Phonograph Monthly Review, Vol. 5, No. 10 (1931-07)

July 1931, Vol. V, No. 10 287 Stokowski, and not allowed to be cut. I think we all agree with the Editor in condemning the Victor version of En Saga. I have just purchased the new H. M. V. releases of re-recordings of Wagnerian excerpts conducted by Coates, and I recommend them to all to whom the old recordings of Siegfried’s Rhine Journey, the Magic Fire Music, the Ride of the Valkyries, and the Prelude to Act III of Lohengrin were a pleasure. These new are some of the finest Wagnerian records that we have. While he is at it, I hope that he will re-record his disc of Siegfried’s Funeral Music. To my mind, his interpretation is quite easily the best that I have heard, and the old disc was handicapped (effective as it was) by not-too-good recording. A new one could not help but be superb. In conclusion, may I suggest that we have more articles by Observer as he always has something in- teresting to say. Westmount, Quebec, Canada A. Hamilton Bolton Propaganda—Prices—Merchandizing Editor, Phonograph Monthly Review: It would be most regrettable were the P. M. R. to disappear because of the lack of interest of the manufacturers, considering the enthusiasm of its editorship and the interest of its readers. This is especially true in view of the fact, so ably presented in the June issue, that the difficulties of the phono- graph and record business are not insoluble, apart from the temporary effects of the present general business depression. In its June issue, the P. M. R. made specific sug- gestions which—coupled with those appearing other times—offer a program to the producers so plainly in line with all modern merchandising practice, that it is hard to understand why the companies have not adopted them—even originated them. Perhaps it would be worth while to review these suggestions. 1. The companies should not give up advertising, either of records or of machines. The new recording and reproducing techniques make the modern phono- graph and its records a satisfactory adjunct to intelligent persons’ musical life in a way in which the older products never were. This fact is not very generally appreciated. Education of the public to the new conditions of “canned music” is essential, and its method is advertising. This is not to say that every family now owning a radio for the sake of Amos ‘n’ Andy could be persuaded to add phono- graphic equipment and a growing collection of Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms to its possessions. But a great deal more could be done than is done. The manufacturers advertise their radios. Why do they not advertise their phonographs, for what it is worth to them, especially in view of the fact that a phono- graph owner, if properly followed up by further publicity, is a potentially continuous purchaser of records? Ten years ago, not a month went by that did not see the advertisement of the full list of new records in all newspapers, on the part of all companies. Now, when the records are in every respect better, why has this advertising been dropped ? Why have the Victor company’s street-car cards disappeared?—The pages in the “quality group” magazines ? 2. The companies should manufacture cheaper machines. All the advertising in the world will not distribute an expensive product below a certain in- come level. The companies made their initial mis- take when the very first “orthophonic,” “viva-tonal,” etc., machines were offered on the market. There was no phonograph to be bought for less than $90.00. Was this a necessary or a wise limitation to set upon the number of possible purchasers? That the retail dealers did not think so is evidenced by the fact that within a year or two, with no business depression to provide an excuse, it was possible to buy these models at 30-40 per cent off the original price. The same thing happened with the introduc- tion of the first electric machines and combinations, save that the lowest-priced models were extremely expensive, and that the mark-down followed much more quickly. It seems almost as though the com- panies looked for profit more from the few “suckers” who fall for the “latest-model” racket, than from an increasing group of purchasers at the widest possi- ble variety of income levels, all of whom thereupon remained in the market as potential record buyers. My dealer in Washington has told me again and again of his efforts to get the companies to make a moderate-priced electrical phonograph, without radio, to sell to the large number of middle-class “prospects”" who are genuine music-lovers. Only recently, after four or five years’ campaigning, has he succeeded in impressing his point of view on one company. It has produced a four-tube phonograph, but wants close to $100.00 for it? Why? I suspect, from looking at it, that the price is high partly because the cabinet is bigger than it need be, and hideously over-ornamented. Why will not the companies make a plain and efficient machine to sell for $75.00? It ought to be possible. The “works” of the hideous outfit described above can be bought at retail for that figure; surely the manufacturer’s margin is enough to provide a simple box to put them in. As you suggest, another means of selling machines and then records is to provide a cheap motor, turn- table, and pick-up, for attachment to a radio outfit. You set $25 as a fair price to ask for it. I think you are reasonable. But the two outfits of this sort which are on the market sell respectively for $50 and $75, and have been so little advertised that few people know of their existence. Why? Instead of going after the widest possible market by catering to A low income groups, the companies tax their wits to devise elaborate “automatic” machines, at fabulous prices, in enormous cabinets which few people can house, playing only one brand of records effectively, and these only in a limited series of special pressings. Is this the lesson taught by the sales policy of Mr. Ford? 3. The price of records should be reduced. It is not generally known among record buyers that the difference between the price they pay and the cost of the record to the retailer is forty per cent. On the other hand, can it be disputed that almost the only limit on the ordinary classical record buyer’s purchases is the price consideration? Why was “durium,” the new cheap record-surface material, allowed to escape into the hands of a company pro- ducing only dance records, to compete with the radio.