Tremendous article on High-End Audio Industry

[alfe]

Just because someone mentions race doesn't make them racist.

 

At my knowledge there is only one race, starting to differentiate is being a racist.

[alfe]

Back to topic. KK is not a racist. He is using language as a tool. I just cannot believe that such an intelligent group of participants on this web-site are not better read. Maybe the overabundance of Tech-heads and computer experts are lacking in the liberal arts.

There are many examples of KK's style of writing throughout literature. Give me a break.

 

He is working hard to get his third K.

[NOMBEDES]

He is working hard to get his third K.

 

 

 

Post of the day award!

 

See .... well done, nasty, to the point, good writing!

[Jud]

Still not seeing how / why this is racist or sexist. Let's start with defining a racist:

 

 

 

I don't see where he is suggesting Somalis or Syrians are inferior just because of their race. Just because someone mentions race doesn't make them racist. Plus, is his statement true? Does that matter?

 

I'd quibble with your take on the dictionary definition, Chris. We can all think of situations where there are more or less scurrilous characterizations of groups as being better due to race or some other characteristic - black guys can run faster and jump higher; Jews are wealthy bankers, doctors, and (ahem) lawyers; gay guys have great interior decorating taste; on and on. So it's not characterizing a group as inferior that's the point, it's characterizing the group that's the point.

 

Statistically it will virtually always be true that variation within any large group will far outstrip variation between the averages of two large groups. For example, the average male height in the US is 5 feet 9.5 inches; for women it's 5 feet 3.75 inches. That's a difference of just under 6 inches. However, Brittney Griner is 6 feet 8 inches tall, while Mary Lou Retton is 4 feet 9 inches tall, a difference of nearly two feet. Yes, men are taller than women on average, but that will tell you close to nothing about whether the next woman you meet coming around the corner will be taller or shorter than you. As groups, Asian Americans have a reputation for intelligence that African Americans don't (deserved or not), but again this tells you squat about whether the next African American you meet will be Neil deGrasse Tyson, Jim Gates, or Clifford Johnson.

 

Certainly there are Somali immigrants, lesbians, Syrian refugees and former welfare recipients who are millionaires. There are surely some current welfare recipients who will become millionaires. I also hear some Democrats may have some money. The theme of the article was marketing expensive stuff to people who can afford it. The rest was an obvious and badly misjudged attempt to be "provocative," which in my experience is something bad writers fall back on when they're not confident of being able to hold the interest of an audience otherwise.

 

Even with respect to marketing and incomes I don't think Kessler has it right. There are vanishingly few luxury automobile companies that are making it on their own. Ferrari is owned by Fiat, Rolls Royce makes jet engines.... In the same way, few audio companies, even at the high end, exclusively sell 5- or 6-figure equipment, and some quite successful companies with good reputations barely make it into the low 4 figure region (Schiit Audio). There's a lot of action and excitement in the high end these days about equipment costing less than $2000 (e.g., the microRendu). Focal sells the Grande Utopia EM at $270,000 a pop, but I wonder what percentage of company income is derived from sales of those versus their desktop, home theater, or even car audio systems? This goes all the way back to General Motors (and I'm sure long before that): marketing and selling products at a range of prices allows you to appeal to a range of customers, and also enables you to have customers progress along a "commitment ladder" - you sell them Chevys when they're kids, and if these are good products and you treat your customers right, they might be your Corvette or Caddy buyers when they make it. Even if they keep on buying Chevys, that probably adds more to your bottom line than the Caddy division.

 

If Kessler does have a point, it applies only to those high end companies that exclusively market tremendously expensive equipment. How many of those are there, and what percentage of them don't know how to market to their chosen segment? Does the problem Kessler purports to identify even exist?

[wgscott]

You know Paul, why do you pick on Jews and Israel as your example to replace? Rhetorical question. I really don't want the answer or start down that path.

 

Here's a hint:

 

He didn't pick on anyone.

 

Re-read what he wrote, this time for comprehension.

[joelha]

Mmm- Joel you are a really good thinker, and I enjoy your posts. But they are provocative, and they are often capable of stirring up some powerful feelings and emotions. That is beyond good for a writer of course. It is, perhaps, at least from some perspectives, the whole point.

