KMA wrote:

Something does not add up.

You aren't listening properly, you don't understand.....................apparently!👍

KMA wrote:

This further begs the question of pricing: if BeoVisions were priced more competitively, would they have sold more? I suspect the volume could have brought in more profit than the little they sell with their current BV pricing.

 

But when you loose money with each TV you sell, selling more at a lower price just mean you loose more money, not that you gain more.

  /Lars

Lars Ladingkaer wrote:

KMA wrote:

This further begs the question of pricing: if BeoVisions were priced more competitively, would they have sold more? I suspect the volume could have brought in more profit than the little they sell with their current BV pricing.

 

But when you loose money with each TV you sell, selling more at a lower price just mean you loose more money, not that you gain more.

  /Lars

.................unless you sell more speakers to go with the TVs!

Puncher wrote:

You aren't listening properly, you don't understand.....................apparently!

Ban boring signatures!

Apparently 😁

I just cannot fathom that B&O ended up selling LG TVs. Seems like a lazy effort. But that's just my thinking.

Lars Ladingkaer wrote:

But when you loose money with each TV you sell, selling more at a lower price just mean you loose more money, not that you gain more.

Lars, there are fixed costs in the business and there are variable costs. When you sell more volume, you spread the fixed cost over larger number so you net cost  per TV will come down. I do not think the B&O looses money purely based upon the material / panel costs. It is the fixed overheads which have to be absorbed by the volume. If more volume, less cost per TV and if less volume, more cost per TV.

What's the saying, if you can't do what's right, you only do what's left....

This is what they are left doing. Is it a bad package? No, it's pretty damn good, if requiring a little adjustment from those with previous BV's

Does it make the value proposition a little harder to justify? Yes most likely.

I don't need a new TV, so not an issue for me yet. But I'd really do anything to avoid going back to separate non integrated systems

Lars Ladingkaer wrote:

But when you loose money with each TV you sell, selling more at a lower price just mean you loose more money, not that you gain more.

/Lars

Editor in Chief, recordere.dk Danish online magazine for consumer electronics

That's what I'm trying to understand: WHY were B&O losing money? This certainly cannot have always been the case with BeoVisions.

We'll see how the strategy they've now chosen after their own Video Engine & competence, and after adventures in the Androidland, will pan out.

I'm looking forward with interest the future fruits of the B&O / LG partnership.

Maybe they'll at least add the Magic to BeoRemote 😎

svinaik wrote:

Totally agree on the situation assessment but I do question the strategy that's B&O had adopted to manage the loss making TV business . In my opinion , BV TV is and will remain a great way to bring in new customers and then tie them in with the ecosystem . This could have been achieved by revisiting the pricing on the TVs to make them a better value proposition versus trying to squeeze as much as they could do and in my eyes , Value proposition on the Eclipse is very questionable. I wonder how many new customers will be brought to the brand but how many will be lost . In Business , retaining a customer is far more profitable than gaining a new customer .

Exactly 🤒

svinaik wrote:

Lars, there are fixed costs in the business and there are variable costs. When you sell more volume, you spread the fixed cost over larger number so you net cost  per TV will come down. I do not think the B&O looses money purely based upon the material / panel costs. It is the fixed overheads which have to be absorbed by the volume. If more volume, less cost per TV and if less volume, more cost per TV.

 

Ok, here's some figures for your business case:

In 2015 B&O made around 40.000 TV-sets

The LG deal saves the company approx. 27 billion euro a year.

 

  /Lars

Millemissen wrote:

The 'value for the money' question has always been asked with B&O-tvs.

(Edit)

Perhaps more vigorously now, because the TV part of the B&O-tv is no longer B&O.

I'm going overboard with this example just to make a point:

What if I buy a BeoLab 7.6, mount a Sony A1 on top of it, and slap a B&O logo in the front, is it a BeoVision?

No, it's a Sony TV with a B&O speaker.

Login to view image

+

Login to view image

=

Login to view image

And hey – they would look pretty good together, even in a bad Photoshop! Plus the picture would be better.

I may have just come up with "BeoLabVision" 😎

The scary (?) part is that the above "DIYvision" could be easily done: buy a 2nd hand BL7.6 with a table stand and 55" Sony A1. Place the A1 (that has a kick-stand) on the speaker and "Hey presto": OLED TV with B&O sound.