Bill Yeargan Plant Nautique Interview |
Post Reply | Page <12 |
Author | ||
Seperator
Groupie Joined: May-23-2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 64 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Yes it is frustrating when they dodge the questions like that and like he said they don't build boats for price. But with them only building for the so called best and that can be debated if they still accomplish that, they will/have in all cases price (d) themselves right of the market for most buyers. IMO I would suspect in this continuing down economy it will shrink their market more and hurt them badly. Lets face it with the current price of a BEST version SN even if they did offer a so called price point (What ever number it would be 40K -45K - 50K?) Ski Nautique how many people are ready to buy and at what price would they buy? |
||
Riley
Grand Poobah Joined: January-19-2004 Location: Portland, ME Status: Offline Points: 7946 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Joel, you are correct that the Sporty is on the Tantrum hull, but not wanting to bore people by getting into Malibu specifics such as the diamond hull and diamond cut hull or whatever they call it, the Response got the new hull when the Sporty came out. Not all Responses are the same. The older ones have the same hull bottom as the Sporster. Mike, you make good points about creating brand loyalty with an entry level model. I do think Nautique owners are more brand loyal than Malbu owners. |
||
Gary S
Grand Poobah Joined: November-30-2006 Location: Illinois Status: Offline Points: 14096 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Bottom line guys is,it don't matter.If and when the economy comes back it won't be the same anyway.My companies new hires top pay is less than half of what I make.You'll be too busy paying off the national debt to have time to go boating anyway.The only way the middle class worker will be able to buy a Nautique is when they go under and the Chinese buy it up.Any one here ever heard of Packard cars? Made alot of money during WW2. They too decided to bring out a lower price car, by 1959 they were history.
|
||
MattieK27
Newbie Joined: September-02-2010 Location: Naperville IL Status: Offline Points: 9 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I commented on this article on Planet Nautique, but I figured I would post over here as well. The question about building old models again was something I posed, as I see nothing but win win from it.
Cost is something that has a lot of variables, but r&d on these boats is already done. Molds already exist. Assembly methods are known. It would take a very small amount to put the old 210 and the 196 back into production. My theory is CC/Nautique thinks it will cut into their premium boat sales. I think the entry level and the typical CC buyer is two different markets, and they are failing to capitolize on this. Is the factory at production capacity? If not, fill in shifts with the older boats with a simplified optioning scheme, cutting down on the possible build variations. That will make these boats low volume, and with a short options list people that wanted loaded boats will be forced to look at the newer designs. Just my thoughts... |
||
TRIP
Gold Member Joined: December-08-2007 Location: Costa Rica Status: Offline Points: 629 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I'd want that! Gimme a 210 of that era (one of the best looking wakeboats ever) with tower, racks, PP and Pure Vert ballast and I'm a happy man. I don't need 267 led-illuminated cupholders, underwater REMOVEstyle lighting, 3d-touchscreens, a $5000-stereosystem with surround sound, etc etc etc etc etc etc and etc. I think CC (or Nautiques or whatever) should do it (like Standard has), possibly under a new sub brand name (like Axis/Moomba). |
||
eric lavine
Grand Poobah Joined: August-13-2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13413 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
and to think on my lake, all I see is these yupps in their new 80k CC's pulling around tubers, they definitely geared these boats to the "gotta keep up with the Smith's".
the "true" enthusiasts, the ones out there at 7:00 am looking for the flat water before the blingers get out there are in a mid ranged mid priced ski boat, even a 2500.00 boat teaching their kids to ski. Has CC lost their way? believe me im not bias here in no way. Jodi, if so is true and they are now geared to the elite, maybe on the transom it should read as follows: we sold out, if you want to ski go buy a ski boat |
||
"the things you own will start to own you"
|
||
05 210
Platinum Member Joined: February-17-2006 Location: Southern Maine Status: Offline Points: 1481 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
It almost seems like this is exactly what is happening. It also seems like from reading the other forums that there are alot more issues out there with the newer boats(ie. malfunctions,QC issues, and warranty claims). It could just appear that way cause maybe there are more people are whining, but lately it seems like the prices are going up and the quality is going down. Not just with Nautiques, but all brands. |
||
Fl Inboards
Grand Poobah Joined: January-20-2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2061 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Sorry Erik Not getting your statement "we sold out" Nautiques are an upscale boat plain and simple. If one can not afford a new one then they have two options. Go find a nice used Nautique or settle for a lesser product. Their does not seem to be a shortage of buyers to buy new Nautiques and their are great buy's on even year old boats. I know of a 100 hour Ski 200 for $41K on the trailer. How about a 08 196 $24k.