 

But there are limits. This particular author is way over the limit. At the risk of sounding peeved, replace some of those groups with Israelis or Jewish people, and I suspect your tolerance would drop down the scale like a stone. Replace them with Irish or Southern and my own tolerance would vanish. Replace it with other "hot topic" groups, and the place might burn down..

 

Your postings are inherently political, and they are mild compared to what Jason responded to. Jason is, if nothing else, a very empathetic person, and keenly feels the suffering of other people. From his point of view, I am absolutely sure the response was justified.

 

-Paul

 

Paul,

 

Thanks for the compliment and your thoughtful message.

 

I don't get the inherently political aspect of my posts. Talking about objectivists is not inherently political. The thread just trended that way at times. I promise, that wasn't my hope or intent.

 

And for this thread, for sure article was very provocative and, I think unnecessarily so. The essential points could have been delivered without the extraneous material. Having said that, I tried to ask for a disclaimer in my first post about looking past the political tone of the post.

 

Even if I was naive about hoping the thread would remain apolitical, I just want to be clear that politics was never my intent. Kessler's comments about the industry were . . . and still are.

 

While it was four years ago, here's a thread I posted along similar lines: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f8-general-forum/why-isnt-high-end-industry-doing-more-save-itself-13491/

 

As for Jason's posts, we all have powerful feelings at times. There are better and worse ways to express them . . . especially in public.

 

Thanks again for your message. I appreciate the content and your tone.

 

Joel

[joelha]

Racism from the article in red:

Sexism from the article in green:

"As unjust as this may seem to you,

single-parent Somali immigrants

and

Lesbian buskers on welfare

and

refugees from Syria

and underpaid avocado pickers do not buy moving-coil cartridges and air-bearing tonearms."

 

I almost didn't read this article as it said:

"[Warning: If you are easily offended, or a Democrat, or earning less than $200,000 per annum and bothered by it, or are inherently antipathetic to those with money even if they’ve earned it by hard work, please skip this month’s column, because no apologies will be forthcoming.]"

 

There are Democrats who earn more than $200,000 per year.

 

I'm a Green Party member, much more progressive than corporate Democrats. My only income is Social Security of $13,000 per year. Before I retired it took me about 12 years to earn $200,000.

 

However, I don't care how much rich people spend on their audio equipment. Unlike economics, ultra-expensive audio components often have a trickle-down effect, just look how much better modern affordable audio equipment has become.

 

So, I feel this article could have been written without the insults. Just my personal opinion.

 

Teresa,

 

I've never met you, but I like you.

 

You're able to look past the excessive aspects of the article to appreciate the points you thought were good.

 

And you haven't made a ton of money yet don't resent people who have made much more.

 

Good for you. Thanks for an impressive message.

 

Joel

[Priaptor]

Here's a hint:

 

He didn't pick on anyone.

 

Re-read what he wrote, this time for comprehension.

 

Ok wrong adjective. Why Jews and Israel as an example? Again rhetorical question and I was not looking for an answer as I don't want to go down that road again.

[mrvco]

his point wasn't even about how much they cost, it was about how they market them.

 

Right. Contrasting the people grousing about print / web 'Audiophile' mags reviewing ultra high-$$$ gear vs. ultra high-end gear mfg's pivoting their marketing efforts to more traditional luxury goods marketing tactics. Neither of which cater to destitute immigrants, LGBTQQIAAP street performers or migrant laborers (and that's why I consider his 'article' to be nothing more than click-bait). The perfect example is Rolex, who doesn't rely on dive mags to market the Submariner to the jet-set.

[NOMBEDES]

Right. [EDIT] The perfect example is Rolex, who doesn't rely on dive mags to market the Submariner to the jet-set.

 

[EDIT] If Kessler does have a point, it applies only to those high end companies that exclusively market tremendously expensive equipment. How many of those are there, and what percentage of them don't know how to market to their chosen segment? Does the problem Kessler purports to identify even exist?

