Warranty is a marketing tool, if you charge enough you can offer any kind of warranty you want to.
I've always suspected that the extra one to two hundred dollars Swarovski charges for their binoculars in this country is essentially an extended warranty that people have no choice but to pay. Jan has said in previous posts that in Europe, Leicas are more expensive, and Oetzi has pointed out that all brands there are required to have the same 10 year warranty. I wonder if companies in Europe are allowed to offer bonuses to stores and sales people as an incentive to push their brands, like they are here?
Well, they haven't offer me non.
It is usual in the camera business, like Perterra posted. That's common.
Personally I would like to stay independend. Sell the customer what he needs not what my biggest bonus will be. I want my business to stay in a 100 years and not for the short run.
What bothered me is the way the USA does business. What is the extra value a shop as cabelas (and probably others) brings to the customer except getting his hand in the wallet, if they can't/won't give a objective advice?
I'm getting to understand the:"he is a dealer" mantra, with experiences like these:C:C:C.
Jan, that's not the way retail works in this country. Why do you think Vortex and Swarovski are placed in the same case? I think that Cabelas has made a decision that they will push the Swaro and Vortex line, probably because they have agreements with those companies that are more profitable for Cabelas. The salesmen are told which lines to push. He even hesitated when he said Vortex was second best, but I'm sure that's what he was told to say at some employee meeting, and I think he values his job more than seeing that his buyers choose the right binoculars for themselves. I don't blame Leica or Zeiss for the salesman's ignorance (i.e. lying), I blame them for sticking with a retailer that treats them like dirt.
Jgraider, I'm just curious why you are so fixated on warranties. Have you had a lot of problems with Swarovskis?
This is essentially correct.
The decision to push Swarovski, a large manufacturer of very expensive sporting goods, in Cabelas' stores has to be made at the top level in Cabelas headquarters between the Cabelas buyer and the Swarovski rep.
No point in mincing words here; this is a business decision and there has to be some consideration passing back and forth between Swarovski and Cabelas to get this prominence in the display locations and the pro-active cooperation of the sales staff working there. There is also a substantial inventory cost burden that Cabelas has to bear so the product has to sell.
This setting up of displays is commonly found in super markets but you will not find the employees there actively pushing the products as they seem to be doing in Cabelas.
Bob
two of my hunters did, by their own negligence, ruin two pair of EL's. A phone call was placed to Swaro USA customer service, followed by a letter, and Swaro fixed them like new, zero charge.
You're both just purely guessing as to why Swaro is supposedly pushing the Swaro/Vortex over Leica. I'm sure you've got no proof this is company policy....do you? Could this just be one guy, in one particular store? I kind of think it could be.
Jan, that's not the way retail works in this country. Why do you think Vortex and Swarovski are placed in the same case? I think that Cabelas has made a decision that they will push the Swaro and Vortex line, probably because they have agreements with those companies that are more profitable for Cabelas. The salesmen are told which lines to push. He even hesitated when he said Vortex was second best, but I'm sure that's what he was told to say at some employee meeting, and I think he values his job more than seeing that his buyers choose the right binoculars for themselves. I don't blame Leica or Zeiss for the salesman's ignorance (i.e. lying), I blame them for sticking with a retailer that treats them like dirt.
You're both just purely guessing as to why Swaro is supposedly pushing the Swaro/Vortex over Leica. I'm sure you've got no proof this is company policy....do you? Could this just be one guy, in one particular store? I kind of think it could be.
The guy at Cabelas, which is a world class store/retailer BTW, is probably making his case based on product warranties. If that's the case he's correct, along with leupold. I've stated before that of the 120 or so hunters I've had in camp over the past 12 years, probably 70% of them show up with Swaro something, 20% Zeiss, 5% Leica, 5% something else. Leica, as a company, is totally clueless how to market, warrant, and service their products here in the USA. People have caught on to this and have chosen to spend their $$$ on something else, as have I. Life's too short to deal with idiots.
Idiots? Idiots. Really? Classy.
Your stats are interesting. Do they sell Swarovskis at the Range Rover dealers?
Am I wrong in imagining well decked out "dudes" in MBs and RRs with $10,000 custom rifles ready to be driven out to shoot some exotic animal while it's out grazing amongst the ranch's cattle. You know, "sportsman"? Or do I have that all wrong? You'd give full disclosure, of course.
Of course there is no proof. Why are you asking for it? And I never implied they were doing it at Leica's expense. I stated that it was a business decision, pure and simple. One hand washes the other.
It's speculation based on common sense.
Also, the ridiculous excuse that "Swaro charges more than Leica, therefore you're paying extra for the warranty" is nonsense. Amongst comparable models Swaro is no more expensive than Leica.
Check Eagle Optics. The price difference between an Ultravid HD and comparable EL model ranges from $250 to $300.
EL SV, or EL ? Leica has nothing to compete with the SV.