Cods wallop ?

[CnoEvil]

I'm with Abacus.

Personally I'm glad that the likes of Arcam put outright performance at the heart of their AVRs......and try ringing the likes of Yamaha or Pioneer, and asking to speak to one of the designing engineers, to see where it gets you.

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/extremely-poor-customer-service-from-arcam

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/av-receivers/arcam-customer-service

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/arcam-great-products-but-rubbish-customer-service

http://www.whathifi.com/forum/hi-fi/arcam-customer-service

http://www.whathifi.com/review/arcam-av888/user-reviews (see comments regarding customer service)

All those cases were using email...........if you actually ring them, you get on much better. I (and others) have found them fair and helpful, and it was always by phone, to the likes of Matt.

If you can name me a manufacturer that has had zero problems, I'd like to hear about it.........though I am happy to admit that Arcam has had far to many problems, and seems to have used their customers as Beta Testers. At least you could get a 5 year warranty, and most problems appear to have been either sorted to the satisfaction of the customer, or a refund given.

 

[Covenanter]

I'm not sure why people are getting excited about this! It's a perfectly sensible corporate strategy to concentrate on up-market products and if some British firms want to do that then that is fine. In fact it's rather easier to concentrate on one segment of the market that to be all things to all people.

As for CD players, I think they will be around for a while yet. As a classical music lover I've not yet seen a streaming solution that appeals to me and there is no great incentive to go that way either. I can understand that if you have thousands of tracks jumping up and down to put CDs into a player every few minutes would be a pain. However with classical music you generally want to listen to a whole work so you are only getting up maybe every 30 minutes, which is scarcely a burden.

Chris

 

[MakkaPakka]

Agreed.

As a relatively small independant Co., commoditization is something that's best avoided, as the big boys will do it better.

Arcam is not a small independent co. It is 40% owned by a big American company.

 

[chebby]

In fact it's rather easier to concentrate on one segment of the market that to be all things to all people.

That doesn't sound like Arcam to me...

Everything from a £250 portable iPod speaker/dock to a £4500 AV amp and almost everything in between ('all-in-ones', 2-channel seperates, Blu-ray player, wired and wireless DACs etc.)

Charlie Brennan... "We're no longer going to try and do everything..."

Could have fooled me.

Does "no longer" mean they are going to drop the budget-fi, dock-fi and wi-fi stuff?

 

[CnoEvil]

Agreed.

As a relatively small independant Co., commoditization is something that's best avoided, as the big boys will do it better.

Arcam is not a small independent co. It is 40% owned by a big American company.

I was really talking in general.........though I didn't know that.

Even so, Arcam are still "small fry" when compared with the Japanese giants.

 

[eggontoast]

Not only are they small fry the company accounts, which they filed for A&R Cambridge, indicate they don't make any money either. I believe they layer off a big portion of the UK support staff due to lack of money flow, this is probably also why there have been complaints about their customer service of late.

 

[John Duncan]

You believe or you know?

 

[eggontoast]

The company accounts can be viewed online, but as we know from other companies, profits filed for the year don't always tell the full story eh Starbucks ;-).

I haven't heard it from the horses mouth about the staff reduction, I read it in an interview somewhere, I can only assume the information was correct as I don't think a journalist would fabricate such an interview. If it's any consolation I didn't read it in the Daily Mail. The part about problems with customer service is pure speculation on my part from the former information.

 

[John Duncan]

I'm not worried about the financial information, because that can be verified. Just don't want anybody making statements about lay offs etc which are rumour or speculation.

 

[chebby]

I haven't heard it from the horses mouth about the staff reduction, I read it in an interview somewhere, I can only assume the information was correct as I don't think a journalist would fabricate such an interview. If it's any consolation I didn't read it in the Daily Mail.

10 seconds on Google gets this article from October 2010 ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/10/arcam-rcube-hi-fi-ipod

Quote...

"It managed a profit last year – £250,000 on a turnover of £7.8m – but in 2009 and 2008 lost £1.6m and £1m on turnovers of £8.1m and £10.8m. The losses forced serious staff cuts, from 80 to 45 people, though the key engineering team was retained. "We're an engineering company," Brennan says simply. "But I guess I'm pretty much the marketing team now."

Not sure how good this information is now, almost three years later.

 

[Andy Clough]

Well, I haven't got any more recent figures, but I suspect Arcam wasn't the only company in this sector (or any other) to suffer during the recession.

 

[Covenanter]

I haven't heard it from the horses mouth about the staff reduction, I read it in an interview somewhere, I can only assume the information was correct as I don't think a journalist would fabricate such an interview. If it's any consolation I didn't read it in the Daily Mail.

10 seconds on Google gets this article from October 2010 ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/10/arcam-rcube-hi-fi-ipod

Quote...

"It managed a profit last year – £250,000 on a turnover of £7.8m – but in 2009 and 2008 lost £1.6m and £1m on turnovers of £8.1m and £10.8m. The losses forced serious staff cuts, from 80 to 45 people, though the key engineering team was retained. "We're an engineering company," Brennan says simply. "But I guess I'm pretty much the marketing team now."

Not sure how good this information is now, almost three years later.