 

While I was in California at the Newport Show, I had to visit the Omega watch shop at the South Coast Plaza shopping mall and the Rolex Center in Beverly Hills to have some minor adjustments made to some timepieces.

 

At both locations, the the service, the attention to detail the quality of the sales force was outstanding. In short, a very nice experience.

 

Now, some audio dealers I have visited do not make such an effort. Of course not all audio shops (physical) are as bad as KK makes them out to be.

[christopher3393]

As I read the article for a second time, I kept thinking of a post over in Head-fi by Jason Stoddard. He is aiming at a different audience, and doing so quite successfully in my opinion. It is his reflection on the last Newport show. I much prefer his philosophy and perspective to Mr. Kessler's :

 

Schiit Happened: The Story of the World's Most Improbable Start-Up - Page 744

 

The whole piece is worth a read as a response to Kessler, imo. For brevity's sake I'll just lift the conclusion:

 

So What Do We Do About This?

 

Well, it’s obvious, isn’t it? We need to take up arms and storm the castle!

 

Except, well, there is no castle, and there is really no need for a violent revolution. The end-game of high-end is plain for all to see—ever-increasing prices for an ever-shrinking market, until the elephant crashes all the way through the dance floor.

 

What we need to do, as manufacturers, is keep our wits. The siren call of higher prices is a huge temptation. As the super-high-end hyperinflates, the sensible high end will want to raise prices, too. Hell, they’ll be called on to raise prices.

 

Think I’m kidding? I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told that we should raise prices because we won’t be taken seriously if we don’t.

 

Well, here’s my response: **** you.

 

I give exactly zero ****s about being taken seriously. I care about only one thing: bringing high-end within reach of as many people as possible and building the ranks of audiophiles, so that when the ultra-high-end implosion comes, there’s plenty of sensible music-lovers out there.

 

And that’s what manufacturers can do: resist the temptation to inflate up, as the ultra-high-end bubble spirals out of control. Remember how to make an inexpensive, attractive chassis. Remember old production methods like sheet metal and casting. Remember that higher production numbers will reduce your costs. Remember to pass that along to the buyer. And consider—if you’re not already there—going direct. That’s the biggest benefit to the buyer, really, since it effectively cuts prices in half.

 

So what can you do, individually? You can, of course, choose less-expensive components. Like, well, duh. You can also be more pointed in your questioning—ask manufacturers where the cost goes. What percentage of that high price tag is the chassis versus the electronics? Hint: if it’s fancy, it’s a lot. What unique technology are they bringing to the table? If it’s off-the-shelf chips and implementation, how do they justify the cost? Hint: R&D on unique tech is a lot higher than a datasheet implementation, so R&D amortization really doesn’t fly there.

 

But there’s more. I want to do more at Schiit. So consider this our manifesto: we will continue to bring the highest-value products, at the fairest-possible margins, in the largest-quantity runs (for even lower cost) to assure that as many people can enjoy high-end audio as possible, and to grow the audience for the future. And we’ll continue to do this both in personal and desktop audio, and in the world of speaker amps, preamps, and other gear, as we can. You’ll see our 2-channel products this fall, and, if the reaction of various industry people is to be believed, they may have an even bigger impact on that market than we have on the desktop.

 

Because, you know what? We need to do more than talk about the elephant. Talking is only the start. What we really need to do is get the thing out of the room, entirely.

 

Here’s to a sane, affordable, and high-end future!

 

 

Thank you, Mr. Stoddard.

 

No thanks, Mr. Kessler.

[wgscott]

Ok wrong adjective. Why Jews and Israel as an example? Again rhetorical question and I was not looking for an answer as I don't want to go down that road again.

 

Maybe he just wanted to invoke the left-wing, liberal, intellectual, Central Park West, Brandeis University, the socialist summer camps and the, the father with the Ben Shahn drawings, right, and the really, y'know, strike-oriented kind of, red diaper stereotype.

[Priaptor]

Maybe he just wanted to invoke the left-wing, liberal, intellectual, Central Park West, Brandeis University, the socialist summer camps and the, the father with the Ben Shahn drawings, right, and the really, y'know, strike-oriented kind of, red diaper stereotype.

