The subject of contracted-out manufacturing (COM) has received a lively discussion on Bird Forum for quite a few years now, with views sometimes polarising into a face-off between the classic situation where bins are designed and manufactured in-house and the simplest version of COM which is the ticking of boxes on an order form with the last two being ‘new armour’ and ‘our logo’ and which has come to be known as re-branding.
I actually think that this black and white concept of the manufacturing choices conceals the true situation which is more shades of grey between these two extremes.
Let’s take look at the classic ‘do it all in-house’ concept. Did this ever really exist? Isn’t this a slightly skewed vision when brands such as Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski have always bought-in eyecups, focus wheels, rubber armour, the machined components of focusing mechanisms, the aluminium or magnesium body blanks and even the glass/lens and prism blanks. And yes some brands are fortunate to have glass-making companies within their groups but don’t imagine for one moment they get special prices: the glass-making companies have their own financial targets to meet. Moreover it is normal practice for the external design of the bins, the look and style of them (which can affect handling, let’s not forget), to be farmed out to an external industrial designer. Swarovski’s EL was designed this way and most current Zeisses have been styled by KISKA.
So the classic ‘in-house’ method was never as pure as it might have been, nor was it free from the ticking of boxes, something that has attracted scorn from some quarters. For example, for years product development personnel at Zeiss have been ticking boxes (or the equivalent of this) marked T* coating, Lotu-tec Coating, Phase Coating, Dielectric Coating, Same old Black Cordura Case, Same old Neck-strap and of course Leica and Swarovski have been ticking their equivalents and in recent times Leica ticked High Transmission Glass and Swarovski a few years before had ticked Field Flattener.
For sure at some point during the life of Zeiss FL binos, someone at Zeiss ticked High Transmission Glass, totally revised appearance and different handling when it came time to make decisions about HT. Brands that employ COM can make these choices too and we know from Pete Gamby that they do this and more, but when these investments in the capabilities of the bins are made by these brands this is seen by some as not being as noble as when the big three brands do it. Now, if a brand ticks a box that says Model A1 and it comes with all the choices made about glass, coatings, image quality etc. etc. and they just put their own armour and logo on, then I think this qualifies as rebranding. But if they hunt through the options and choose the right quality of glass and coatings and body material etc. etc. for the price and performance points they are aiming at then this is getting close, in my opinion, to what classic brands do.
Let’s take another example. Ever since I joined Bird Forum some more experienced members than me have regularly commented that Leica has been producing basically the same bins for years, just tweaked here or there, and launched with new armour and a new name all the way from Trinovid BA to Ultravid HD+. Now these are all fine instruments and the BA/BNs are iconic of a certain era of birding, but if this assessment is accurate, isn’t this simply in-house re-branding? And along the way wouldn’t a cynic say that all that happened was that the following boxes were ticked: shorter minimum focus, reduce weight, new armour, add high transmission glass. Let me be clear that I don’t mean this as some sort of criticism in the slightest (Troubadoris has two Leicas including an Ultravid) but it does actually parallel some of the practices that surely occur in COM.
Summing up, my point is that classic manufacturing doesn’t differ from COM as much as might be thought and COM can involve just as many choices about technical excellence and product quality as classic manufacturing.
Lee
I actually think that this black and white concept of the manufacturing choices conceals the true situation which is more shades of grey between these two extremes.
Let’s take look at the classic ‘do it all in-house’ concept. Did this ever really exist? Isn’t this a slightly skewed vision when brands such as Zeiss, Leica and Swarovski have always bought-in eyecups, focus wheels, rubber armour, the machined components of focusing mechanisms, the aluminium or magnesium body blanks and even the glass/lens and prism blanks. And yes some brands are fortunate to have glass-making companies within their groups but don’t imagine for one moment they get special prices: the glass-making companies have their own financial targets to meet. Moreover it is normal practice for the external design of the bins, the look and style of them (which can affect handling, let’s not forget), to be farmed out to an external industrial designer. Swarovski’s EL was designed this way and most current Zeisses have been styled by KISKA.
So the classic ‘in-house’ method was never as pure as it might have been, nor was it free from the ticking of boxes, something that has attracted scorn from some quarters. For example, for years product development personnel at Zeiss have been ticking boxes (or the equivalent of this) marked T* coating, Lotu-tec Coating, Phase Coating, Dielectric Coating, Same old Black Cordura Case, Same old Neck-strap and of course Leica and Swarovski have been ticking their equivalents and in recent times Leica ticked High Transmission Glass and Swarovski a few years before had ticked Field Flattener.
For sure at some point during the life of Zeiss FL binos, someone at Zeiss ticked High Transmission Glass, totally revised appearance and different handling when it came time to make decisions about HT. Brands that employ COM can make these choices too and we know from Pete Gamby that they do this and more, but when these investments in the capabilities of the bins are made by these brands this is seen by some as not being as noble as when the big three brands do it. Now, if a brand ticks a box that says Model A1 and it comes with all the choices made about glass, coatings, image quality etc. etc. and they just put their own armour and logo on, then I think this qualifies as rebranding. But if they hunt through the options and choose the right quality of glass and coatings and body material etc. etc. for the price and performance points they are aiming at then this is getting close, in my opinion, to what classic brands do.
Let’s take another example. Ever since I joined Bird Forum some more experienced members than me have regularly commented that Leica has been producing basically the same bins for years, just tweaked here or there, and launched with new armour and a new name all the way from Trinovid BA to Ultravid HD+. Now these are all fine instruments and the BA/BNs are iconic of a certain era of birding, but if this assessment is accurate, isn’t this simply in-house re-branding? And along the way wouldn’t a cynic say that all that happened was that the following boxes were ticked: shorter minimum focus, reduce weight, new armour, add high transmission glass. Let me be clear that I don’t mean this as some sort of criticism in the slightest (Troubadoris has two Leicas including an Ultravid) but it does actually parallel some of the practices that surely occur in COM.
Summing up, my point is that classic manufacturing doesn’t differ from COM as much as might be thought and COM can involve just as many choices about technical excellence and product quality as classic manufacturing.
Lee
Last edited:
to see less sharpness than might be imagined! :brains: Globalized manufacturing is sooo 20th Century! In fact it can traced back right through the industrial revolution to the earliest most rudimentary forms of trade.
