TubeNet

Why don't brass manufactures(any musical instrument really) actually do a good job with websites? They are super cheap effective advertising. There are elements from some that are okay. MW's layout is okay but info is greatly lacking and/or not up-to-date. Miraphone has the nice 360 views on some models but the rest is really cheezy. Then there are "manufactures" that don't even have one...(I honestly don't what a huge rant about this example). Besson's site is still showing 2009 stuff, I know they have hard times. Kanstul is out of date. Maybe the biggest issue is they are all out of date. But it would be nice to have more info that a straight on picture, bore size, bell size and a stupid x/4 sizing .

For most of the world the web is the best way to advertise. Tuba's are LOW volume, high dollar items that are stocked in very few places. Better info for pre-travil shopping should be offered...

Sorry I know I am not a well know poster and this is a rant.

Ray

I agree. Good information about music instruments is difficult to find.

TubaTinker wrote:I agree. Good information about music instruments is difficult to find.

No kidding!

cctubaneeds wrote: But it would be nice to have more info that a straight on picture, bore size, bell size and a stupid x/4 sizing
Ray

I agree with this as well!

cctubaneeds wrote:But it would be nice to have more info that a straight on picture, bore size, bell size and a stupid x/4 sizing

What information would you like to know?

Useful information, things like:
Detailed pictures - actually showing the tubing layout
Some sort of reference that actually shows a horns size. Which I know has been talk about on here before. Maybe just a picuture with a manikin or something.
Some sound samples comparing the horns with the same person playing all the horns as a benchmark. Hopefully somebody in the company can play proficiently....

My biggest beefs are the lack of updated info and if there is a pic it is a from shot of a tuba-shaped object. I think every manufacturer has a new horn that is not on their site.

Ray

My pet peeve is pictures of a tuba with the bell on the ground taken from above the horn's bottom bow at close range. Foreshortening makes the bell look far smaller than it actually is and distorts the shape of the instrument. Main pictures should be made with the instrument upright or on its side and from in front of it at a distance. Less distortion that way.

I'd like to see information about the position and angles of the mouthpiece receiver. Those details are crucial for playing comfort, and what's right for one person is completely wrong for the next.

(The "next" usually means me, which is why all of my tubas are Frankenhorns.)

bloke wrote:Knowing which pitches are suck-out-of-tune would be helpful, but I doubt that many websites would be interested in sporting that sort of info.

Alternatively which pitch/es is/are in tune.

Lingon wrote:

bloke wrote:Knowing which pitches are suck-out-of-tune would be helpful, but I doubt that many websites would be interested in sporting that sort of info.

Alternatively which pitch/es is/are in tune.

Surely no manufacturer is going to admit that their instrument does not play in tune - it would be adverse to sales.

And in any case individual instruments vary, mouthpiece choice can have big affect, as well as person playing.

An independent test by multiple professional players on multiple instruments would be the only way with graph showing the results.

Neptune wrote:...Surely no manufacturer is going to admit that their instrument does not play in tune - it would be adverse to sales. ...
...And in any case individual instruments vary, mouthpiece choice can have big affect, as well as person playing...

Sadly that is of course so.

As I have more experience from trombones than tubas I can assure you that especially German and American trombones differ so much in the tuning aspect that players of the respective instrument types usually hates the other types because "they are totally impossible to play in tune". However there are fine players that are capable of playing all those instruments very well.

But it surely is helpful if at least the octaves of the open horn are in tune...

Neptune wrote:...An independent test by multiple professional players on multiple instruments would be the only way with graph showing the results...

Maybe that would be a very varying graph depending on the players as they may vary as much as the horns. But hopefully it would indicate some tendencies.

Since the subject has been raised (and I completely agree) I'll just add a rant; not to insult anyone, but is anyone else totally bewildered by Baltimore Brass' photos? These weird, bell first, almost coy pictures of tubas where you can't see anything but the bell and leadpipe? They used to be nice, but now...?!?

End rant.

No accusations that it's not candid - just not helpful and a little frustrating to a horn-dorn addict.

Having been employed in the sales and marketing part of the brass instrument manufacturing business, I can attest to a few facts:

1. It's EXTREMELY difficult to make money in brass instrument manufacturing. Small to medium-sized shops in particular are always operating very close to the margins.

2. Launching a high-quality professional website is not a small endeavor. It takes a lot of man-hours from the sales staff, which is usually very busy chasing down cash flow for payroll. It also costs money, real money, to get a skilled, knowledgeable web designer to do the work.

3. Photographing a brass instrument is not at all simple. Curved, reflective surfaces are very tricky, and it's very easy to lose the outer edges of the instrument in the images. How many ebay ads do you see with a reflection of the photographer in them? That's completely unacceptable on a professional website.

4. Keeping a website updated takes more man-hours. See 2. regarding chasing down cash for payroll.

5. Brass instrument manufacturers don't care how much you like looking at pictures of new tubas, they care that you are willing to open your wallet and buy a new tuba. And they know that virtually nobody buys a tuba without trying it. The way they sell instruments is through dealers, and the number of viable dealers of professional tubas is so small that the best way to deal with them is personally, usually on the phone. The website is pretty much meaningless for these transactions.

glangfur wrote:
5. Brass instrument manufacturers don't care how much you like looking at pictures of new tubas, they care that you are willing to open your wallet and buy a new tuba. And they know that virtually nobody buys a tuba without trying it. The way they sell instruments is through dealers, and the number of viable dealers of professional tubas is so small that the best way to deal with them is personally, usually on the phone. The website is pretty much meaningless for these transactions.

Though I think that most of glangfur's points are spot-on, I can't quite agree with this last one. I'm not going to be willing to open my wallet to buy a new tuba (or travel to a dealer to play test or even get on the phone with a dealer) unless I see something, likely on the manufacturer's website, that entices me to do so.

I believe that these manufacturers would find their investments in a good website to be well worth it. If Dillon, Baltimore Brass, Steve Ferguson and other dealers can afford decent (if imperfect) websites, I can't see why the makers can't.

circusboy wrote:...I believe that these manufacturers would find their investments in a good website to be well worth it. If Dillon, Baltimore Brass, Steve Ferguson and other dealers can afford decent (if imperfect) websites, I can't see why the makers can't...

OTOH, TN is a rich source for much knowledge and as we have seen over time a lot of interesting pictures, maybe not mostly of tubas though...

I think it just speaks to the fact that certain companies are not as "computer literate" as others. While developing websites can be expensive, there are enough free resources out there so that you could make a clean looking website without it costing you anything. The problem arises when companies outsource all the aspects of websites (web design, hosting, and updating) to a third party. In that case, the bill easily doubles or triples in cost. Any update, if not properly negotiated, can be billed at exorbitant prices for the actual amount of work. If certain companies were a tad more effective, they could hire office personnel qualified to work on simple websites. Using "blog" templates, weekly updates on websites should not be more complicated than posts on this forum are, making it quite easy for anyone to update as they please.

PMeuph wrote:there are enough free resources out there so that you could make a clean looking website without it costing you anything.

Man-hours are expensive, and this always costs man-hours. Which most small manufacturers would much rather see be used getting tubas out of the factory to the dealers. It's a matter of priorities.

I can understand small manufacturers having some troubles affording things like that. BUT, MW, miraphone, B&S, Besson, & Conn(canadain brass model?) are not small comanies and can easily afford the man power to at least collect the info, take some pictures(multiple) and update it.
In website you can get content management system. Add the pictures and info. Put the info in the right places and the format takes care of the rest.

Why is that so hard and expensive? It just takes effort.

glangfur wrote:Having been employed in the sales and marketing part of the brass instrument manufacturing business, I can attest to a few facts:

1. It's EXTREMELY difficult to make money in brass instrument manufacturing. Small to medium-sized shops in particular are always operating very close to the margins.

2. Launching a high-quality professional website is not a small endeavor. It takes a lot of man-hours from the sales staff, which is usually very busy chasing down cash flow for payroll. It also costs money, real money, to get a skilled, knowledgeable web designer to do the work.

3. Photographing a brass instrument is not at all simple. Curved, reflective surfaces are very tricky, and it's very easy to lose the outer edges of the instrument in the images. How many ebay ads do you see with a reflection of the photographer in them? That's completely unacceptable on a professional website.

4. Keeping a website updated takes more man-hours. See 2. regarding chasing down cash for payroll.

5. Brass instrument manufacturers don't care how much you like looking at pictures of new tubas, they care that you are willing to open your wallet and buy a new tuba. And they know that virtually nobody buys a tuba without trying it. The way they sell instruments is through dealers, and the number of viable dealers of professional tubas is so small that the best way to deal with them is personally, usually on the phone. The website is pretty much meaningless for these transactions.

Agreed on the first four points (and partial agreement on point no. 5). I can't speak for the other companies, but for Kanstul, we are a very small company with only 32 employees. The majority of our people are engaged in making horns. We have only a handful of office staff: Carrie (reception, accounting, HR), Laura (engraving, order entry, inspection, polishing, shipping), Zig (runs the company, builds trombones and French horns, R&D), Mark Kanstul (operations, including permits, materials, chemicals), Jim New (CNC, inventory levels, making mouthpieces - catalog and custom, and I'm sure I'm forgetting something) and myself (sales - including parts sales, outside sales, marketing, company tours, trade shows, web, social networking, customer relations, product photography, graphic / brochure design, building / updating / distributing price lists, I think you get the idea by now).

In the current economy we must all wear more hats than ever before. All traditional activities must still be covered while adapting to or incorporating the new ones, such as social networking and maintaining the website. Hopefully we'll get to a point where we can add to our staff.

Naturally, we do place importance on marketing activities. But our resources are limited. We do what we can do.

"It just takes effort". With diminished profits and marketing budget cuts, sometimes effort is all I have left to work with =)

GC wrote:My pet peeve is pictures of a tuba with the bell on the ground taken from above the horn's bottom bow at close range. ...

DITTO! That kind of picture is totally useless. The person who takes that picture does not play the instrument.

A website with up-to-date information is not prohibitively expensive. It is a royal pain for the company to communicate to a webmaster but should be a high priority.

A website with bells and whistles can be expensive and can be prohibitive in cost as well. Those 360 degree photos are nice but take time which equals money. Lots of interactive stuff or building a flash or swish site, also expensive.

But I see no reason why a site with up-to-date information can't be managed at a reasonable cost. An average of $100 a month for minimal upkeep is not uncommon in the industry.

Years ago a friend tried to get a website built with a shopping cart for a small business. When designers responded, and they often didn't, the bid was always close to $10,000. Finally, another friend with some html skills built the site for her for under $1000. The downside is that they got married and now he works for free.