Posted on

Dulcimers as a Business (or Running Dogs, Part 2)

Dulcimers as a Business (or Running Dogs, Part 2)

from his 1975 GAL Convention lecture

by J.R. Beall

Originally published in Guild of American Luthiers Newsletter, Volume 3 #4, 1975



I believe that a luthier ought to be able to make a living at what he does, if at all possible.

I build dulcimers in the summertime starting (depending on how I feel after Christmas) February, maybe March. Every year I design and put out a new model, and that’s purely to alleviate the boredom, with also an eye toward improving the breed a little bit. It will last up until fall, maybe September, October by the time I finish building dulcimers, and by that time I’m ready to finish building dulcimers. Then I go on to building other things.


Folk Philosophy

I think to me at least, it seems the important thing about an instrument is that it plays and sounds well. If one spends too much time in decoration, you get into a financial situation where you can’t afford to sell it for the amount of time you’ve got into it. And again, this is my basic philosophy: To build things and build them well, and yet build them fast enough that you can make a pretty good living doing it.

Now, there are probably some other people who’ve built dulcimers fairly rapidly. But frequently you can see signs of that in the inferior quality of the product.

Become A Member to Continue Reading This Article

This article is part of our premium web content offered to Guild members. To view this and other web articles, join the Guild of American Luthiers. Members also receive 4 annual issues of American Lutherie and get discounts on products. For details, visit the membership page.

If you are already a member, login for access or contact us to setup your account.
Posted on

Entrepreneurs In Spite Of Ourselves

Entrepreneurs In Spite Of Ourselves

by Ralph Novak

Originally published in American Lutherie #28, 1991



I‘ve always had an affinity for the sciences, strong curiosity, and a penchant for experimenting. How something worked was more important to me than if it actually did. My dad, who has exceptional skills in woodworking, model building, and aircraft design, taught me about wood, tools, mechanics, and bringing a job to completion. He answered endless questions and helped me fix things that became the objects of my curiosity. To this day he is an inspiration.

I got my first guitar, a Stella acoustic, for my 14th birthday in 1965. The next year I got an electric guitar and amp, and my dad helped revive it after my experiments. Soon, neighborhood musicians had me modifying and repairing their guitars and I even did some refrets and pickup installations for a very small local store. I built my first guitar in that basement, making pickups from old TV and radio parts.

Become A Member to Continue Reading This Article

This article is part of our premium web content offered to Guild members. To view this and other web articles, join the Guild of American Luthiers. Members also receive 4 annual issues of American Lutherie and get discounts on products. For details, visit the membership page.

If you are already a member, login for access or contact us to setup your account.
Posted on

Questions: Guitar Insurance

Questions: Guitar Insurance

by Cyndy Burton

Originally published in American Lutherie #82, 2005

 

Garrett Burton of Portland, OR asks:

I’m planning to pick up repair work from guitar stores and work in my home shop. I’ve been told I need insurance for the guitars when they are in my possession as well as liability insurance. What can I expect to pay per month?


Cyndy Burton (no relation) of Portland, OR
responds:

The only business insurance I’m aware of designed for musical instrument businesses is Heritage Insurance Services (215-322-8705; his@heritage-ins-services.com; www.heritage-ins-services.com/national.htm). The cost will depend on many factors, but in my experience, it is reasonable and well worth it.

Posted on

Questions: Industry Pricing Standards

Questions: Industry Pricing Standards

by Dana Bourgeois, Mark Campellone, and John Greven

Originally published in American Lutherie #92, 2007



Noel B. from the Internet asks:

Could you give me any insight into pricing standards in the industry? One of our retailers says that they get 40% margin on instruments from all their smaller builders, i.e., they get $400 on a $1000 retail banjo and the builder gets $600. Once you deduct the cost of materials it appears the retailer is turning a better profit than the builder. Is this the industry standard? Until recently they were content with a smaller margin.


Dana Bourgeois from Lewiston Maine replies:

The retail pricing structure varies, and is negotiable between builder and retailer. The most common wholesale discounts are 50% (“A” discount), 40% (“B” discount), and 25% (“C” discount). In the case of the “A” discount, the retailer usually sells the product at a considerable discount from the suggested list price. For example, a guitar wholesaled at 50% and retailed at a 25% discount off list price would yield a gross margin of 25%. A guitar wholesaled at a “B” discount is usually sold at a lower retail discount than that of an “A” discount guitar. In the case of a “C” discount, the guitar is usually sold at full list price. The “C” discount structure is usually used between individual builders and retailers. In this case, the retailer and builder can offer the same guitar to the same customer at the same price.

Become A Member to Continue Reading This Article

This article is part of our premium web content offered to Guild members. To view this and other web articles, join the Guild of American Luthiers. Members also receive 4 annual issues of American Lutherie and get discounts on products. For details, visit the membership page.

If you are already a member, login for access or contact us to setup your account.

Questions: Industry Pricing Standards

by Dana Bourgeois, Mark Campellone, and John Greven

Originally published in American Lutherie #92, 2007



Noel B. from the Internet asks:

Could you give me any insight into pricing standards in the industry? One of our retailers says that they get 40% margin on instruments from all their smaller builders, i.e., they get $400 on a $1000 retail banjo and the builder gets $600. Once you deduct the cost of materials it appears the retailer is turning a better profit than the builder. Is this the industry standard? Until recently they were content with a smaller margin.


