From: thomasd@tps.COM (Thomas W. Day)
Subject: Re: DOES AMERICA SAY YES TO JAPAN? - Off track!!
Organization: TPS
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:20:43 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.212418.6483@island.COM> fester@island.COM (Mike Fester) writes:
>I would have thought that obvious, even to you. It IS possible to compete
>in Japan, Mr Day.

I didn't intend to be saying that I believe it is impossible to compete in
Japan.  I do believe that we are losing that war and I do believe it is
because we aren't smart enough (as a culture) to recognize it as a war.

>>Haven't you noticed the down sizing of even Microsoft, let alone IBM, GM, 
>>Ford, Dodge, and the non-existence of companies that were giants just a few 
>>decades ago?  
>I have also noticed the same thing in Nissan, Toyota, Nomura, etc. Read the
>SF Chronicle, Wall Street Journal, LA Times, etc.

True.  I don't think they are downsizing at the rate of their American 
competitors and I don't think they are moving critical facilities out of the 
country at the same rate, but I don't have solid stats on that.  I'd welcome
the info if you have it.

>You could read the stuff off rec.motorcycles. And the definition of "large 
>displacement is "over 750cc". And again, you are telling people what they
>SHOULD want. And "trap", Mr Day? All you have said is that since YOU do not like
>Harleys, the US company is doing it wrong.

I don't get that NET location, so I can't get it from there.  The closest 
location I have to that is something called BA.MOTORCYCLES and nothing is
ever posted there.  

>>>please explain WHY a company should move into
>>>an area with LOWER profits, when they cannot keep up with market demand in
>>>their particular niche (which they dominate).
>
>>That is exactly the attitude of the American auto manufacturers in 1958 when 
>>Volkswagon came to town.  If/when the market shifts what will they sell?  
>>This is what happened to Detroit in the 70s, the market they claimed would 
>>come back to them left forever.  
>
>"left forever"? Hmm. It may interest you to know that both GM and Ford outsold
>all Japanese car makers combined in the US last year. Not too bad, but again, 
>how can you get upset with Ford and GM? 

Good point.  How many of those cars did Ford and GM build vs. the number 
they bought?  I'm not arguing with you, I want to know.  Since both of those 
manufacturers (specially GM) seem to be farming out their small cars and 
small engines, it seems a little skewed to use these numbers if they are 
mostly built by foreign manufacturers.  I know Dodge does a lot of that, I 
suspect GM does too.  I don't think Ford is as dependent.

>In either case, WHY would they move into a different niche? A lower profit
>one at that? And Harley HAS opened up several new factories to produce 
>different parts for their bikes, new painting facilities, etc, so it would 
>seem to be the latter. Read the bike mags. 

I'll buy that.

>Then it would seem that CUSTOMERS (people who pay money) would have 
different>priorities than you do, does it not? Or are merely so much more 
intelligent>than other consumers? And they do not seem to be those ride race 
bikes>exclusively.

Sure, that's what I said in the first place.  Harley customers are buying a 
piece of history.  Harley customers are very affluent and Harley is riding a 
nostalga wave.  Personally, I don't think that will last.  I could be, and 
have been often, wrong.  If it doesn't last, Harley doesn't have anything 
but nostalga to sell.  To me, that seems short sighted.

>>A non-biker who has been riding bikes since 1963, the last decade Harley 
>>was competitive on any track in America.  Would you like to race, pal?  Be 
>>warned that I think of racing as war, the same attitude Japan applies to 
>>manufacturing.  
>OOOOOOOOOOH! Riding THAT long and STILL don't understand how some people 
>prefer non-racing bikes? Personally, I think of WAR as war, and you have yet
>to demonstrate any knowledge of how the Japanese think. And I am one of the
>touring bikers, Mr Day, and have been since I started riding (about 20 years
>ago).

Sure I understand why people prefer non-racing bikes.  Nothing I own 
currently would be a seriously competitive racing bike.  Everything that 
isn't a chopper isn't classified as a racing bike.  Surprise!!!!  But 
everything that isn't a chopper or bus on two wheels isn't a Harley either.  
I love touring, that's mostly what I do, along with commuting.  But I'd 
never subject my 44 year old back to the beating a Harley delivers.  I'd 
also rather have fun in the corners on PCH and in the mountains.  I also 
like to go fast when the coast is clear.  Can't do either of those on a 
Harley.  