 

Good points!! Can't argue with that synopsis

[wgscott]

Well, his next line (Annie Hall) is something like "Yeah, I'm a bigot, but for the left."

[Priaptor]

As I read the article for a second time, I kept thinking of a post over in Head-fi by Jason Stoddard. He is aiming at a different audience, and doing so quite successfully in my opinion. It is his reflection on the last Newport show. I much prefer his philosophy and perspective to Mr. Kessler's :

 

Schiit Happened: The Story of the World's Most Improbable Start-Up - Page 744

 

The whole piece is worth a read as a response to Kessler, imo. For brevity's sake I'll just lift the conclusion:

 

 

 

Thank you, Mr. Stoddard.

 

No thanks, Mr. Kessler.

 

Wow sounds like the Communist Manifesto of 1848.

 

Funny how "sheet metal" workers unite to make cheap stuff gets your rocks off.

 

I know we aren't supposed to be "political" but KK really hit a raw nerve with you guys.

[徐中銳]

Wow, no one have really bothered to link backgrounding of Ken Kessler ‽

 

A quick recall, recent coincidence, piece from Hi-Fi News, Meet... Especially informative for audiophile readers who like studying listening rooms, here's excepting 3 :

 

Or, say, latest from his own site, Blog No. 11: Simply Listening....

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi @Jud - Thanks so much for the response. It's your type of response that really benefits the CA community. Food for thought and solid reasoning (no matter if someone agrees or not).

 

 

I agree with some of what you said but not all. I think we all need to use the same definition of racism if we are to call someone a racist. I Googled the term and simply put the screenshot in my post.

 

 

With respect to characterizing groups, it happens all the time and is sanctioned by most(?) people. I think of the insurance industry who places groups of people into categories based on age, sex, credit report, etc... and charges each group accordingly. The insurance industry has backed up its price differences to these groups by statistics. In the same way you said using average heights of people won't tell you anything about the next person coming around the corner, the insurance statistics won't tell you anything about how I drive or how you drive. There are times where grouping people may seem unfair or make us uneasy, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong. For example, in Minneapolis, African-American high school students are doing much worse when it comes to standardized testing than their white counterparts. (I hate that this is the case and would love to be part of the solution to help turn it around). When finding solutions to problems with students dropping out and improving test scores etc... it would be preposterous to ignore this group of kids and focus the limited resources of time and money on all students of all colors and races. By placing kids into groups, we can better target a solution. Note: please don't take my example and discuss causes of the lower test scores. That's not what my example is to be used for. I'm just talking about grouping people and the fact it's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

 

In addition, I don't think any sane person would suggest that characterizing a group equates to 100% of the people in that group. Sure there probably are single Somali mothers who are into HiFi, just like there are drivers who pay more because of the group they belong to, but as a whole those Somali mothers aren't purchasing HiFi. Characterizing them as not purchasers of HiFi is most likely 99.99999% true. By the way, Minneapolis (where I live) has the largest population of Somali immigrants in the US. I have first hand experience with the Somali community and I know how hard working and family oriented that community is, but I still think Ken is correct that they aren't purchasing HiFi. From Wikipedia: "A large number of the Somali immigrants settled in Minnesota, which in 2002 harbored the largest population of Somalis in North America. By 2006, Somalis in the state accounted for $164–$394 million in purchasing power and owned 600 businesses. The city of Minneapolis in particular hosts hundreds of Somali-owned and operated commercial ventures. Colorful stalls inside several shopping malls offer everything from halal meat, to stylish leather shoes, to the latest fashion for men and women, as well as gold jewelry, money transfer or hawala offices, banners advertising the latest Somali films, and video rental stores fully stocked with nostalgic love songs not found in the mainstream supermarkets, groceries and boutiques."

 

 

I guess my thing with this is that someone isn't a racist simply by mentioning race and using facts. I hate racism and what it does to a society, but I believe we can still discuss race, using facts, without being racist. It's the only way to find solutions to problems, although Ken wasn't seeking a solution to this problem when he characterized these groups. I hope people don't think I am supporting him and his views, simply because I am arguing one side of the issue.

