V-man
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2009
- Messages
- 6,660
- Reaction score
- 8,258
Hopefully, Marshall becomes a whole owned subsidiary of Zounds. Stays in the UK, but receives better management. IMHO, I think they've fallen behind in innovation and competitiveness.
I'm a fan! 1/2 of my amps are Marshall, and it's the only brand I have multiple of.
I am not saying a cash-labor infusion to assist the brand that adds cache can’t bear fruit for us, but (I think) common sense would work the opposite trend. As long as Marshall can tread water (Ala “Gibson”) the parent company is free to use their name for the real bread and butter: home/personal audio.
They are unlikely to divert focus from or compromise overall profitability to the minority “figurehead” asset at the expense of maximizing growth and profitability for the asset that brings in the lion’s share.
This is the problem when the Pedal, Firearm, Sports car company is acquired by a firm that isn’t headed by/motivated for the guitar/gun/car guy. In those cases the minority company (i.e. S&W firearms owned by the Brits 20 years ago) takes a shit from poor/minimalistic management for the minority company’s best interests, and it gets sold off.
There are a lot of parts that are similar to this acquisition… but the wildcard is the brand actually enhances the parent company’s main product line, not acquired as a mere portfolio asset… so how does one capitalize on the brand without losing money on those stupid amplifiers, yet not run it (and the cache they bought) to the ground?
I am not a business man, but my instincts suggest: use the Marshall name to prop up Zounds (taking care of Marshall, esp in the short term), develop Zounds as its own brand, then neglect/bleed/sell-off Marshall once the Zounds name minus Marshall liabilities = the Zounds name propped up by Marshall’s branding (complete with the liability of managing and producing a small-player company’s products).