Since you know the answer, then how about a to the point, simple straight forward explanation. That would be helpful. Thanks.
.
Hi Bruce:
I had assumed by now, some of those folks who like to take me to task for being in the business so long, and not ashamed of myself for thinking that experience is worth something to a forum like this, would have jumped all over this question.
First, it should be said that I DO NOT know why LEUPOLD dropped the YOSEMITE!
I do know, however, why so many other good binoculars have been dropped, and doubt the importer, Leupold, is any different.
First, as Ceasar points out, competition! We take so many things in the supply chain for granted: “We want it, why can’t we have it”? We see the importers of the brand as king; they are not. That position goes to the OEMs in Asia, and they’re not bashful with their demands. My Baywatch telescope came about because the brass telescope I was getting from Celestron dried up. About 50% of the instruments coming into Torrence had poor finishes. Alan Hale, then CEO of Celestron, told his OEM he needed instruments with a better finish. But selling the product in great quantities to plenty of other customers, Asia didn’t need the fly in their ointment and told Alan to “Take it or leave it.” When you have more orders than you can fill, anyway, you can do stuff like that--Celestron was just ONE customer. And now, with price of brass going wild (between 2 orders, prices more than doubled), apathy for the Baywatch running rampant at Captain’s (Emery sold Captain’s October 1), and me not having the money to keep it going, it is another well thought-out and respected product that has gone the way of the dodo.
Then too, is the overall sales of the product. What was it adding to the company’s bottom line? Many of you care that a good bino bit the dust. That feeling hits us all. I thought Nikon’s dropping of the EII was a really dumb, . . . make that stupid, move. BUT, was it stupid to those who keep the books and worry about shareholders? More people are buying roofs; the EII was NOT a roof. What to do? Wanting to increase the bottom line, they had to know. I feel confident it will be back, just probably not in my lifetime.
And what about side issues? Binos start out with molds. Those molds don’t last indefinitely, and cost upwards of a quarter million dollars to replace. If you sign for enough units, over a specified period, the OEM may absorb the cost. Most, however, are paid for by the importer. So, if the bino looks to be a marginal seller, regardless of its quality, and it’s time for new molds, hard decisions have to be made. In order for a full-line importer to be practical, he can’t develop an undue love for any particular instrument.
“Binoculars are not made to look through; they’re made to sell.” —the former CEO of one of America’s biggest bino importers
And there are plenty of other reasons: the cost of glass, the cost of turning that glass into a lens, etc. Of course, the OEM usually doesn’t do that, but the OEM has his own OEM. Glass, metal, machining, testing, advertising, and more, cost money. Binoculars are not made in a vacuum. So, what causes a bino to be dropped? Sadly, to the OEM, the observer is way down on the list of special people.
Bill
PS Trying to please everyone is like trying to ice skate uphill; it tightens your stomach muscles but you can never get very far. :cat:
