 is more than enough for me.
Thank you fro providing clear proof you're not part of the market you're complaining about.
Why not release a series of Eurorack modules, including the now-discontinued Moogerfooger circuits, which people have been asking for from Moog for years?
Eurorack is a race to the bottom, only moreso now that Behringer is involved. It would be foolish for them to pursue eurorack beyond what they've already done. This may change in the future, but for now they'll be better served continuing to serve the people who've bought from them before, picking up new buyers as they come. The easiest way to fail in busines is to try to serve too many different markets at once. Focus is a good thing.
No. They won't do that because it's a dumb business move.
But they can't do that because it would destroy their precious brand cachet!
It is easier to upscale your brand than to downscale. Toyota can upscale to Lexus, and Ford to Mercury in past years. But you don't usually see upscale brands moving downmarket unless they create a *very* strong and *clearly* defined and understood division between the two entities. Doing this takes a lot of money, and moog isn't big enough to take that step.
This idea that we cannot be disappointed with their management because 'it makes economic sense for them' is idiotic.
I don't think anyone says you "cannot be disappointed with their management". You're still free to disagree and complain al you want. What *has* been said is that it's a choice they've made -which you clearly and strongly disagree with- and your complaints about it lack insight to the business reasons they've made in arriving at choices you disagree with. It might be idiotic to misunderstand that their economic choices are working fine for them.
I *do* believe they made a few poor technical choices in the ONE, and that they've botched the rollout to some degree. This could have huge effect on them, or not. I don't know enough of the details to say. But if they were to fail soon, I would blame the technical issues with The ONE. NOT the vocoder or other re-issues. *If that were to happen, they wouldn't be the first synth company to fail by putting too much on the line with a big new untested technology polysynth. They'd join ARP and E-mu and a few others.
I used to be a big fan, and miss the days when Moog was making great-sounding, high-quality synth equipment with unique feature sets that weren't entirely out of the price range of the average consumer. However, they have completely alienated me over the past five years or so not only with their condescending political propagandizing, but even more so, with their obnoxious exploitation of Bob Moog's legacy.
Yes, we've heard that very clearly by now from you. We get it. You don't like the choices they've made.
Can you understand that others disagree with you? With the same level of belief that you have in your position?
What's your goal in promoting your belief? Do you think they will change? Do you want them to fail? Do you want us all to agree with you?
My goal in taking the time to reply to you is to point out the alternative viable reasons behind your points of contention in moog's practice of their business. To show that there are two sides to this often seen argument aout what some individual or group thinks a company 'should' do, instead of what they've chosen to do. I've supported Behringer with similar posts, because it's not unique to any one company to have people disappointed with the business choices they've made. But there are often unposted realities behind those decisions that don't get much forum time.