Swarovski - odd business policy - near point (2 Viewers)

Chosun Juan · Jul 4, 2020

elkcub said:
Hi Chosun,

My feeling is that the company has a very unique and (apparently) effective way of product marketing, but I don't think it involves customer contempt. Rather it's simply cold dispassionate reasoning designed to maka da monyee.

I got my first dose of this sort of thing years ago when the Brooklyn Dodgers moved to Los Angeles. They left all their lifelong fans behind.

Psychologically, we customers somehow believe that manufacturer's "care" for us. But caring is something humans do, not corporations. The blunt reality is they just have to maka da monyee.

So long as SONA provides great customer service, which they continue to do, I can live with it. But, by the same token, it's appropriate to discuss how they do business since it grounds us in reality.

Ed

Ed,

True, 'da monyee' talks - but a 'leader' without 'followers' is just a person going for a walk by themselves !

Expectation Theory is an old dog that doesn't really like new tricks ...

I have been 'burned' several times by manufacturers - cessation of Hazelnut Choc Chip Cookies, Russian Earl Grey Tea, and perhaps the most unforgivable travesty of all - dropping Black Forest Ice-cream .... just when I was well hooked on it too ! :-C

I think it will be very interesting to compare sales of new stock, new design EL SV's versus the 2nd hand market for old design EL SV'S (or even including new stock old design for as long as those now unicorns last .... )

Dale's explanation of market positioning makes sense - a middle way would have been nice though :t:

Chosun :gh:

matt green · Jul 4, 2020

Dale Forbes said:
To cut a long and (somewhat painful) story short, we really wanted to find a way to be able to keep the EL alive. After all, many of us are still very emotionally attached to the EL. But it arguably could never have survived at its current price position alongside the NL Pure, and simply reducing the selling price just creates losses.

Regardless of how much we did not want to change the performance of the EL, Ed was not too far from the truth in that we we forced to take a cold business decision to save costs - and that is exactly what simplifying the focusing mechanism allows us to do. I never heard a single person mention hamstringing.

Long story short: we were proud of the 1.5m we achieved with the EL. Reducing it to 3.3m was incredibly painful. But it does help to allow us to significantly save costs and sell the EL at a much reduced price.

Could you confirm the near focusing distance is the only change to the el42?

Matt

jan van daalen · Jul 4, 2020

Dale,

Could you tell us when this is gonna happen.
Say like, from which serial number?

Jan

dalat · Jul 4, 2020

Poor Dale, now he has answered one question everyone is jumping on him. Communication is a tricky thing :-O

Troubador said:
Dale

Does this increase in close-focus distance only apply to EL 42 or will EL 32 be treated the same way?

Lee

Why would they downgrade the EL32, it's still the flagship in 32s and main competitor of the new SF32 to come. Will only happen once a 32 NL is out.

I don't really buy that the cost reduction of the focus mechanism is really so relevant, but its an explanation that is more easily accepted by fans than pure marketing logic.

Swaro did a similar thing to the ATS scopes, which were discontinued when the ATX was introduced. Only the heavier ATMs were continued as a second line, I guess the lighter ATS would have been a too attractive alternative to the heavier top line ATX. I was so lucky to get a discounted ATS just before the ATX was announced.

jan van daalen · Jul 4, 2020

dalat said:
Poor Dale, now he has answered one question everyone is jumping on him. Communication is a tricky thing :-O

Why would they downgrade the EL32, it's still the flagship in 32s and main competitor of the new SF32 to come. Will only happen once a 32 NL is out.

I don't really buy that the cost reduction of the focus mechanism is really so relevant, but its an explanation that is more easily accepted by fans than pure marketing logic.

Swaro did a similar thing to the ATS scopes, which were discontinued when the ATX was introduced. Only the heavier ATMs were continued as a second line, I guess the lighter ATS would have been a too attractive alternative to the heavier top line ATX. I was so lucky to get a discounted ATS just before the ATX was announced.

Hi Dalat,

Sorry mate but you got it confused.
ATM (M for Magnesium body) was traded for the ATS (Aluminium body) which is a heavier but cheaper material compared to Magnesium alloy.

Jan

Troubador · Jul 4, 2020

dalat said:
Why would they downgrade the EL32, it's still the flagship in 32s and main competitor of the new SF32 to come. Will only happen once a 32 NL is out.

Another member has suggested this has already happened with EL 32 being downgraded from 1.5m to 1.9m so I was asking the question to make sure this is correct. For sure 1.9 is on the Swaro website.

Lee

JoeRawles · Jul 4, 2020

The EL 32 always has had 1.9m close focus, so from what I gather it's only the 42 that is changing but will wait for confirmation. This tallies with the 32 coming down by ~10% in price and the EL by ~20%.

dalat · Jul 4, 2020

jan van daalen said:
Hi Dalat,

Sorry mate but you got it confused.
ATM (M for Magnesium body) was traded for the ATS (Aluminium body) which is a heavier but cheaper material compared to Magnesium alloy.

Jan

Right, i confused the letters. So the ATM is the lighter one, which wad discontinued when the ATX came out. I

Kammerdiner · Jul 4, 2020

JoeRawles said:
The EL 32 always has had 1.9m close focus, so from what I gather it's only the 42 that is changing but will wait for confirmation. This tallies with the 32 coming down by ~10% in price and the EL by ~20%.

Yup, my bad on that one. My 2012 32mm SV is indeed spec'd at 1.9m. I think that's the same as the new 32mm SF, but correct me if I'm wrong!

Mark

Troubador · Jul 4, 2020

JoeRawles said:
The EL 32 always has had 1.9m close focus, so from what I gather it's only the 42 that is changing but will wait for confirmation. This tallies with the 32 coming down by ~10% in price and the EL by ~20%.