Published Profit & Loss means almost nothing. As my old Finance lecturer used to say "Smoke and mirrors" smoke and mirrors".

Chris

 

[chebby]

I haven't heard it from the horses mouth about the staff reduction, I read it in an interview somewhere, I can only assume the information was correct as I don't think a journalist would fabricate such an interview. If it's any consolation I didn't read it in the Daily Mail.

10 seconds on Google gets this article from October 2010 ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/10/arcam-rcube-hi-fi-ipod

Quote...

"It managed a profit last year – £250,000 on a turnover of £7.8m – but in 2009 and 2008 lost £1.6m and £1m on turnovers of £8.1m and £10.8m. The losses forced serious staff cuts, from 80 to 45 people, though the key engineering team was retained. "We're an engineering company," Brennan says simply. "But I guess I'm pretty much the marketing team now."

Not sure how good this information is now, almost three years later.

Published Profit & Loss means almost nothing. As my old Finance lecturer used to say "Smoke and mirrors" smoke and mirrors".

Chris

The fact that it was published by a newspaper is bad enough surely?*

Anyway, please don't shoot the messenger. I was merely trying to find the possible source of the Arcam job loss information that 'eggontoast' couldn't remember.

*I have no other opinion on the article's veracity (or otherwise) except the obvious fact that it was published in a newspaper and written by a journalist. So, by definition, it can only be (at best) partly truthful and/or partly accurate.

 

[Covenanter]

I haven't heard it from the horses mouth about the staff reduction, I read it in an interview somewhere, I can only assume the information was correct as I don't think a journalist would fabricate such an interview. If it's any consolation I didn't read it in the Daily Mail.

10 seconds on Google gets this article from October 2010 ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2010/oct/10/arcam-rcube-hi-fi-ipod

Quote...

"It managed a profit last year – £250,000 on a turnover of £7.8m – but in 2009 and 2008 lost £1.6m and £1m on turnovers of £8.1m and £10.8m. The losses forced serious staff cuts, from 80 to 45 people, though the key engineering team was retained. "We're an engineering company," Brennan says simply. "But I guess I'm pretty much the marketing team now."

Not sure how good this information is now, almost three years later.

Published Profit & Loss means almost nothing. As my old Finance lecturer used to say "Smoke and mirrors" smoke and mirrors".

Chris

The fact that it was published by a newspaper is bad enough surely?*

Anyway, please don't shoot the messenger. I was merely trying to find the possible source of the Arcam job loss information that 'eggontoast' couldn't remember.

*I have no other opinion on the article's veracity (or otherwise) except the obvious fact that it was published in a newspaper and written by a journalist. So, by definition, it can only be (at best) partly truthful and/or partly accurate.

I wasn't shooting the messenger! Just making the point that P&L means nothing. To explain, every company has the ability to make "provisions" both specific and general and these can affect the P&L figure by as much as you choose. I was Finance Director of a group of companies and the P&L number was always what I wanted it to be. An accountant looks at the Balance Sheet and the Cash Flow not the P&L. The public looks at P&L and is deceived!

Chris

 

[lindsayt]

When I worked for a medium sized manufacturing company, the profit or loss was always the figure that the main computer system said it was. This was the total amount of income minus the total amount of expenditure. The Finance Director only had limited control over what this figure was. The Managing Director had more control as he had overall say in how the company spent its' money and in the general direction of the company. But even then, by far the biggest influence was the inertia of how the company was run in terms of what it could sell and what it cost to run the company - which was not particularly under the control of any individual.

In terms of cooking the books to arrive at a profit and loss figure desired by the Finance Director? No way. It was an ethical company, as indeed are the vast majority of companies in the UK.

 

[fr0g]

It was an ethical company, as indeed are the vast majority of companies in the UK.

Straight face...? really?

 

[Covenanter]

When I worked for a medium sized manufacturing company, the profit or loss was always the figure that the main computer system said it was. This was the total amount of income minus the total amount of expenditure. The Finance Director only had limited control over what this figure was. The Managing Director had more control as he had overall say in how the company spent its' money and in the general direction of the company. But even then, by far the biggest influence was the inertia of how the company was run in terms of what it could sell and what it cost to run the company - which was not particularly under the control of any individual.

In terms of cooking the books to arrive at a profit and loss figure desired by the Finance Director? No way. It was an ethical company, as indeed are the vast majority of companies in the UK.

I'm sorry but this is not sensible. The UK accounting standards require certain things and nobody inside the company can do anything about that! It's nothing to do with ethics but everything to do with taking a view. For example, suppose a client owes you £x at year end. You can take a view that they won't pay, will pay or there is a y% likelihood of them paying. You are required to make a judgment about this. If you assume they won't pay your profit is diminished by £y because you are required by law to make a provision to that effect. Your FD would have been making such decisions and if he/she wasn't then they were acting illegally.

Chris

 

[matt49]

It's nothing to do with ethics but everything to do with taking a view.

That certainly corresponds to my (vicarious) experience. I'm very close to an FD of a FTSE100 company (can't be more specific), and I see that an awful lot does depend on judgements and on negotiations with the auditors. It's a very fluid process.