Dana Bourgeois from Lewiston Maine replies:

The retail pricing structure varies, and is negotiable between builder and retailer. The most common wholesale discounts are 50% (“A” discount), 40% (“B” discount), and 25% (“C” discount). In the case of the “A” discount, the retailer usually sells the product at a considerable discount from the suggested list price. For example, a guitar wholesaled at 50% and retailed at a 25% discount off list price would yield a gross margin of 25%. A guitar wholesaled at a “B” discount is usually sold at a lower retail discount than that of an “A” discount guitar. In the case of a “C” discount, the guitar is usually sold at full list price. The “C” discount structure is usually used between individual builders and retailers. In this case, the retailer and builder can offer the same guitar to the same customer at the same price.

In order to cover the cost of overhead and also realize a profit, most average-sized dealers need to make a gross margin of between 25% and 30%. This calculation assumes turnover within around 60 days. If the dealer thinks he can’t make a sale within that time frame he may need to realize a greater gross margin, or choose to invest his money in other brands. If turnover needs to be proven to the dealer, it may make sense to sell a first guitar on consignment, then negotiate a future wholesale arrangement.


Mark Campellone from Greenville Rhode Island
replies:

Because independent builders produce instruments in far smaller numbers than large-scale manufacturers, a standard discount rate of 40% to 60% isn’t practical. Builders like myself usually discount at a rate about half that of the manufacturer’s standard. Of course, most dealers are more inclined to invest in a builder who already has an established reputation. For those who are not yet well established, offering instruments to dealers on consignment, at least initially, can be a good option.


John Greven from Portland Oregon
replies:

Traditionally dealers paid the makers of guitars half of the retail price plus shipping costs. This was true for Martin, Gibson, and others from their earliest days of production. Martin never did any “incentive discounting” to their dealers and, to my knowledge, still does not. Gibson had a “floor plan” sales scheme for decades whereby dealers had to take a minimum number of instruments in order to qualify as a dealer and get the specific models they really wanted to sell in their market. This system assured that Gibson could move targeted numbers of all of their various models and keep production steady. Gibson did, however, discount an addition 5%–10% if overall sales were slow or they had excess inventory of a particular model, but for the most part it was the usual 50% discount to dealers.

Then came handmade guitars gradually infiltrating what had been a locked-down, manufacturer-only market. Individual makers had to set their prices with very different issues involved. They did not have the advantage of large scale production in reducing material and time costs, but they also did not have the high overhead. From the 1960s through the mid-1980s, most individual builders (and there were only a handful of us then) sold direct to the consumer with no discounting. Others, me included, sold both direct and through a small network of exclusive dealers. The standard dealer discount for us was 40%. This is now certainly not uniformly true. I know a number of makers doing only 15%–20% if the market will bear it.

Today, with the plethora of large and small guitar dealers around the globe, discounting is all over the map; from none at all for the top makers on down to the 40%–50% builders. It is a combination of what the market will bear and what the builder needs to have to make a living and continue in business.

I still have a small number of dealers around the world and domestically, and I still offer them a decent discount. The bulk of my production is divided about evenly between wholesale and retail and I like it that way. I always have plenty of work and a steady, dependable income stream, even in “hard times” when the market goes soft. The only way I was able to survive the steep recession and near market collapse of 1982-3 was through sales of my guitars in Japan. Even though I made less money overall, I was able to stay in business and continue to work. A number of hand builders at that time went back to their day jobs to survive.

While the dealer seems to make more money than the maker at the 40% discount, bear in mind that the dealer is taking care of your marketing and sales and all of the potential hassles that can follow a sale. As a maker, you do not have to deal with any of those aspects directly, and you can better manage your cash flow.

For established makers with a good reputation and long track record, direct sales are the way to go. For new makers trying to find a niche, dealers make better sense until your market is better established. The goal is to build what you love and sell what you build. If dealers can make the difference between success and failure for your business, they’ve earned their markup.

Over the decades, I have enjoyed working both with my dealers and individual customers. They are like family now. Some of my dealers go all the way back to 1975. The combination of dealer/individual sales has allowed me to make and sell over 2000 of my guitars over a forty-three year period. I could not have accomplished this without them. They have provided me with a continuing education and kept me in touch with the subtle changes in the market on a global basis. It is a good, working system for me and (the good news is) the costs are all deductible! ◆

[/wcm_restrict]
Posted on

Letter: Patents and Acknowledgement

Letter: Patents and Acknowledgement

by Harry Fleishman

Originally published in American Lutherie #81, 2005



Dear Tim, GAL members, and anyone else,

Largely because of my involvement in GAL, I have some visible presence in the lutherie community. Because I have always been interested in solving the problems, imagined or real, that I saw in conventional instruments — whether that meant developing a more repair-and-adjust-friendly neck joint or trying to wring a stronger low end from my basses without introducing too much “twang” — I've preferred to take risks, accept failure, and appreciate occasional success. Additionally, and most importantly, I have worked hard over the thirty years I have been designing and building to maintain my integrity as a luthier, if nowhere else in my misbegotten life. (Bear with me, I’ll get to the point.)

It is, therefore, with some consternation and much sadness that I have heard rumors questioning the legitimacy of my use of some of these unusual features. To be blunt, I’ve heard accusations that I have ripped people off for their ideas and not given appropriate credit, either in the form of acknowledgment or, in some cases, in the form of required licensing fees.

Become A Member to Continue Reading This Article

This article is part of our premium web content offered to Guild members. To view this and other web articles, join the Guild of American Luthiers. Members also receive 4 annual issues of American Lutherie and get discounts on products. For details, visit the membership page.

If you are already a member, login for access or contact us to setup your account.