I think I have a grasp on the Japanese marketing tactic.  Blow the 
competition out of the market with lower prices and high quality, they treat 
the market fairly enough to prevent new competition.  

>And you don't seem to have a clue about marketting and selling. And any sort
>of stuff you want to post on motorcycle engineering, feel free to post. Feel
>free to post them on rec.motorcycles, or to posts your repugance of Harleys
>to rec.motorcycles.harley. I'll see 'em there.

I don't have a way at the moment.  I wish I could.

>Uh, excuse me Mr Day, but IF there is a "liability crisis that is driving 
>everyone out of motorcycling" and a "market crash" WHY are you proposing 
>Harley get into MORE niches in the market? In all honesty, you don't even make
>BAD sense. Are you proposing they set out to lose money?

Maybe I don't have a marketing clue, but it seems to me that if the market 
for a product is about to undergo a severe crisis, diversification is a good 
idea.

>You COULD read the Japanese bike magazines, you could read the SF 
Chronicle, or>follow the posts on rec.motorcycles; the Harley as #1 was 
posted several times>this year. The BMW stat was listed in the BMW News mag.

I was hoping for something a little more specific.  I do follow a lot of 
bike magazines and I don't see any indication that Harley is doing anything 
serious about their quality problems, other than ignoring them.  

Let's see, now you seem to admit that they ARE doing something right (though
>they're not doing it YOUR way), and your worry is "how long"? How long does
>ANY company make money, Mr Day? As long as they provide a product the 
>*CUSTOMER* wants, at a price s/he is willing to pay, and their management is
>competent enough to take advantage of it.

It's definately true that Harley doesn't do it my way.  I'm mostly 
disagreeing that they are an example of a major company with great quality 
and that their longevity and success is the real thing.  Obviously, time 
will tell.

>As posted before (so this is only the 3rd time you might have seen it) it was
>the JAPANESE manufacturers who got their OWN government to lift restrictions
>on domestic sale of large displacement (> 750cc) bikes.

Sorry, it must have been posted on NET locations I don't get, because I have 
not seen this before.

>Again, there doesn't seem to be any correlation between healthy economies and
>having one's own natural resources. Or Russia, China, Brazil, etc, would all
>be economic giants, and Japan, Germany, France, etc, would be consigned to
>decidedly lower status.

Obviously, political climate has a lot to do with your three examples.  But 
that doesn't rule out natural resources with the right political climate.

>Undoctored, as released last month, it was averaging between 7-9% for the
>various midwestern states. California had a 12% rate. SF Chronicle. Or don't
>you believe that, either?

I've not seen "undoctored" employment stats posted anywere.  SF Chronicle, 
when?  Which stat is undoctored?  I mean what is that stat called?  As 
opposed to the one the federal government usually posts.

>And IF, in your lifetime, Indianapolis has always looked dead, and IF you have
>been racing motorcycles since 1963 (perhaps you were 10 years old at the time)
>then since at LEAST 1953, Indianapolis has been dead. Now, as NO ONE has yet
>denied that we had a pretty decent economy in the 50s and early 60s (or, I can
>post more data), HOW HAS THE JAPANESE "TAKEOVER" MENTALITY BEEN RESPONSIBLE 
>FOR THE DEMISE OF THE MIDWEST? Or do you not mean for us to use that as one of
>your examples?

I was responding to the claim that Indiana was "getting better."  There are 
lots of places in the Midwest that that have almost collapsed in the past 15 
years.  Places that had fairly strong economies through the 50s and 60s.


>??? Why be nervous about it? Obviously, one of the world's great economies has
>learned to live with an unemployment rate we would find unacceptable. Oh, the
>rearming thing? As posted several times before, WHY would countries start to 
>build up their militaries, if a similar build-up was a cause of our current
>problems?

Wasn't that an argument used by Mr. Chamberlain in 1936?

Newsgroups: misc.consumers