 

On the other side of the coin, are the racists the people reading further into Ken's comments? Equating single Somali mothers to something other than simply a group of people not traditionally in the HiFi demographic or capable of spending tens of thousands of dollars on HiFi. Again, just asking a question, not endorsing anything.

[Priaptor]

Hi @Jud - Thanks so much for the response. It's your type of response that really benefits the CA community. Food for thought and solid reasoning (no matter if someone agrees or not).

 

 

I agree with some of what you said but not all. I think we all need to use the same definition of racism if we are to call someone a racist. I Googled the term and simply put the screenshot in my post.

 

 

With respect to characterizing groups, it happens all the time and is sanctioned by most(?) people. I think of the insurance industry who places groups of people into categories based on age, sex, credit report, etc... and charges each group accordingly. The insurance industry has backed up its price differences to these groups by statistics. In the same way you said using average heights of people won't tell you anything about the next person coming around the corner, the insurance statistics won't tell you anything about how I drive or how you drive. There are times where grouping people may seem unfair or make us uneasy, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong. For example, in Minneapolis, African-American high school students are doing much worse when it comes to standardized testing than their white counterparts. (I hate that this is the case and would love to be part of the solution to help turn it around). When finding solutions to problems with students dropping out and improving test scores etc... it would be preposterous to ignore this group of kids and focus the limited resources of time and money on all students of all colors and races. By placing kids into groups, we can better target a solution. Note: please don't take my example and discuss causes of the lower test scores. That's not what my example is to be used for. I'm just talking about grouping people and the fact it's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

 

In addition, I don't think any sane person would suggest that characterizing a group equates to 100% of the people in that group. Sure there probably are single Somali mothers who are into HiFi, just like there are drivers who pay more because of the group they belong to, but as a whole those Somali mothers aren't purchasing HiFi. Characterizing them as not purchasers of HiFi is most likely 99.99999% true. By the way, Minneapolis (where I live) has the largest population of Somali immigrants in the US. I have first hand experience with the Somali community and I know how hard working and family oriented that community is, but I still think Ken is correct that they aren't purchasing HiFi. From Wikipedia: "A large number of the Somali immigrants settled in Minnesota, which in 2002 harbored the largest population of Somalis in North America. By 2006, Somalis in the state accounted for $164–$394 million in purchasing power and owned 600 businesses. The city of Minneapolis in particular hosts hundreds of Somali-owned and operated commercial ventures. Colorful stalls inside several shopping malls offer everything from halal meat, to stylish leather shoes, to the latest fashion for men and women, as well as gold jewelry, money transfer or hawala offices, banners advertising the latest Somali films, and video rental stores fully stocked with nostalgic love songs not found in the mainstream supermarkets, groceries and boutiques."

 

 

I guess my thing with this is that someone isn't a racist simply by mentioning race and using facts. I hate racism and what it does to a society, but I believe we can still discuss race, using facts, without being racist. It's the only way to find solutions to problems, although Ken wasn't seeking a solution to this problem when he characterized these groups. I hope people don't think I am supporting him and his views, simply because I am arguing one side of the issue.

 

On the other side of the coin, are the racists the people reading further into Ken's comments? Equating single Somali mothers to something other than simply a group of people not traditionally in the HiFi demographic or capable of spending tens of thousands of dollars on HiFi. Again, just asking a question, not endorsing anything.

 

I couldn't agree more and your last two paragraphs are of course most pertinent.

 

Unfortunately in today's society it is taboo to discuss legitimate facts and stats regarding race because the narrative is all political and to do so brands one a racist. To even disagree with Obama unleashes the term. I feel your pain BUT it is today's world and unfortunately the rules are skewed one way.

 

As to your last paragraph, yes, and I call it the "patronizing racist". Again a one way street.

[AudioDoctor]

Hi @Jud - Thanks so much for the response. It's your type of response that really benefits the CA community. Food for thought and solid reasoning (no matter if someone agrees or not).

 

 

I agree with some of what you said but not all. I think we all need to use the same definition of racism if we are to call someone a racist. I Googled the term and simply put the screenshot in my post.

 

 

With respect to characterizing groups, it happens all the time and is sanctioned by most(?) people. I think of the insurance industry who places groups of people into categories based on age, sex, credit report, etc... and charges each group accordingly. The insurance industry has backed up its price differences to these groups by statistics. In the same way you said using average heights of people won't tell you anything about the next person coming around the corner, the insurance statistics won't tell you anything about how I drive or how you drive. There are times where grouping people may seem unfair or make us uneasy, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong. For example, in Minneapolis, African-American high school students are doing much worse when it comes to standardized testing than their white counterparts. (I hate that this is the case and would love to be part of the solution to help turn it around). When finding solutions to problems with students dropping out and improving test scores etc... it would be preposterous to ignore this group of kids and focus the limited resources of time and money on all students of all colors and races. By placing kids into groups, we can better target a solution. Note: please don't take my example and discuss causes of the lower test scores. That's not what my example is to be used for. I'm just talking about grouping people and the fact it's not necessarily a bad thing.

 

 

In addition, I don't think any sane person would suggest that characterizing a group equates to 100% of the people in that group. Sure there probably are single Somali mothers who are into HiFi, just like there are drivers who pay more because of the group they belong to, but as a whole those Somali mothers aren't purchasing HiFi. Characterizing them as not purchasers of HiFi is most likely 99.99999% true. By the way, Minneapolis (where I live) has the largest population of Somali immigrants in the US. I have first hand experience with the Somali community and I know how hard working and family oriented that community is, but I still think Ken is correct that they aren't purchasing HiFi. From Wikipedia: "A large number of the Somali immigrants settled in Minnesota, which in 2002 harbored the largest population of Somalis in North America. By 2006, Somalis in the state accounted for $164–$394 million in purchasing power and owned 600 businesses. The city of Minneapolis in particular hosts hundreds of Somali-owned and operated commercial ventures. Colorful stalls inside several shopping malls offer everything from halal meat, to stylish leather shoes, to the latest fashion for men and women, as well as gold jewelry, money transfer or hawala offices, banners advertising the latest Somali films, and video rental stores fully stocked with nostalgic love songs not found in the mainstream supermarkets, groceries and boutiques."

 

 

I guess my thing with this is that someone isn't a racist simply by mentioning race and using facts. I hate racism and what it does to a society, but I believe we can still discuss race, using facts, without being racist. It's the only way to find solutions to problems, although Ken wasn't seeking a solution to this problem when he characterized these groups. I hope people don't think I am supporting him and his views, simply because I am arguing one side of the issue.

 

On the other side of the coin, are the racists the people reading further into Ken's comments? Equating single Somali mothers to something other than simply a group of people not traditionally in the HiFi demographic or capable of spending tens of thousands of dollars on HiFi. Again, just asking a question, not endorsing anything.

 

Chris, including them was unnecessary to his point, which was that HiFi companies are not marketing their products the way he would like. I also don't think they are marketing to any of the groups he singled out. Why he used them as an example can only mean one thing.

[The Computer Audiophile]

Chris, including them was unnecessary to his point, which was that HiFi companies are not marketing their products the way he would like. I also don't think they are marketing to any of the groups he singled out. Why he used them as an example can only mean one thing.

I agree that including them was unnecessary.

[sandyk]

I also hear some Democrats may have some money.

 

If they bet on themselves to beat the Republicans led by Donald Trump they are likely to become even richer !

 

You seem to have summed up the rest pretty nicely too , and not just from a U.S. perspective.

[Priaptor]

Chris, including them was unnecessary to his point, which was that HiFi companies are not marketing their products the way he would like. I also don't think they are marketing to any of the groups he singled out. Why he used them as an example can only mean one thing.

 

What's the one thing?

[AudioDoctor]

What's the one thing?

 

He is a racist, bigoted, sexist asshole.

[Priaptor]

He is a racist, bigoted, sexist asshole.

 

I understand you are an educated doctor but isn't that 3 things?

[AudioDoctor]

I understand you are an educated doctor but isn't that 3 things?

 

Is that really the best you can do?