Lack of refinement hurts entry-level DSLRs
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: stephe_k on 31 Mar 2010 00:29 Neil Harrington wrote: > <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hos8ag$avq$1(a)news.albasani.net... >> http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Corvette/156760 >> >> "The Chevrolet Corvette is GM�s highest quality car, costs more than >> $50,000, and has a very small margin of profit. With such a large >> financial loss in 2007, GM can no longer afford the small profit margin >> and declining sales on such a high priced product." >> >> >> Yeah that sounds like a big profit item for chevy.. *rolls eyes* > > When did "BIG profit item" suddenly become the only alternative to your > claim it "was NOT a profitable car"? > > Well normal people might be able to see that a "small profit margin" item sold in small quantities is not a profitable car to produce.
From: stephe_k on 31 Mar 2010 00:33 Neil Harrington wrote: > > but it always made money for the company. What is your proof? Of course as a marketing tool they decided overall having it in their lineup makes them money but you haven't proven THAT model is a big money maker for them. You ask me for proof but then you give nothing but an opinion. Stephanie
From: tony cooper on 31 Mar 2010 00:41 On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:14:15 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >tony cooper wrote: >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 03:13:11 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" >> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Yeah that sounds like a big profit item for chevy.. *rolls eyes* >>> >> Your claim was that Corvette was not a profitable car in the 50s and >> 60s. You support this claim by citing information about the small >> amount of profit outlook in 2008. You do understand that there have >> been some changes in the marketplace in 40 years, don't you? >> >> > > >You missed the post about the 1950's? They were in production for 6 >years before they even started to make ANY profit. > >Why do you think the corvettes in the 1960's were limited production? >Because it was a high profit car they didn't want to make money on? They >limited the production because it wasn't a profitable car, especially >the ultra high perf models. Production in the 1960s grew from about 10,000 Corvettes in 1960 to 38,462 Corvettes in 1969. They increased production as demand increased. Limited production of a car is more of a marketing decision than a financial decision. There is more of a cachet to being the owner of one of 38,000 than there is to owning one of 1,168,300 like the Chevrolet Bel Air in 1959. Additionally, the Corvette is a two-seater; a design that automatically excludes the family auto buyer. You have not shown that the Corvette was not profitable in the 1960s. The general economic conditions in 2007 and 2008 changed drastically. What happened in those years is irrelative to your argument. > And if you READ the post they say "and has a very small margin of >profit" for even the 2008 models. If they made this small a margin on >all their cars, they would go broke. > >But you don't seem to want to actually read what I post... :-) The problem is that I *do* read what you post. You have not posted any indication that the Corvette was not a profitable line in the 1960s. You are pulling "facts" from what you sit on. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Savageduck on 31 Mar 2010 01:02 On 2010-03-30 21:14:15 -0700, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> said: > tony cooper wrote: >> On Tue, 30 Mar 2010 03:13:11 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" >> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Yeah that sounds like a big profit item for chevy.. *rolls eyes* >>> >> Your claim was that Corvette was not a profitable car in the 50s and >> 60s. You support this claim by citing information about the small >> amount of profit outlook in 2008. You do understand that there have >> been some changes in the marketplace in 40 years, don't you? >> >> > > > You missed the post about the 1950's? They were in production for 6 > years before they even started to make ANY profit. ....er 4 years, production started late 1953 , and per your reference were profitable in 1958. > > Why do you think the corvettes in the 1960's were limited production? > Because it was a high profit car they didn't want to make money on? > They limited the production because it wasn't a profitable car, > especially the ultra high perf models. ....er no. the Corvette was not a Biscayne, Impala, or Malibu, one of the mainstream market family Chevy sedans of the '50's or '60's. It was not a station wagon, or a pickup truck. It was a two seater limited production car for a limited market. Once the Corvette got over the hump in '58 and was presented as "The American" sports car, it took sales from the MG's, Austin Healey's, etc. and left the Ford Thunderbird as a poseur. Then it became desirable and profitable, and has been ever since. Corvettes have always had a limited production for a limited market. These were not exactly family cars. However there are sufficient numbers of male baby-boomers suffering mid-life crises to provide a profitable market over the last 25 years. The demand for the top of the line Z1, with a starting price over $108K has resulted in waiting lists and sale prices over sticker. Corvettes over the last 25 years have been profit machines. Most dealerships never have them on the showroom floor longer than it takes to deliver them to the buyers. Sales of ALL vehicles were down through 2007, 2008 & 2009 for reasons related to the economy. However the niche market for the Corvette remained and generally sales dropped proportionately with the rest of the automobile market. They still sold at a premium, but in fewer numbers. Other manufacturers and models suffered worse. > > And if you READ the post they say "and has a very small margin of > profit" for even the 2008 models. If they made this small a margin on > all their cars, they would go broke. ....and your information comes from oppapers.com? Since when was that an authorative automotive industry publication. "They say" indeed. > > But you don't seem to want to actually read what I post... :-) Well I did. So? > > Stephanie -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Savageduck on 31 Mar 2010 01:10
On 2010-03-30 21:27:41 -0700, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com" <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> said: > Savageduck wrote: >> > >> GM has benefitted by using the Corvette developed engines in other >> models such as Cadillacs and Camaros. > > And claiming these cars had a "corvette engine" I'm sure wasn't ever > used for marketing them. Claiming didn't have anything to do with it. GM put their high performance engines into high performance models. Those buyers paid premiums for those engines. That equates to higher profits. > > >> >> As far as being GM's "highest quality car" the Cadillac Division would >> probably argue the point. > > And we should expect the Cadillac guys to say their rivals do have a > higher quality product? Again my quote was from a GM spokesperson, not > that publication. ....and the niche market Corvette has never been a "rival" for Cadillac. A great number of CAdillac dealerships are also Chevrolet dealerships and they compliment each other. > > So lets see your information on the Corvette being a big profit item > for GM and not just a showcase for their technology as I believe it has > been. As you believe it has been. > > Stephanie -- Regards, Savageduck |