[Argyris]

I've often wondered that myself. It takes a certain sort of person to knowingly pick up a turd and sell it as a truffle. You'd be more likely to have a huge marketing department if you're interested in maximizing profits, as opposed to making quality products. All that engineering that our favorite companies do takes money, and any given company only has a finite amount of it.
 
I also think that, when your primary concern is image and not sound quality, you're much more flexible in targeting the uninformed masses, as they mostly only care about image themselves (just make sure you give 'em MOAR BASS!!!111!111!!!!!). Dress up attractive, smiling, and (if possible) famous people in your wares and keep telling the masses that you're the best, and eventually they'll buy your product. They have to buy it. All their friends have it. It might be hard for non marketing-driven companies to compete here, as they have to A) pay their R&D department, and B) try to convince somebody, without the help of Miss Jane Interchangeableblonde the supermodel, that Sennheisers are it (I personally have nothing against Sennheiser, I'm just sayin').
 

Why do real headphone companies suck so bad at marketing? I think that's the real question here. It truly doesn't take a genius to be a good marketer.

 

[buffalowings]

Quote:

Quote:

how many companies don't market their product as THE BEST?

You might be surprised. Are you familiar with any of the following names ?
 
Sanyo
TEAC
AWA
Aiwa
JVC
Sherwood.
 
They all sell electronics and they all make money. In some cases, their 'bargain basement' tactics have pushed far better competitors (in product terms) into receivership. Other companies like Phillips are capable of building superb televisions but are equally happy to have their brand on some truly dreadful consumer electronics. TEAC pioneered a host of 'firsts' in audio, but seem to have the same 'free and easy' approach to their brand. Even high end brand names like Luxman have been sullied under corporate ownership, and I believe that AKG is suffering from the inspired leadership at Harmon Clown Corp. 3 years to give us the Quincy Jones edition of the K701 - way to go, Vice-President Bonzo.

Waaaait... so harmon kardon isn't any good? Awww... I always thought my dad's home theatre system was the shizzle...

well, they aren't managing AKG very well in many people's eyes...seriously, all they could do was recolor there headphone lineup...weak

 

[estreeter]

Waaaait... so harmon kardon isn't any good? Awww... I always thought my dad's home theatre system was the shizzle...

I have no axe to grind with the engineers/designers at Harmon or at AKG per se : they have indeed produced some worthy audio over the years. My issue is with a management group that doesnt seem to recognise that AKG once had a headphone like the K1000, and also had a headphone like the K501 for those who couldnt afford the massive 'earspeakers'. 3 years to innovate and come up with a competitior to the HD800 and they give us a pale imitation of a 'new product'.

 

[FearSC549]

Two words, marketing and hype. 
 
 
Here's my take on it, people buy headphones/earphones as a fashion accessory, I buy them as a listening device.
 
What's the point of head/earphones? For sound of course, not looks.(well...I wouldn't wear my AD300 in public though)

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

Why do real headphone companies suck so bad at marketing? I think that's the real question here. It truly doesn't take a genius to be a good marketer.
 

Generally speaking there is a pattern that people, and thus the companies they run are either focused on substance or they are focused on image/branding/marketing.  I think it is hard for people to do both.  Often when someone is focused on substance, it feels dishonest and manipulative to sell it because after investing so much in the substance of their product, they feel it should sell itself.  Part of advertising these days is stretching the truth and you're not really selling the substance of the product, you're selling a lifestyle (Quincy Jones, Dr Dre are all strategies to attach lifestyle and image to a product whose substance has nothing to do with that lifestyle).  So when there isn't really much to a product, such as in Monster's case, it's easier for them to do this because they have nothing invested in the real quality of the product. 
 
I think a company like Audeze would feel very dishonest if they got endorsements or different stylish color schemes, etc because in their eyes the LCD-2 is about nothing but the best sound they could produce. 
 
That's what comes to mind for me.  I've had a heck of a time trying to sell myself in my business for the same reason.

 

[50an6xy06r6n]

Slightly related:
http://www.xkcd.com/670/

 

[jimmygeorge7]

Monster and skull candy are clever marketeers with a pot of cash! Celebrity endorsement and wide product placement has enabled them to get a stranglehold on the 'fashion' Market. No shame in that, good business acumen. Skull candy would be okay if they were cheaper yet they're not, so are considered by most as overpriced tat worn by fashion victims. Many brands such as wesc, cyw by urbanz, urban ears, aerial 7 are very much the same, yet it goes down to price, if well priced then the performance can be judged accordingly. If youre serious about your headphones the technics, sennheiser, Sony or grado are worth some investment. My opinion only.

Depends what you want and what you want to spend!

 

[SoSpecial]

Quote:

Monster and skull candy are clever marketeers with a pot of cash! Celebrity endorsement and wide product placement has enabled them to get a stranglehold on the 'fashion' Market. No shame in that, good business acumen. Skull candy would be okay if they were cheaper yet they're not, so are considered by most as overpriced tat worn by fashion victims. Many brands such as wesc, cyw by urbanz, urban ears, aerial 7 are very much the same, yet it goes down to price, if well priced then the performance can be judged accordingly. If youre serious about your headphones the technics, sennheiser, Sony or grado are worth some investment. My opinion only.

Depends what you want and what you want to spend!

Skullcandy aren't that expensive.
 

 

[ShawnSmith]

 
Quote:

how many companies don't market their product as THE BEST?

You might be surprised. Are you familiar with any of the following names ?
 
Sanyo
TEAC
AWA
Aiwa
JVC
Sherwood.
 
They all sell electronics and they all make money. In some cases, their 'bargain basement' tactics have pushed far better competitors (in product terms) into receivership. Other companies like Phillips are capable of building superb televisions but are equally happy to have their brand on some truly dreadful consumer electronics. TEAC pioneered a host of 'firsts' in audio, but seem to have the same 'free and easy' approach to their brand. Even high end brand names like Luxman have been sullied under corporate ownership, and I believe that AKG is suffering from the inspired leadership at Harmon Clown Corp. 3 years to give us the Quincy Jones edition of the K701 - way to go, Vice-President Bonzo.

so just for fun I picked the first company in your list. went to their website. selected audio products and clicked on the first item in the list. It's a freaking IPOD dock clock radio. first line in the description "Discover the ultimate in high quality sound and attractive styling for your iPod and iPhone."
 
so yeah about those companies that don't advertise their products as the best...

 

[fatcat28037]

Quote:

Quote:

 There should be some kind of class in High School about "getting the most for your hard earned money".

coming from someone on an audiophile site that is terribly ironic.

Not really, the point here is not about spending a lot of money for headphones , it's about getting the best headphones for the money you spend. 

 

[buffalowings]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

 There should be some kind of class in High School about "getting the most for your hard earned money".

coming from someone on an audiophile site that is terribly ironic.

Not really, the point here is not about spending a lot of money for headphones , it's about getting the best headphones for the money you spend. 

hmm...the fat cat does have a point....though to many, some of us might need to take a lesson from this as well 
 

 

[wind016]

Being so passive IMO is also a sign of a lack of passion if you have the funds to do the marketing. It might not be so, but that's how it seems in my mind.
 
I think, "why do people become musicians,designers and chefs?" Many of them really want to show the world their passion and what they made. If you don't advertise, it just doesn't seem like you care to let the public experience what you experience.
 
What helped Monster succeed IMO, is that DR.DRE seemed very passionate. It seems like Dr.Dre really wants you to enjoy every detail of his music that he spent so much work on and they executed the marketing well to portray that idea.
 
Now I'm still confused why good headphone companies don't do it. Are the CEOs just not that into it? Is their focus on something else? Creating the best sound for the people that deserve it?
 
Quote:

Quote:

Why do real headphone companies suck so bad at marketing? I think that's the real question here. It truly doesn't take a genius to be a good marketer.
 

Generally speaking there is a pattern that people, and thus the companies they run are either focused on substance or they are focused on image/branding/marketing.  I think it is hard for people to do both.  Often when someone is focused on substance, it feels dishonest and manipulative to sell it because after investing so much in the substance of their product, they feel it should sell itself.  Part of advertising these days is stretching the truth and you're not really selling the substance of the product, you're selling a lifestyle (Quincy Jones, Dr Dre are all strategies to attach lifestyle and image to a product whose substance has nothing to do with that lifestyle).  So when there isn't really much to a product, such as in Monster's case, it's easier for them to do this because they have nothing invested in the real quality of the product. 
 
I think a company like Audeze would feel very dishonest if they got endorsements or different stylish color schemes, etc because in their eyes the LCD-2 is about nothing but the best sound they could produce. 
 
That's what comes to mind for me.  I've had a heck of a time trying to sell myself in my business for the same reason.

 

[jmb777]

While it is annoying when literally an infinite amount of people ask what the hell Grado's are, i've got to say, that is one of the very things i enjoy about owning Grado's.
Because they arent the average consumer choice, they are obscure and spark some peoples interest in them. The same goes for my older and ridiculous Sharp HP400H (see profile pic) i don't know another person who owns a pair, or have even seen a pair, also no-one i know on head-fi even has them, which is really saying something, that's part of what i like about them, they seem like there just all mine. 
 
While i don't like seeing so many people flock to a bad product and then tell you its good, i wouldn't really want it any other way. 

 

[ShawnSmith]

Quote:

Quote:

Not really, the point here is not about spending a lot of money for headphones , it's about getting the best headphones for the money you spend. 

hmm...the fat cat does have a point....though to many, some of us might need to take a lesson from this as well 
 

It was more a criticism of the diminishing returns in the land of audiophilia.

 

[linuxid10t]

That is one of my favorite XKCD comics!
 
Quote:

Slightly related:
http://www.xkcd.com/670/