Again you as a Nautique purchaser have the option to not bling out your boat and can get into a new ski or wakeboard boat for not much more than a year ago. If $3000 difference from last year to this year on a stripped down boat is a make or break then you can not afford the boat anyway. Yes toski one does not need a state of the art Ski 200, I ski regulary with a 92 SN at least twice a week and we own a 82 American Skier that we use for tubing wake boarding and my son even uses it for learning new flips on his trick ski. Like it or not Nautiques are going forward where other company's are stagnating and failing, Their must be something to Nautiques as they continue to be sucessful in their efforts. |
||
Hobby Boats can be expensive when the hobbyist is limited on their own skill and expertise.
1993 Shamrock "fat" 20. 2008 Nautique 196 5.0 |
||
Hollywood
Moderator Group Joined: February-04-2004 Location: Twin Lakes, WI Status: Offline Points: 13510 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Yeargin
there buys Andddddd thats the end of my rant |
||
JMurph
Gold Member Joined: January-06-2006 Location: Maryland/NC Status: Offline Points: 738 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
If you were able to buy that new 210, stripped down to what your desired level, what would you be willing to pay? 40k, 50k, 60k (certainly not 70k+) I doubt you would be calling for this option if you were trying to sell you previous generation low hour 210. That would push the used sales into the basement and beyond. CC is actually helping every one of us by not slashing prices and selling their new boats at used prices. I know a lot of new CC's are cash purchases, but owners would still be completely upside down on their investment. I do like the suggestion of a sub-brand. That could actually solve the issue of driving the CC prices down. As for Bill's comment that they don't build to a price point, at least he didn't dodge that question. It seems like a pretty authentic answer eventhough it would not sit well with the general public (non-CC owners). |
||
Riley
Grand Poobah Joined: January-19-2004 Location: Portland, ME Status: Offline Points: 7946 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Despite what some people on CCF say about Correct Craft's of yesteryear, they were never a cheap boat. A 66 or 67 Barracuda or Wildcat went for $4,000 to $5,000 back in the day which was what a new Vette cost. They weren't affordable to most people unless you bought used. They did have lower cost boats like the Mustang, but even those were out of reach of most people, unless they bought used.
They could come out with a less expensive boat and they probably would if they thought there was a market for it. I don't think a $50-$55k Malibu VRide is an inexpensive boat, even though it may be $10k less than their better wakeboard boat. |
||
Bri892001
Grand Poobah Joined: September-27-2008 Location: Boston MA Status: Offline Points: 4945 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I guess my main issue is that the whole inboard market seems to be going bigger and heavier, which is understandably going to be more expensive.
Even brands that start out to be affordable, like Moomba etc., keep bringing their models upmarket. Well, maybe Moomba is bad example; they're latest outback V is actually smaller than the previous to be under 20 feet. It seems like with the SUV market leaning towards lighter framed car based models, I would have to imagine that average towing capacity is going down. So then you have to think about buying a new truck too, when you can't haul your boat with your family hauler. |
||
Riley
Grand Poobah Joined: January-19-2004 Location: Portland, ME Status: Offline Points: 7946 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Brian, I agree. The SN 200 is very similar to the Malibu Rlxi that came out in 2003. A big do all boat. 2800 lbs. I always thought Correct Craft had such a niche with the small CB ski boat that they would always be the only company still making one. My guess is the market spoke.
|
||
Hollywood
Moderator Group Joined: February-04-2004 Location: Twin Lakes, WI Status: Offline Points: 13510 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The Ski Nautique has never gotten smaller.
|
||
TRBenj
Grand Poobah Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21104 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Technically the 2007-2009 196 was listed at 19'5.25" and 90.25" wide, whereas it was 19'6" and 91" from 1990-2006. |
||
Fl Inboards
Grand Poobah Joined: January-20-2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2061 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
That all depended on who read the tape measure!
|
||
Hobby Boats can be expensive when the hobbyist is limited on their own skill and expertise.
1993 Shamrock "fat" 20. 2008 Nautique 196 5.0 |
||
Fl Inboards
Grand Poobah Joined: January-20-2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2061 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Also was it with or with out the rub rail?
|
||
Hobby Boats can be expensive when the hobbyist is limited on their own skill and expertise.
