355f - couldn't agree more.

20 years ago you would see B&O tvs in 50% of danish homes. Thats defenitly not the case today. And will be even less in the future when no one is using there MX/LX's anymore.

At that time you ususly paid the double price when buying B&O tv's. Today yout pay be factor 6 or 7!

Unless B&O want to transform into a producer of tv sets for new rich russians they should consider their prices.

An other thing: When you looked in the B&O catalog 20 years ago you just wanted everything. Can't say that today.

Who would buy BeoSound6 when you can have an Pod touch?
Who would buy a BeoVision 8 when this is all plastic like Samsung?
Who would buy BeoMedia and rely on B&O ability to produce software?

I wouldn't!

/Anders

Well, this topic has certainly allowed many people to vent their spleens!!!  I certainly hope that Dude 1 is correct and that Bang visit this site and read them.  Looking at the annual report, it would seem that the share price drop is quite an over-reaction but probably reflects the jittery nature of many investors especially in the US at the present time.  That said, I think that many of the comments here are valid.

The pricing structure is getting a bit over the top.  Certainly, the BnO tax is worth paying for the design and quality as well as innovation but only to a certain level.   The company have a problem if they want to significantly reduce prices as components get cheaper as they will upset recent customers who paid top dollar.  Other companies get around this to some extent by dropping the price a little and upgrading the product but charge the same price.  BnO just INCREASE the price each year but keep the product the same and pocket the difference in price from the cheaper materials.

 BnO won't adapt many of their products to serve individual markets.  For example, Beosound 1 is a great product but it is only in FM.  Here in Australia, AM is still popular and many stations only broadcast on AM.  I would have bought Beosound in a heartbeat if they had AM on it for Australia and it wouldn't have cost too much to include it for this market.  I think maybe others felt the same,  result lost sales.

A friend has an Avant.  When he upgrades to LCD he won't look at BV7 as he refuses to pay so much for a set without a built in digital tuner.  How often have we heard that?

There are other thoughts that come to mind but this should be enough for now!  Clifft 

I "love" the notion mentioned above that B&O should produce its own plasma and lcd screens ... an interesting proposition. Not even SONY has made that plunge, and Pioneer is still not seeing a return of its enormous investment into plasma technology (about ten times B&O's total yearly turnover to date).

B&O will "always" be repackaging components into its own, unique solutions within a/v. And what we're discussing is whether the solutions have been sufficiently unique and on-brand. Strong brands create credibility, loyalty and respect - you simply do not wish to tamper with them. For instance, no one would dream of calling Ferraris "ferries" when alluding to them. It's symptomatic of the loss of respect B&O is suffering that some commenters here are calling them Bang, and their products Bangvisions. (The latter I'll never understand, since the term BeoVision is shorter and better, but what the heck.)

B&O's inability to provide enough unique solutions, that could defend their brand position, have eroded their credibility, loyalty and respect -- and this suddenly has us comparing their products to common, run-of-the-mill offerings available through the a/v warehouses, and not in a favourable way.

As to the particular product spec's: as an exclusive, high-end repackager of components, B&O can't accommodate a lot of local variations "in-box." What does that mean? Well - some markets have MPEG-2 digital transmissions, some have MPEG-4, some are mulling other formats. I have a Pioneer 50" screen that works perfectly in Sweden, if I want to pull digital transmissions off the air, but doesn't work in the neighbouring country of Norway, for instance.
Another matter entirely is that I haven't pulled a signal off the air in over a decade, I've used cable providers and parabolic antennas - which is what the majority of those who use B&O's products (and most other a/v) also do. And given that fact, B&O has sought to solve the problem by expecting people to use stand-alone STBs, and to control these with the Beo4, while the STB is stuck in a cabinet somewhere.
It's B&O's answer to the fact that they can't have too many variations on each model.

To lay the cards face up on the table here - I think one of B&O's main problems has been an unwillingness to open up the products to user centered mix&pix, for fear of then losing customers to other brands. The B&O offering has always been pretty locked in, with self sufficient total solutions. Why doesn't the BL9s have digital in, for instance - while the BL5s do? And why doesn't BeoSystem 3 have digital audio out?
I suspect someone decided that providing those connections reduced the probability that customers would pick ALL B&O solutions -- which is why we now have Powerlink in on the new speaker, and Powerlink out on the BeoSystem 3. (And yes, you can use a converter cable on the BL9s) But it's all sending a signal that B&O wants to do things their own way -- unfortunately, this creates a sense of unfamiliarity among prospective new customers, who have a hard enough time understanding the nomenclature of modern a/v, without having to familiarize themselves with the mystical ways of Struer on top of that again.

Another major problem is the fact that the brand hasn't made it clear what it stands for. Is it ostentatious luxury and social mingling? Interior decoration? Or outstanding a/v performance exclusively packaged? It should be the latter. Combine the extremely high price point with this lack of clarity in brand perception, and you get an even harder time of it recruiting new buyers to the brand. Which is why it's off most peoples' radar.

There was a link in another thread here, regarding B&O now dropping the combo HD-DVD/BluRay player in favour of BluRay. In that link you could read what fairly well informed US customers knew about the brand. Someone here commented that "these people should get out more." Don't worry, they do - the fact that they know very little about B&O is due to the brand not having communicated itself clearly. One of them wrote that "This thing is big. They have five stores in my area alone. I have to look into it." The brand should have connected with him earlier.

Struer's got its challenges cut out for itself - but let's not even imagine that the solution is building its own plasmas, or having the logistics of SONY (which rebadges as many televisions in one hour as B&O sell in a year.)

 

There appears to be wholesale agreement within this thread regarding B&O's current situation. To summarise, B&O of old had Unique Selling Points of Style, Features and Integration which, together, created the wow factor. For this people were willing to pay a premium. Todays product range however seems disparate and fragmented and very few product have the wow factor (notable exception BL5) however the premium across the range has spiralled. In some cases the only Unique Selling Point is cost!

This clearly cannot continue hence the proposed return to core values, core products.

I welcome the shift in emphasis and I look forward to a new range of fresh, exciting products.

link

Listen guy’s…..

 

Hate to say it but I think most of you are putting the force of your relative frustrations with B&O as a cause of the “parting of ways” between B&O and TBS. I doubt he (if he actually has) been fired because of a lack of HDMI interfaces, or that the BL9’s are ugly, or that the BV4 is a reframed Panasonic or even because the BS3 has no DAB. I doubt it is because B&O cost too much or offer relatively little technology for the price. This is subjective to each of you (and I disagree with most of you on that it has a poor product range) and most probably, the board and the shareholders really don’t give two figs as long as it gives a reasonable rate of return.

 

The reality, I postulate the cause is probably a little more mundane in this high-flying corporate world;

 

1. He has not delivered the 5 year growth he promised in 2001. Therefore a new corporate strategy is needed to deliver a promise. If he can’t deliver in 5 years, he never will. Time to move on.

 

1. It could be possible he has had a major fall-out with the board on a number of small issues which as resulted in an immediate mutual stand-down (and pay-off).

 

1. There could have been a similar disagreement between either a senior financing individual from a principle lender or a senior market analyst – yes boards can be that fickle.

 

1. He may have been refused capital funds to develop new projects, he may have been told “no more money” making his growth strategy impossible and therefore he would have engineered a quick exit (again along with perhaps a substantial golden parachute)

 

1. His Executive authority may have been significantly undermined in the political scene at B&O.

 

1. One could not dismiss that there could be stock or other financial impropriety on his part.

 

1. One could not dismiss that there could be in-company moral issues which require is immediate release i.e. an in-company affair which reflects badly up on the company and its image.

 

1. One other possible cause may be the B&O family or the board do not want to be a “luxury brand” like Louis Vuitton et al. Maybe they want to be in a niche as a premier AV electronics company. Semantics but may be that statement in the Sunday Times was alone responsible for his step-down?

 

1. There are probably lots of valid reasons but I doubt any of them are to do with the aesthetics or the connectivity of the equipment being made or the general product portfolio. We in Beoworld may all want this or that or ask why can’t it be done by JJ etc…but that is history. Sorry but the company has moved on to what it is now.

 

Going forward, and it is probably irrelevant to the current product range, a new CEO will be tasked with the usual array of Corporate KPI’s. i.e. increase turnover, increase margin, increase market share, reduce costs etc….. That will never change. B&O cannot run as some of you have mentioned with their hearts and produce top quality innovative products and bargain prices every 12 to 36 months. No one can. It is not a business for doing things for free for you me or anyone else. It is in a difficult business where the balance between a luxury goods producer, innovative AV producer, European electronics maker, charging high prices for low volume (or visa versa) cannot be easily realised because of its historic niche. Moving from one core business to a new core business quickly will be corporate suicide.

 

However, it is a business and the last 5 years turnover and financial accounts have show that it has been doing very well – but not as well as TBS promised!  Therefore he must go.

 

 

My  99 cents…..

 

10%

 

 

link

Hate to say it but I think most of you are putting the force of your relative frustrations with B&O as a cause of the “parting of ways” between B&O and TBS.

I think you've completely missed the point. Personally, I coudn't care less about the CEO of B&O or other corporations. My argument - as with many other people on here - is about B&O, their current situation and their direction.