Ludwig's parent company sold

How about a Ludwig USA made kit for under $1,000? I know it can be done... Come on!
Not so sure. Just about everything that can be outsourced to Asia on a "made in the USA" kit already is. Remember, a $1,000 retail kit costs no more than $250 to make in material & production costs. Is that what you really want?

Ludwig seem to be finally making progress. I hope that's allowed to continue. Even better, I hope they're allowed to invest more along those lines in the future.
 
The separation of Steinway and Conn-Selmer has been in the works for a little while, although I'm not certain it happened in the way originally intended. Ludwig was pretty optimistic about the split, and they are doing well financially and the brand retains plenty of value. I doubt that Conn-Selmer would let them go, unless offered a ton of money.

As for Steinway as the parent being restrictive, public companies have to really watch expenditures, because they are obligated to their shareholders to spend money prudently and at the same time, grow their business. It's a fine line. But with less stringent cost justification procedures, Ludwig hs more wiggle room to try some things, spend more to make more, etc.

Bermuda
 
Let's pray that Ludwig doesn't succumb to the same fate Slingerland did under Gibson.
 
A person starts a company. He works hard to build it from the ground up. The company becomes successful. The company gets large and hard to manage. The founder of the company looks to larger companies to buy them and help them to grow. They wind up on the open sea with waves all around and sharks circling.
The Great American Dream.
 
Last edited:
I read a great quote the other day, can't remember who it was attributed to. I went something like "Growth for the sake of growth is the mentality of a Cancer cell"

Bobm what's with the ducky? I googled what the green ribbon was and it can stand for a number of things. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you're supporing people with a stutter. Good for you Bob.
 
I read a great quote the other day, can't remember who it was attributed to. I went something like "Growth for the sake of growth is the mentality of a Cancer cell"

Semi-clever rhetoric, perhaps. But it's everyone's mission to grow in whatever ways they can. Nobody should (deliberately) do anything in order to stay at the bottom of the ladder or not improve themselves.

In the case of corporations who are responsible to shareholders and their financial investment in the company, growth is mandatory. Would you invest in a company with the knowledge that they have no intention of moving forward, and that your money wouldn't grow?

Growth, learning, getting better... all good. Not like cancer at all.

Bermuda
 
Perhaps a touch of equivocation there John.

I was refering to the the growth of a comany in size and in assets simply for the sake of growth. A person is not a company and the aquisition of knowledge is a completly different thing than a company growing. Semi-clever argument though.
 
Perhaps a touch of equivocation there John.

I was refering to the the growth of a comany in size and in assets simply for the sake of growth. A person is not a company and the aquisition of knowledge is a completly different thing than a company growing. Semi-clever argument though.

Just wanted to add a human reference.

Corporations grow not just for their own amusement or as a challenge or for the sake of it, it is their mission to grow. If they attempt to fight that because it somehow looks bad, they will stop growing. That means they are shrinking as everyone else grows around them.

Ludwig is not a company that is standing still, and therefore they possess value to Conn-Selmer. If somebody wants to take Ludwig private with a large cash offer, I'll bet they'd consider it. But even as a privately held company, the owner/s would still want to keep them growing.

Bermuda
 
Perhaps a touch of equivocation there John.

I was refering to the the growth of a comany in size and in assets simply for the sake of growth. A person is not a company and the aquisition of knowledge is a completly different thing than a company growing. Semi-clever argument though.

I'm not understanding where you're coming from. Companies are made up of people, and companies in business are supposed to be growing, or else no one would invest in them because those people's objective is to make more money, right? So the growth in physical size and assets is a given. Why is a company getting bigger a bad thing? Or am I reading you wrong?
 
I'm not understanding where you're coming from. Companies are made up of people, and companies in business are supposed to be growing, or else no one would invest in them because those people's objective is to make more money, right? So the growth in physical size and assets is a given. Why is a company getting bigger a bad thing? Or am I reading you wrong?

Perhaps he is referring to overgrowth, when a company becomes so big it starts to influence not just itself and its investors, but life in general. Look at Walmart. They are everywhere, biggest company in the world. In achieving this status, they have successfully run mom and pop shops out of business, and even put a major dent in other big box stores as well as grocery stores. In doing this, they have successfully limited our choices to what they have, not what we want. You want a certain brand of spaghetti sauce and Walmart doesn't carry it, you can drive out of your way to a store that does carry it and pay more for it, or you can compromise and buy what they want us to. Ever see a city try to keep a Walmart out? Walmart buys some land just outside city limits, builds their store, has roads built to access their store, and suddenly homes start to spring up around the store. What happens next? The city rezones and suddenly Walmart is part of that city, just like they wanted. They may say "pay less, live better", but is limiting our choices as consumers really better? It's borderline monopoly, and that kind of growth is bad. It becomes self serving, just for its own survival, not caring what or whom it steps on. Corporate mergers and takeovers can be a good thing if it is in the best interest of the consumer, but if it is in the interest of just making money, that is a whole different story. Just like cancer, it only grows to feed itself at the cost of everything and anything else.

For what it's worth, the Walmart home office is less than 10 miles from my home, and there are 4 Walmarts within that same radial distance. Is that really necessary?
 
Why is a company getting bigger a bad thing? Or am I reading you wrong?
A company getting bigger can have negative implications for both product quality & customers, but can also offer benefits in both areas too. It largely depends on management focus & how disconnected the holding company is from the "division". In larger corporations, decisions that may be beneficial to the corporation may not necessarily be good for individual businesses.
 
Bobm what's with the ducky? I googled what the green ribbon was and it can stand for a number of things. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say you're supporing people with a stutter. Good for you Bob.
That is a Sandy Hook Duck. Note the green color. I work in Newtown near the school.
 
Perhaps he is referring to overgrowth, when a company becomes so big it starts to influence not just itself and its investors, but life in general. Look at Walmart. They are everywhere, biggest company in the world. In achieving this status, they have successfully run mom and pop shops out of business, and even put a major dent in other big box stores as well as grocery stores. In doing this, they have successfully limited our choices to what they have, not what we want. You want a certain brand of spaghetti sauce and Walmart doesn't carry it, you can drive out of your way to a store that does carry it and pay more for it, or you can compromise and buy what they want us to. Ever see a city try to keep a Walmart out? Walmart buys some land just outside city limits, builds their store, has roads built to access their store, and suddenly homes start to spring up around the store. What happens next? The city rezones and suddenly Walmart is part of that city, just like they wanted. They may say "pay less, live better", but is limiting our choices as consumers really better? It's borderline monopoly, and that kind of growth is bad. It becomes self serving, just for its own survival, not caring what or whom it steps on. Corporate mergers and takeovers can be a good thing if it is in the best interest of the consumer, but if it is in the interest of just making money, that is a whole different story. Just like cancer, it only grows to feed itself at the cost of everything and anything else.

For what it's worth, the Walmart home office is less than 10 miles from my home, and there are 4 Walmarts within that same radial distance. Is that really necessary?

Yeah I suppose that sounds like a bit of overkill. But we do t seem to have walmarts concentrated like that in California. Starbucks does that out here. Same thing with McDonalds.

Does anybody really think Ludwig would ever be that big? Come on now.
 
Perhaps he is referring to overgrowth, when a company becomes so big it starts to influence not just itself and its investors, but life in general. Look at Walmart. They are everywhere, biggest company in the world. In achieving this status, they have successfully run mom and pop shops out of business, and even put a major dent in other big box stores as well as grocery stores. In doing this, they have successfully limited our choices to what they have, not what we want.

True, but the customers keep coming. The demand is obviously there.
The only way to stop this is using your own pocket book, to change where you buy your cookies, coffee...etc. Ultimately personal choice.

Now, back to the OP, will Walmart start to sell Ludwigs....or drums and musical instruments even?
 
True, but the customers keep coming. The demand is obviously there.
The only way to stop this is using your own pocket book, to change where you buy your cookies, coffee...etc. Ultimately personal choice.

Now, back to the OP, will Walmart start to sell Ludwigs....or drums and musical instruments even?

They do, if you consider First Act musical instruments! Ludwig, probably not....
 
Let's pray that Ludwig doesn't succumb to the same fate Slingerland did under Gibson.

Apples and Oranges.

When Gibson bought Slingerland, they were buying a defunct company. And it was also muddied by Gibsons failed partnership with Mapex.

Ludwig is on an on going viable company.


Its a shame that family started companies do this,reality I suppose.

Ludwig hasn't been family owned in over 30 years.

Steinway hasn't been family owned for almost 40 years.

Overall:

This sale could mean something. It could mean nothing.

Latin Percussion was sold to Kaman, and then all of Kaman Music was sold to Fender, and yet the same people work at LP, with no difference to the end consumer.

Gretsch distribution agreement with Kaman, and sale of certain assets to Kaman (now Fender), only made the Gretsch brand stronger.
 
Back
Top