 

[ID.]

I'm with Abacus.

Personally I'm glad that the likes of Arcam put outright performance at the heart of their AVRs......and try ringing the likes of Yamaha or Pioneer, and asking to speak to one of the designing engineers, to see where it gets you.

I've heard a fair number of AVRs, and Arcam are (imo) easily the best at 2 channel (in their price range)....which is often an important attribute.

But I don't agree that it is a race to the bottom and that sound quality is suffering. Yes, you can make products with better sound quality, but you then pay for it. I'm glad that Arcam and others do create products with a greater focus on sound (especially stereo playback).

Let me know if you want an interpreter next time you try calling Yamaha or Pioneer, etc. to speak to their designing engineers, I can offer you a discount on my services or put you in touch with someone

 

[MakkaPakka]

Who says Pioneer and Yamaha aren't focusing on great sound? They may have fifty times as many engineers who are just as capable if not more so. I can't see the how their accessibility affects that.

You're buying into the idea that because a company is small it puts more effort in and cares more (which may or may not be true).

 

[CnoEvil]

But I don't agree that it is a race to the bottom and that sound quality is suffering. Yes, you can make products with better sound quality, but you then pay for it. I'm glad that Arcam and others do create products with a greater focus on sound (especially stereo playback).

It becomes a "race to the bottom" if you take on the giant "VFM companies" at their own game......this is because it then all becomes about price. Unless the smaller company can give added value in other areas (improved SQ, better customer service, nicer aesthetics etc), and differentiate themselves by offering something unique, they can easily get swallowed up.

I have a Pioneer TV, but hopefully your services won't be needed....... ray:

 

[manicm]

As most developed countries have esoteric Hi Fi and Home Cinema manufactures that produce highly expensive equipment to gain the last ounce of performance available, (The law of diminishing returns has set it by then) it’s hardly surprising that high end UK manufactures want to get in on the act.

It’s not possible for a small UK manufacture to really compete in the mass market these days due to limited financial resources, therefore moving into a market they can compete in is both logical and sensible, that way they can make sure they survive and keep their employees employed.

Basically that’s all the report says. (As with all things you can sometimes read too much into things)

Bill

Not quite true mate, Linn, Cyrus and Naim are all thriving and 100% British manufactured, although the latter are now in partnership with French Focal. And Linn produces 99% of their device contents themselves too where they can.

My guess is that if Cyrus and Naim want to target Marantz they can easily do so. Naim's entry-level amp costs 1k, they possibly could launch a 500 quid 6004 competitor if they so wished. Linn is a different kettle of fish - they wouldn't want to and even at their high-end their margins are actually not that big, but reasonable enough to be profitable and stay alive as a private company (as far as I know).

 

[andyjm]

As most developed countries have esoteric Hi Fi and Home Cinema manufactures that produce highly expensive equipment to gain the last ounce of performance available, (The law of diminishing returns has set it by then) it’s hardly surprising that high end UK manufactures want to get in on the act.

It’s not possible for a small UK manufacture to really compete in the mass market these days due to limited financial resources, therefore moving into a market they can compete in is both logical and sensible, that way they can make sure they survive and keep their employees employed.

Basically that’s all the report says. (As with all things you can sometimes read too much into things)

Bill

Not quite true mate, Linn, Cyrus and Naim are all thriving and 100% British manufactured, although the latter are now in partnership with French Focal. And Linn produces 99% of their device contents themselves too where they can

I believe that after the ''merger' of Naim and Focal, the resulting company is called Focal & Co, and is majority French owned. If you will excuse the pun, Naim is now just a brand name.

There is very little component manufacture away from the Far East. I therefore find it hard to believe that Linn equipment contains as much as 50% of UK sourced components, and certainly not 99% produced by themselves.

 

[manicm]

andyjm - you're completely wrong about Naim mate - while they're part of one group Naim still do their own seperate development. They're not simply a 'brand name' now.They're the same as they ever were. Their components are still made in UK.

Linn have themselves stated they do top to bottom manufacturing to ease logistics and ensure quality control. Their internal DACs are probably the only thing they don't manufacture themselves. Everything else they do in-house if possible, their software included. Hence their lower than average margins. 99% might have been hyperbole on my part, but at least 85% would be bullseye.

 

[andyjm]

andyjm - you're completely wrong about Naim mate - while they're part of one group Naim still do their own seperate development. They're not simply a 'brand name' now.They're the same as they ever were. Their components are still made in UK.

Linn have themselves stated they do top to bottom manufacturing to ease logistics and ensure quality control. Their internal DACs are probably the only thing they don't manufacture themselves. Everything else they do in-house if possible, their software included. Hence their lower than average margins. 99% might have been hyperbole on my part, but at least 85% would be bullseye.

i didnt mean to imply Naim don't do anything, as far as I am aware, the still have their operation in Salisbury. The point I was trying to make, badly as it turns out, was that Naim isn't a separate company anymore, in fact it isn't even Engish.

From Wikipedia, there is one fab plant left in the uk, NXP's operation in Manchester. No mention of Linn having any semiconductor manufacturing capability. What components do you think Linn manufactures themselves?