Thanks Joe

Lee

Essex Tern · Jul 4, 2020

elkcub said:
The answer is NO, it wasn't improved. As a matter of fact focus speed was slowed down within the overlap range of the new and old models. We had a long thread on that subject at the time. The results have presumably been good for the bottom line, however, since they're using the same playbook today. Interesting strategy, but it makes me cringe.

Ed

I think it comes over a bit shifty too - marketing a watered down version with no change of name, and calling them “the legend” - I am sure many people will fall for the marketing believing they are getting the originals, just dropped in price because of the new model - clever but shifty.

Troubador · Jul 4, 2020

Ries said:
Classy to get an honest explanation from a, seemingly, Swaro rep :t:

Dale has posted on Birdforum in the past and has always been helpful, and he can usually be met at BirdFair.

But, "Classy to get an honest explanation"?

I am not sure if that is really deserved. Swarovski did not announce the close focus changes, Dale was responding to what Birdforum members had found, and did I misunderstand or was it said about EL in the video that you 'don't mess with the Legend'? Increasing the close-focus distance seems like messing with the Legend to me.

Lee

nodd · Jul 4, 2020

Troubador said:
Dale has posted on Birdforum in the past and has always been helpful, and he can usually be met at BirdFair.

But, "Classy to get an honest explanation"?

I am not sure if that is really deserved. Swarovski did not announce the close focus changes, Dale was responding to what Birdforum members had found, and did I misunderstand or was it said about EL in the video that you 'don't mess with the Legend'? Increasing the close-focus distance seems like messing with the Legend to me.

Lee

Lee,

I agree with you. I think the EL Field Pro image quaility possibly had little difference to the NL,even with the NL increased FOV. The EL Field Pro in the format prior to the alterations would possibly had an impact on sales of NL. I think this is part of the fall out of deminishing turns in optics with the differences being so small at this level.

Ries · Jul 4, 2020

Troubador said:
Dale has posted on Birdforum in the past and has always been helpful, and he can usually be met at BirdFair.

But, "Classy to get an honest explanation"?

I am not sure if that is really deserved. Swarovski did not announce the close focus changes, Dale was responding to what Birdforum members had found, and did I misunderstand or was it said about EL in the video that you 'don't mess with the Legend'? Increasing the close-focus distance seems like messing with the Legend to me.

Lee

You take such marketing talk serious!? I find it fair conduct when an involved indivual is honest and open about negative changes like this. I wouldn't expect a Swaro rep beforehand notifying us (are we The Market? A small part... Influencers? Well, that discussion is going elsewhere, isn't it

) about such changes. They'd just hope we wouldn't notice and blindly buy the NL's like good Swaro boys! But maybe that's a bit negative and pessimistic on my behalf? I often try to see thing realistic and positive as possible o

nodd · Jul 4, 2020

Has the EL (legend) now become an open bridge version of the SLC in spec?

jgraider · Jul 4, 2020

They may be negative changes to some people, and to some people they will be positive changes, and I'd guess to 90% of the buying public it is a non issue, doesn't matter whatsoever. I guaranatee the average binocular buyer doesn't know what the close focus specs are on the binoculars they own. In fact they probably don't know most of the specs on the binos they own.

If it matters so much to some here, I'd offer up to sell my pre FP 10x50SV's that are in excellent shape, so you won't have to deal with it if you don't want to.

Kevin Conville · Jul 4, 2020

My naturally suspicious nature has me wondering what else might have been changed as a cost cutting move.

And about that focus change...since the tooling and parts already exist for the close focuser, how much money can be saved here, and here alone? Does the changing of close focus allow the optics to be downgraded as well because of the demands for correction at those distances but affect (relatively) the medium and long distance little?
What about specification of the (mechanical) materials?

Though I appreciate Mr Forbes coming clean about the focuser, are we getting the full story?

Troubador · Jul 4, 2020

Ries said:
You take such marketing talk serious!? I find it fair conduct when an involved indivual is honest and open about negative changes like this. I wouldn't expect a Swaro rep beforehand notifying us (are we The Market? A small part... Influencers? Well, that discussion is going elsewhere, isn't it ) about such changes. They'd just hope we wouldn't notice and blindly buy the NL's like good Swaro boys! But maybe that's a bit negative and pessimistic on my behalf? I often try to see thing realistic and positive as possible o

I entirely agree with you! Dale is always as helpful as he can be and I didn't make any reference to Swaro not notifying Birdforum, only that Swaro didn't announce the changes when the subject of 'messing with the Legend' came up in the video. And your second to last sentence states openly what I was only hinting at.

Lee

dalat · Jul 4, 2020

Kevin Conville said:
My naturally suspicious nature has me wondering what else might have been changed as a cost cutting move.

I doubt its about cutting costs at all. It's about making everyone wanting to buy the new top bin.

Canip · Jul 4, 2020

I rarely use a binocular for things nearby, and when I do, I use a Pentax Papilio which lets me go as close as 50cm.

But I appreciate that some members here are using binoculars to observe insects and the like, and maybe they can give me an answer to my question:

If I am not mistaken, when observing with the EL 10x42 at a close focus of 1.5m I see the observed object as if it was only 1/10 of that distance away, i.e. at 15 cm. With the close focus of the EL changing to 3.3m, the apparent distance of the observed object is now 33 cm, i.e. 18 cm more than before.

How much detail recognition do I really lose if my insect is 18 cm further away?

Or what am I missing here?

Canip

Swarovski - odd business policy - near point (2 Viewers)

Given to Fly

Norfolkman gone walkabout

Well-known member

...

Well-known member

Moderator

Feathers Wild Bird Care

...

Well-known member

Moderator

🪶

Moderator

Neil

Well-known member

Neil

Well-known member

yardbirder

Moderator

...

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread