An interesting article on Harman and consolidation...

[Phil O'Keefe]

http://www.corporatetechdecisions.com/article/how_harman_is_transforming_into_a_one_stop_solution_provider?utm_source=topfeatures&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial

 

They're certainly not the only large conglomerate in our industry... Fender and Gibson both own multiple companies / "brands" (in Gibson's case, including Harmony Central), companies like InMusic have multiple brands (Akai, Alesis, Alto, Denon, M-Audio, Numark, AIR, etc.) and Yamaha makes darned near everything (and owns multiple brands such as Steinberg) too. Do you feel that consolidation benefits you as a consumer, and if so, in what ways? Do you tend to stick to products and solutions from one company whenever possible, or do you still source products from multiple companies?

[bookumdano4]

After reading the article with all the csu, cbu, and of course, "robust" descriptor aspects, one thing is apparent to me. Harman is building a rocket. Or a car. We just don't know it yet.

 

I'm neutral on consolidation. It is sometimes a bummer when a company with a product I like is acquired by a larger company... and then the sub-company and all its products vanish from the face of the earth.

[blue2blue]

Harman-Kardon was one of the villains in my somewhat tweaked early teenhood in the 60's. Now they own almost all my heros from the era that still exist.

 

I'm not saying they're the Beast of Revelation, but I never liked them and I like them less now that they own everything. Take a look at some of the crap that goes down at the companies they buy -- the degradation of design and manufacturing philosophies.

 

Three words: J. B. L.

[nat whilk II]

I have some brand loyalty tendencies, but I consider myself a bit lazy for having them.

 

Once companies get X times X times X big, with untold divisions and brands and "presences", to me the company name starts losing meaning. Like when the banks were consolidating like crazy and buying up businesses and trying to be one-stop-shop places for all things financial - the fact that Bank of America was an ok place to have a safety deposit box did not mean their circuit-riding financial advisors were worth their fees. (they weren't, by the way - but that safety deposit box was all a safety deposit box could hope to be.)

 

So much of bigness has to do with pumping up the stock price - till the bubble bursts. But the CEOs and such will have already taken home their zillions in stock options and bonuses.

 

nat whilk ii

 

[Phil O'Keefe]

One of the advantages you sometimes hear about in favor of these multi-company conglomerations is that all of their various products can be / are (in theory?) designed to work together seamlessly, so from a systems standpoint, it may be easier to configure something for the tasks at hand. Do any of you find this beneficial in the real world?

[blue2blue]

My tongue almost went down my throat when I read: "Within this ecosystem there exist specimens at the top of their respective food chains, including AMX, JBL, AKG, BSS, Crown, Soundcraft, Martin and more. "

 

Happily, the Martin in question was Martin lighting. I mean, I'm not the hugest C.F. Martin fan, I don't own a Martin guitar, but...

[MikeRivers]

My tongue almost went down my throat when I read: "Within this ecosystem there exist specimens at the top of their respective food chains' date=' including AMX, JBL, AKG, BSS, Crown, Soundcraft, [b']Martin [/b]and more. "

 

Happily, the Martin in question was Martin lighting. I mean, I'm not the hugest C.F. Martin fan, I don't own a Martin guitar, but...

 

 

I've never heard of Martin lighting. I assumed it was Martin speakers. But then, for a while, the same company that owned Mackie also owned St. Louis Music. I kept waiting for a Mackie banjo, but the best they came up with was the Mackiecaster, a gag guitar with a Stratocaster neck grafter to a Mackie 1202 mixer chassis. They built three. I think they presented one to George Petersen at an anniversary celebration. I don't know where the rest of them are. .

[WRGKMC]

The article says,

 

JBL is still going to create JBL products. Crown will do the same. AMX, AKG and HARMAN will all offer components, no doubt. But they will work together in an ecosystem to make sure that the whole is functioning as fully as the individual. HARMAN Professional Solutions has become the Great Barrier Reef of corporate technology providers.

 

There is some truth to this. They can have JBL make speakers and not mics, and vice versa. This can keep failed products from being put into production. In the past you'd get many of these companies branch out into technologies new to them to gain market share, often times failing.

JBL made a virtually unknown mic called the JBL M50S. AKG besides making headphones made a number of studio monitors and Hi Fi junk.

 

Its good the mother company can focus these companies on what they are noted for and do best but they can also fix pricing and kill off competition. They can also weather the times when things are lean. This kind of financial security does come at a cost however. People are people after all.

 

If people knows they have a steady paycheck they may be less hungry to succeed, and less likely to take chances on bringing new technology forward. Just look at the line of JBL speakers today. Its all molded plastic obviously mass produced. Its low in cost bot would wouldn't rather have one of their vintage speakers over something out of those plastic cabs?

 

Maintaining high quality, breaking in new technology and remaining competitive isn't easy. Many have gone down the tubes. I'm glad companies like JBL are still around but they obviously aren't the companies I knew growing up.

[nat whilk II]

One of the advantages you sometimes hear about in favor of these multi-company conglomerations is that all of their various products can be / are (in theory?) designed to work together seamlessly' date=' so from a systems standpoint, it may be easier to configure something for the tasks at hand. Do any of you find this beneficial in the real world?[/quote']

 

 

There are so many conglomerates, I have to admit I simply don't know so much of the time who makes what, what company owns which other companies, and especially, within particular conglomerates, what the relationship of the parts are to the whole.

 

I do have a lot of experience with Thomson-Reuters, who have gobbled up an incredible array of media and publishing companies. There is some synergy of sorts with Thomson-Reuters in that they offer deals that package products from a bunch of different acquired providers. But their sheer size and power is scary from the point of view of maintaining publishing and journalistic standards - it's an ongoing story.

 

Intuit has managed to gobble up and/or force out most of the competition in bookkeeping and tax software, and their "never say die" attempts to make quick'n'easy mortgage loans. I used to admire Intuit way back when Quicken was young and fresh, but the honeymoon has been over for some time now. I hope everyone got a laugh at their Superbowl ad for Quicken Loans - shades of 2008 right before the too-big-to-fail debacle. They seem to be emulating perhaps the AT&T model of customer service, you know the kind of service that inspires moments of regrettable but understandable rage where you wish you could punch someone through a phone line.

 

Of course, Microsoft is the evil archetype of the consolidating monster who captured smaller companies in it's claws, gutted them, took a tasty bite or two, and flung the twitching remains back to their attorneys to finish off the rest.

 

I think in some technological realms - perhaps medical technology? - there are some really valuable synergies. But I'm getting out of my range....I'd like to hear more positive stories since bad news travels so fast on this topic.

 

nat whilk ii

 

 

 

 

 

[Mikeo]

I understand that one would want products to work well together, but IMO Harman crap company that makes junk. A shadow of what it once was, and some f the worst customer service I have ever experienced.

 

JBL, AKG, Crown, Soundcraft , DBX I have owned em and used them. I'm just waiting for my Soundcraft Board to die and be done with any and all Harman stuff.

 

Now as far as companies buying up other companies, it's a two edge sword. One making money for shareholders or the company in general, and the other edge of the sword building quality products that are not just a name recognition thing.

 

We all know that Fender and Gibson have bought other companies. Gibson I believe still makes killer instruments, but you pay for em. In many ways they are worth every penny. My last purchase being a Gibson F5G Mandolin, which I have zero regrets buying.

 

The Epiphone brand needs up it's game a bit. I own some old Tascam stuff before the buy out and some KRK speakers that were made before the buy out. All working too. To me it's quality quality quality , then cost. However when purchase time comes it really does come down to dollars and cents. I own 5 Gibson electrics, 2 Gibson acoustics, 2 mandolins ( one a Bozeman made flatiron), 1 Gibson amp. 2 Dobros, some of these instruments have been with me Before the Henry years , some not. Anyway I try to choose quality over and about. yes we all have a budget level.

 

On my list for this year will be a Casino Elitist, cause it looks and feel top notch.

 

As for Fender I have even more Fender instruments and amps. Fender has done and excellent job with the distribution of Gretsch instruments.I'm not sure how incharge of there quality control, but my Made In Japan stuff is flawless. Even there Electromatics ain't half bad. As far as Guild Guitars, IMO again they killed the company, and I think they either sold or tried to sell the Guild company. The stuff made in the USA is very nice still.

 

 

The Martin Guitar Company is the most awesome guitar company that is. Period. I'm sure others will disagree. I purchased my first Martin in the later 80's. 20 years later it needed a neck re-set, and through my local authorised service luthier in town, Chris Martin IV covered it 100%, plus he sprung for a new bride and saddle. I have had it refretted and the the guitar is amazing. I have purchased 2 more Martins since and will in due time purchase another. My only complaint is they make too much these days and I feel they need to focus a bit, on some of the classics and you definitely need to a lower more affordable level guitar out there for folks.

 

One of my PhD co-workers told me something one day, as I was working with her through what I felt to be a rather simple problem in the lab. She said Mike you know all the ins and out of everything that goes on around here, but what I do, there's maybe about 50 people in the world that are experts in my field. She said she would rather be the best at one thing and focus on that, than to have to juggle a bunch of different projects at a time.

 

So who is right? Well in many ways, we both are. You want to be the best at what you do, and not just everything to everybody, and hope for the best and people will follow. When a company consolidates and or buys out another company it better be for all the right reasons. Maybe money is the right reason, but that doesn't keep customers coming back again and again.

 

 

Remember who came in second at the Grammy's for new artist of the year, back in Jan,? Well neither does anyone else.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[blue2blue]

The article says,

 

 

 

There is some truth to this. They can have JBL make speakers and not mics, and vice versa. This can keep failed products from being put into production. In the past you'd get many of these companies branch out into technologies new to them to gain market share, often times failing.

JBL made a virtually unknown mic called the JBL M50S. AKG besides making headphones made a number of studio monitors and Hi Fi junk.

 

Its good the mother company can focus these companies on what they are noted for and do best but they can also fix pricing and kill off competition. They can also weather the times when things are lean. This kind of financial security does come at a cost however. People are people after all.

 

If people knows they have a steady paycheck they may be less hungry to succeed, and less likely to take chances on bringing new technology forward. Just look at the line of JBL speakers today. Its all molded plastic obviously mass produced. Its low in cost bot would wouldn't rather have one of their vintage speakers over something out of those plastic cabs?

 

Maintaining high quality, breaking in new technology and remaining competitive isn't easy. Many have gone down the tubes. I'm glad companies like JBL are still around but they obviously aren't the companies I knew growing up.

Really solid points!

[Anderton]

Being inside Gibson, I see both the advantages and the challenges. There are people who play their Les Paul into a TASCAM interface, use a Neat mic to record their acoustic guitar, record the results in SONAR, and monitor with KRK speakers. I know that one of Gibson's goals is to attain the level of quality associated with the guitars with the other companies. I can certainly attest that the new TASCAM interfaces are superior to the previous models, and SONAR has progressed much more in the years since the acquisition than in the years before. Also, there are opportunities for synergy. There's no reason why SONAR and a TASCAM interface couldn't "talk" to each other so that if SONAR recognizes a TASCAM interface, it automatically chooses the best audio driver format, optimizes the latency, and provides "friendly" interface names to the program.

 

The challenge is the more moving parts, the more there is to coordinate. Each division tends to concentrate on its own issues first, and collaboration second. In fact part of my gig at Gibson is connecting the dots among the pro audio divisions. Fortunately, it's something all the divisions favor - it's not a situation where there are turf politics, and I'm thankful for that . But I think it will take continuing, concentrated efforts to obtain the full benefits of this level of integration.