Ok Theo, now that's about what I was expecting. Thanks for the reply.
You see, it's not that all these waits and forms cost so much. The truth is actually those waits and forms are just using the hassles to justify the price.
And yes, I think I do understand economics pretty well, as I have been studying it for a hobby now for over 30 years. When I took over as CEO the company was several HUNDRED THOUSAND dollars in the hole, and in 11 months I had them back in the black. Yes, I do understand very well.
Economics is a study that has MANY different facets and they have a tendency to move in cycles.
When and if some suppressor company decides to try the “McDonalds Approach” they will find that for about the first 1-2 years they will just own the market. Then other makers will have to try to catch up.
So if you have not studied economics you may well ask “what is the McDonalds approach”?
Back in the 70s when McDonalds was growing at a break-neck pace, it was found that they were only earning 2.7 CENTS per hamburger, and when the Big Mack came out, they made 4 cents on those.
So how did they get so big and make so much money that for a while they were they netted the largest profits of any restaurant corporation in the world?
Simple!
They sold their sandwiches by the BILLONS. They actually made more money on the paper cup that a Coke came in than the coke inside it was profiting them.
You see, for a short time (before they let quality slip and made compromises) they owned the largest share of the fast food market not only in the USA but in a few other countries as well. They did it by making a small but reliable profit, and knowing that they would dominate over 70% of the competition’s markets. Instead of trying to make the maximum amount in the short term, they made a still larger amount over more time by making their products available and inexpensive.
McDonalds international was not selling Prime New York Steaks. That was a different market. They were selling sandwiches to the people on a budget.
Not all your suppressors need to be able to withstand 500,000 rounds of full auto fire. VERY VERY few people can shoot that much. There is nothing wrong with offering a model for the average man, and another one for the "can-snobs". But the average men outnumber the "can-snobs" buy a huge margin.
Give us a can that has about 1/3 more life than the average barrel. I'd bet that 1 in 1000 shooters ever shoot out a barrel in their rifles. Cater to the 1000 and not just the one.
Give the market a can that will give top performance for about 14,000-18,000 rounds of slow or semi-auto fire. Give it to the shooting world for about $300 and you will own 90% market in one year or less.
Now there is no way a firearms company is going to sell billons of anything except bullets and cartridges, but as I said in my previous post, the hassles of owning a can combined with the COST to be hassled are what is breaking the back of that part of the industry.
I do not have much interest in a can, but if I could buy one for $300 I am sure I might get one just to have one. But if I know I must be hassled, compromise any possibility of privacy to a corrupt government, risk being “listed” on some anti-gun list for future government abuse, AND pay out the nose to have all the above, I and literally MILLONS of other shooters choose not to even bother.
If you would make them at a working profit instead of an obscene mark-up, you would induce (ok…..call it baiting, because that’s what ALL marketing is, including mine) millions of shooters to buy them instead of a few thousands.
Not all will get in line to buy a good $300 suppressor, but if I made a guess I’d say about 50% of all shooters would.
How many shooters are there in the USA?
Ask the NRA.
Keep in mind that for every shooter that is an NRA member there are probably 20 shooters that don’t belong to the NRA, and that came right from Charliton Heston when he was the NRA Pres.
Those numbers are huge. Also keep in mind that few gun owners who are not avid shooters will buy a suppressor, but those that are avid shooters nearly always have more than one gun. So you probably would sell several to each buyer.
Remember Toyota and Subaru in the early 70s and late 60s?
American cars then got ½ the mileage, cost 2-3X as much, broke down faster and lasted 1/3 as long.
Do you think Toyota and Subaru are in danger of going broke because they sold a good car cheaply?
Now the American car makers are running to catch up. But inn the 70s they didn’t bother to try. They dug in their heels and just said “We have to make this level of quality and we HAVE to charge this much”. Well how well did that work for them over about 5-10 years?
In the modern market place the way to make more money is NOT to charge more. It’s to charge less……….and sell more.
LOTS more.