1993 Shamrock "fat" 20. 2008 Nautique 196 5.0 |
||
Gary S
Grand Poobah Joined: November-30-2006 Location: Illinois Status: Offline Points: 14096 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
That is just the nature with things.This is happening with everything,Benz and Bmw had this problem too,now it's Toyota.The more systems you add, the more problems you will have.Same thing with a boat, it's all the add ons. Only time will tell how good the quality is now,the track record with hull blisters and stringers in my opinion is not good for a "high end" boat. |
||
TRBenj
Grand Poobah Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21104 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Ha, I know. Im just giving HW a hard time. I figured it was more of a rounding thing (next largest inch) prior to '07, as there were no hull changes that year to account for the difference. The brochures also list the early 2nd gen (1970-1972) Ski Nautique as being the same size as the 1st gen (17'6", 6'4" beam) vs. 17'9" for the 73-81 boats. I suspect this probably a mistake in the brochure, but I could be wrong. While the Ski Nautique may have never shrunk, the Mustang did. It went from the 16'1" hull (1966-1970) to the 16'5" hull (1971-1975) to the 17' hull (1974-1979) and then back to the 16'5" hull (1982-1984). Thats neither here nor there, but interesting nonetheless. Jody, what do you think of there being a market for a boat in CC's lineup below the SN200? Not a pricepoint boat per se, just something smaller in size. |
||
Fl Inboards
Grand Poobah Joined: January-20-2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2061 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I always liked the 176 but it did not warrant continued build as it could not carry its own weight in the market. In Today's world I would think that a smaller ski boat would fall into the same slot as the 176 it just could not hold its own and the cost to develop it and get it thru the line and to market could not be re-cooped. Alway's remember Nautiques is consistantly working and developing new invovative products and they stay abreast to current trends so who knows!!
|
||
Hobby Boats can be expensive when the hobbyist is limited on their own skill and expertise.
1993 Shamrock "fat" 20. 2008 Nautique 196 5.0 |
||
JoeinNY
Grand Poobah Joined: October-19-2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 5693 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I actually thought the interview was reasonably straight forward for a promotional piece.. which of course it was as any CEO who gives an interview without turning it into a promotional piece is either completely self absorbed or incompetent. I don't know about the market for some of these proposed boats.. is there one yeah maybe but again it overlaps the used boat market pretty close. Even the smaller ski boat Tim proposes.. .is there a market perhaps but it is a small subset of the market for the 200. I feel most of the people buying a 200 are probably replacing a 196, or older SN (although with the 200 some will downsize from a 216 or 210). Those people need a reason to upgrade (unless you are part of the promo/got to have the latest and greatest crowd) size, better storage, fuel injection, speed control, what have you are all the reasons to upgrade to a new boat. A smaller more basic boat doesnt usually meet the criteria. So basically a SN 176 is a boat that will be bought mostly by new boat buyers on a budget or looking for a smaller boat, or camps that run serious hours. A market sure, but one big enough to split your product offering over.. probably not. There are real costs involved in carrying multiple models, my guess is a good market analysis wouldnt support it.
|
||
TRBenj
Grand Poobah Joined: June-29-2005 Location: NWCT Status: Offline Points: 21104 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I like the 176 now too- but at the time it was offered it never really did much for me. Im not sure if it was the cartoonish looks or the fact that it was marketed as a "lesser" Ski Nautique... but those 2 things probably didnt help its cause. Maybe if it were a bit sleeker or chiseled or had been marketed as a powerboat, barefoot boat, etc, it would have faired a little better in the marketplace. I think the people who were shopping on price (176 buyers) would still have been drawn to it if it had slalomed the same but was styled and marketed differently... and maybe a whole different group of buyers would have been attracted to it as well. Then again, maybe Im out in left field.
|
||
eric lavine
Grand Poobah Joined: August-13-2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 13413 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
if you look at the big picture you surely are not going to finance 80k on a 4 or 5 year deal, your gonna go for a 10 year deal...and we know what happens with interest over a time period. but again if your a hardcore up at 6 in the morning skier....what would thy purchase? BTW, you cant blast a stereo at 7 in the morning lol
|
||
"the things you own will start to own you"
|
||
Post Reply | Page <12 |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |