To the cyclists - which saddle ?

What really annoyed me was a having a best friend who owned a Naim Dealership and who wouldn't sell me a stereo at cost. If I had a business and my best friend wanted to buy from me, I would not profit from them. It just wouldn't be right.

Dave

Whether it is "right" or not, I reserve the right to be annoyed.

Actually, a reasonably good acquaintance of mine owns the bike shop that sponsors our club. We get 15% off for carrying the logo on our jerseys, I guess. 15% is perhaps about what a regular customer would expect on asking. To be honest, I wouldn't be comfortable with a bigger discount. Why should I take advantage of our friendship by eating into his profit margin. He has to make a living. When I ask for a discount, I'm essentially just asking him to give me money.

Winky, I wasn't passing judgement on you as to whether it was right for you to be annoyed. That is another matter altogether.

Sponsoring a 'club' to is a whole other matter as well.

I'm just saying, when you have 3 best friends in the entire world, well, in my opinion, you don't profit from them. You cover your costs.

Dave

I think it works both ways. If my best friend in the world owned a bike shop, I wouldn't seek to profit from them, either. A 15% discount for using their shop in preference to the internet or another shop? Sure, seems OK. Expecting them to pass on stuff at cost? Well, I wouldn't. But that's just me. Don't lose sight of the fact that the markup (retail/wholesale) on an item (maybe around 100%) isn't the same as their profit margin. Out of that markup comes all the other, very significant costs of doing business. Profits in retail are usually pretty skinny. Your at-cost item would be loss on the retailer's books, and money out of their pocket.

B.T.W. when I say "sponsor", the only thing they do is the 15% discount and provide some tech support and a tent-thing at some local races. We'll occasionally get a pre-opening opportunity at a clearance sale, too. There is no cash involved. My view on major corporate support for sports is clear in the Olympics Deprecation Thread.

I know the difference between markup and profit, especially since I managed a bike business. The owner of the bike shop I managed let me and all of the other employees have any product at cost. He felt it was the decent thing to do. The owner of the bike shop that gave me a Specialized Pro Ti saddle for $100 instead of $200 did so because it had no effect on his business, and was a good will gesture. Actually, it had a positive effect on his business. I sent him so many customers over the years, and that brought him more profit. I bought a LiteSpeed Vortex Ti frame from him. Totally unsolicited, he offered me the frame for cost + 10%. And we weren't exactly friends. But he knew it was a wise thing to do from a business point of view.

Same with my friend in the stereo business. I sent him a large volume of customers. It wouldn't have hurt him to drop the roughly 40% margin on equipment I purchased from him. In the scheme of things, it would have cost him nothing, and would have been the right thing to do for a friend. I've owned two businesses in my life, both very successful, and I didn't profit from my very closest friends. I just charged them whatever it cost me. For me, it was the decent thing to do.

Dave

In these cases, I know who the sucker is. And it is me. My retail dollars subsidize your special deals. Doesn't mean I'm happy about it.

Winky, what you pay at the retail level remains the same. It is irrelevant if the retailer decides to give a fellow industry member a deal. You aren't subsidizing anything.

Dave

Sure I am. The profitability of the business is determined by the aggregate of all revenues and costs. The margin on my purchases covers overheads that are necessary for the business to remain viable and thus able to give you your "mates rates". If you and I paid the same fair amount, I would pay less, and you would pay more.

What is your reaction to a plumber who offers you a discount for cash (and no receipt)? Do you not think the tax he is avoiding is being paid by others?

"If you and I paid the same fair amount, I would pay less, and you would pay more." Not so! A manufacturer like Trek doesn't see the 'deals' a retailer is going to provide. It sets a wholesale and retail pricing structure. It polices the suggested retail price quite vigorously. When you buy at retail, you are not subsidizing 'mates rates'. Trek is clear and adamant on the pricing structure. You would never pay less, unless the bike is being cleared out at season end. My retail customers were not subsidizing 'mate's rates'. A few days into the month and overhead was covered. From that point on until month end, everything else was gravy.

Once rent, salary, EI, CPP, heating, hydro, insurance et al are paid for the month, it matters not one iota if 29 Specialized saddles are sold at full retail and the 30th goes at cost. You could demonstrate a loss on paper, but by the same token, you can document an increase in sales for the same reason. In real, practical, absolute terms, no money is lost. In real terms, in the long run, more money is made. Again, the major reason a major bike shop will give an employee from another shop a deal is not to be a nice guy, it's because it generates more business and more profit in the end. That's what really makes a business healthier and more viable. The deal is made in exchange for 'advertising' and 're-directing' customers that you can't provide for in your own shop. You may not have the brand or size a customer wants and/or needs. Major manufacturers offer pro deals to bike shop employees for sound business reasons. They aren't doing it for their health. They are doing it for the money. They aren't in the business of giving away things to lose money. That's why industry reps come by the store, take your VISA number, and ship you what you want days later, prepaid. Often at an amount less than the wholesale cost. It means more money for them down the road. It's solely for money making, profit taking business reasons. It may not be fair to you, but they are doing it for the extra revenue that is yielded in the long run. It's capitalistic in every way. These 'perks' have a proven positive effect on increasing sales.

Dave

can we call a truce now please?

Re-directing customers costs nothing. I recommend my friends' shop to others, because it is a good shop. He has made a number of sales as a result, including my wife's bike. No rewards expected.

Which shop people go to is a zero-sum game at an industry level. Point is simply that for the same average overall profit for the retail arm of the industry, if someone pays less, someone else pays more. Yes, it depends on how you want to think about it, as to whether it is "fair". I'm not arguing for fairness, just grumbling that I pay a lot for my bike gear, and others, as a result of their "connections" don't pay anywhere near as much. It just $h!+s me.

You don't have to read.

I'm enjoying the discussion. It has not become personal nor unprofessional.

Winky, if I pay less, you don't pay more. Whether an employee or a friend of the store ever gets a deal is irrelevant. If the bike costs $600, and retails for $1000, you are generally going to pay $1000. No more and no less. The store will never offer the bike for less and is generally not allowed to until year-end. Trek will set their wholesale price at $600 and that price is blind - it does not and cannot see the end game that takes place in the store.

I worked in the food business for quite a while and I would say that in that industry, customers do subsidize the price of food for others. If customers knew that they might resent it. Most restaurants provide free meals to their employees and someone has to pay for that. But that is on a whole different scale than 'mates rates' or connections and is not done for sound business reasons. Instead of getting a discount for their food, they get a free meal. And that cost is substantial.

Dave 

My point is that IF the margin were averaged, I would pay less. I know that for a specific instance this obviously wouldn't happen. In a world with everything equal, but no special deals for friends, I would pay less than I do now. The $1000 is an equilibrium price that includes the effect of special deals. Remove them and the $1000 might be $990 for the bike shop to be just as profitable. If we removed the special deals and didn't reduce the retail price, the shops would all be more profitable (assuming no effect on total turnover - perhaps to simple). Spotting this opportunity, a competitor would open a store down the street and margins would go back to equilibrium (at slightly higher than $990 to reflect the inefficiency of an extra store in the system and thus less turnover at every store).

I don't have a problem with deals for employees, even if their cost is relatively high. It simply forms part of the remuneration package that they receive. I have more issue with "We have a beer on Friday nights, so here's a bike at cost +10%. But screw that guy over there, I don't know him. Obviously a plonker. He's paying full whack".

Winky, the $1000 is not an equilibrium price. It wouldn't go down to $990. It couldn't go down. Trek called us once because we inadvertently, accidentally, sold a bike for $25 less than suggested retail, and we had to adjust the price back to suggested. They are not factoring in whatever a store might do down the line. Like I say, the wholesale price and suggested retail price do not have 'deals' factored in. Both prices are blind, and do not take anything else into account beyond normal retail transactions. I don't think your Friday night scenario is common, at least not in Toronto. The deal I got on the saddle was an unusually low price, I think having to do more with the business our two stores did back and forth - we traded back and forth, if we were out of a size, they would loan us a bike etc. I think I mentioned it only because things like saddles and other accessories have a ridiculously inflated retail price, usually 100%. When I sold a bike, I wasn't allowed to reduce the price, but I was allowed to discount the accessories, usually no more than 10%. Bikes themselves are usually fairly low profit because of the high overhead - test rides, lifetime warranty on minor brake and gear adjustments, free flat fixes, etc. Also a proper bike build takes between one to one and a half hours, and add to that an additional half hour at time of sale to 'prep' the bike. I took a lot of time looking after my customer, swapping out stems to fine tune the fit for a test ride, etc. I took a lot of heat from my boss for spending too much time, but in the long run I had that customer coming back for life.

Dave

The TOPIC is

"To the cyclists - which saddle ?"

You don't have to read. I'm enjoying the discussion ........

Well -  just so long as you are happy.

I'm superficial, so when I saw how yucky Brooks saddles looked after some use, I decided to pass.  So far, the saddle that came with the bike (a $35 WTB Team) feels really good.

Another nice coincidence was that the green of my old green/grey Time ATAC pedals match the green of the bike.  Pics will follow ...

Good point.

Shoot, I told you all along..........

W  T  B

Ignore all the ponsy Italian jewellry others mention.

As for Brooks, well maybe this one ?
My Granny says it's great.

I'm glad the WTB is working for you. They make great saddles.

By the way, sorry the thread went off topic for a while there.

Looking forward to your pictures, and please keep us posted on how the saddle feels in the long run.

Dave

Good luck with the new saddle, they're such a personal choice and about the only way you can be remotely scientific about it is to measure your sit-bone width which I plan to do at some point.  I gather it involves getting some aluminium foil and putting a sheet of it on the stairs and sitting on it while naked for a few mins.  The resulting depressions in the foil can then be measured for how far apart they are.  My only concern with this is somebody coming to the door or my wife finding me and having to explain...

Re: Brooks I have a B17 standard on my tourer and it is the best saddle I have ever ridden (and I've tried gel flow, anatomic etc etc).  In short all the anatomic ones were fine for an hour or two but the Brooks is totally comfortable even after 8 hours in the saddle.  Incidentally my wife has a Brooks Professional Lady on her tourer and neither of us struggled at all with break-in, indeed the saddle was very nearly as comfy from Day one as it is now fifteen years or so down the line.

Great Brooks video here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9w-y24Waz4

My MTB has a Brooks Conquest on it which I am being forced to stop riding because Brooks are notorious for having short saddle rails and I can't get the saddle far enough back on my new Cotic Soul even with a lay-back seatpost.  Have selected Crank Brothers Iodine 3 as its successor however I doubt very much it will match the Brooks!  (Incidentally dealer has put a test Fizik Gobi on at the moment and I'd rather sit on bacofoil naked - truly awful saddle!)

Jonathan

Winky

What a Vuelta!

Contador trys, trys and trys again doesn't he.

Bruce

It's incredible. What stage racing should be like. It has really shown up the snooze-fest of a Tour this year.