Music Trade Review

Issue: 1951 Vol. 110 N. 4

Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org, arcade-museum.com -- digitized with support from namm.org
The Jfusic jf/iade
REVIEW
Established 1879
CARLETON CHACE, Editor
Alex H. Kolbe, Publisher
MCMMI Of
V. T. Costello
Associate Editor
NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION
OF MUSIC
MERCHANTS
Alexander Hart
Technical Editor
THE POOieST
CHIID IS RICH
Mary Louise Kauffman
Circulation Manager
Published monthly at 510 RKO Building, Radio
City, 1270 Sixth Avenue, New York 20, N. Y.
Telephones: Circle 7-5842-5843-5844
Vol. 110
APRIL, 1951
Business—As We See
a
No. 4
It
N a recent survey made by Good Housekeeping's
Consumer Panel, some interesting figures are re-
vealed regarding the intentions of people to buy
pianos. Of people who answered the questionnaire, and
specifically the question—"Do you think you'll buy a
piano?" — 1 4 8 out of 1150 who
do not have pianos stated that they
planned to buy one within the next
year or so. In this case, it is inter-
esting to note that this is just about
the same ratio as pianos have been
sold during the last few years in
respect to the population of the
country, which totals a little more
than one tenth of one percent of the
total population of a little more than
150,000,000 people. Of the 1150,
CARLETON CHACE
those who expect to buy within 3
months were 1.3%. Those who were going to wait a
little longer totaled 17.5% and those who stated that
they didn't think they would get one at all totaled 54.9%.
The latter includes those people who have to be con-
10
vinced that a piano would be a good thing for them to
buy. To the question—"If you do not plan to buy a
piano, why not?"—833 of the 1150 responded, and said
that they would either wait longer than a year or two
to buy one, or that they did not think that they would buy
one. The reasons given for the latter were 31.8% be-
cause no one in the family can play the piano; 18.7%
because there was no room, and lack of space; 7.6% too
expensive, can't afford it; 5.9% already sold theirs,
disposed of it; and 3.6% were not interested at all;
2.2% had no use or need for it; 1.9% was going to buy
one when the children are older; 1.6% had no children,
and 1.6% have other instruments instead. In this
category, it is interesting to note that the greatest num-
ber who did not plan to buy a piano were not doing
so because 'no one in the family can play.' Therefore,
with the efforts which are now being promoted, to see
that children are taught lessons in the schools, and the
other means that are being used to interest them in piano
music, perhaps in future years there will be fewer who
will say they are not going to buy a piano because no-
body in the family can play. The results of this survey
remind us of a remark which was made to us recently
by the sales manager of a very well-known piano house,
to the effect that it seems so futile for trick sales of
pianos to be promoted for the simple reason that sales
of pianos year in and year out seem to total approxim-
ately the same in proportion to the population of the
country, and with the few manufacturers now operating,
each one of them should get their share of the business
and on an equitable, profitable basis. He, therefore,
cannot see why it should be necessary to entice the pub-
lic to buy through trick advertising. His thought was
that everyone can do business on a genteel quality and
institutional basis and still get his share.
In the income groups of 1882 respondents, 1862 own
one or more radios, 1182 own one or more phonographs,
363 own one or more television sets and 732 own one
or more pianos.
Amendment 2 Price Regulation 7
\M~W^ HE government has finally found the music in-
J I dustry in respect to price control and has put
pianos and musical instruments under Amend-
ment 2 of the Ceiling Price Regulation 7, a digest of
which appears in this issue on Page 4. On April 6th,
immediately after the Amendment 2 was released, the
National Association of Music Merchants filed a pro-
test with Michael V. DiSalle, Director of Price Stabiliza-
tion, regarding the unreasonableness of the early filing
date for pricing charts, which is presently April 30th.
An extension of 30 days for filing of the price charts
THE MUSIC TRADE REVIEW, APRIL, 1951
Music Trade Review -- © mbsi.org, arcade-museum.com -- digitized with support from namm.org
was requested. The clarification of Amendment 2, re-
garding whether or not musical instrument accessories
(mouthpieces, strings, bridges, cases, etc.) were affected
by the regulation was also requested. It is known that
the original intent of O.P.S. was that such accessories
were to be included, but were not listed under Category
861 "Other Musical Instruments." Incidentally, the New
York office of O.P.S., when asked, classified piano
benches as 'furniture.' The Chicago office when asked,
classified them as an 'accessory to musical instruments.'
This is just one point that is yet to be cleared up. The
National Association of Music Merchants has also pro-
tested Section 30-a of Amendment 2, which sets forth
the procedure which would allow manufacturers 'per-
mitted increase' in prices, which if and when granted
retailers would be allowed to pass along to consumers,
but without any mark-up on the increase. N.A.M.M.
contends that this section will act as an unfortunate
'squeeze' on retail margins, since it does not take into
effect possible increases in retailers' whole cost of doing
business, salesmen's commission on the increased price,
etc. This particular section has provoked heavy opposi-
tion from all retailing trade associations. N.A.M.M. has
also released to all its members a special bulletin en-
titled "Price Control No. 5" which serves as a guide to
music retailers on how to prepare pricing charts and
how to prepare gross margin reports. It has been pre-
pared from an O.P.S. publication which is entitled
"O.P.S. Guide to Ceiling Price Regulation 7." This guide
is available at districts and regional offices of the O.P.S.
The N.A.M.M.'s price control Bulletin No. 5 sets forth
a step-by-step procedure to prepare pricing lists using
samples from the categories which cover musical instru-
ments. The bulletin also gives N.A.M.M. members a
sample pricing chart sheet. Supplementary Regulation
No. 2 of C.P.R.7 sets forth an alternate method for pric-
ing merchandise where freight is a factor. N.A.M.M. has
requested O.P.S. to advise whether or not S.R.2 is
applicable to certain items in the musical industry where
freight is a factor. Pending such clarification, N.A.M.M.
has advised its members to proceed to set up their
pricing charts without consideration of S.R.2.
Brand Name
awards were presented before some 1500 people who
attended the luncheon at the Commodore Hotel in New
York, this being the third time such awards have been
presented, and the largest gathering as yet since the
founding of this organization some 7 years ago. Fur-
thermore, it was the first time that the music merchants
have taken a vital interest in this competition and it is
gratifying to note that at least 9 music merchants par-
ticipated. The winner in the music merchants category
was the Morgan Piano Co. of Miami, Florida whose
presentation featured to a considerable extent the name
of 'Steinway' and the runner-up was the San Antonio
Music Co. of San Antonio, Tex. Charles Morgan of
the Morgan Piano Co. accepted the plaque for his com-
pany and a certificate of merit was awarded to the San
Antonio Music Co., of which Ray S. Erlandson is presi-
dent. Our impression is that this effort is very much
worthwhile and we believe that many other music mer-
chants throughout the country should find it quite profit-
able to enter into this competition each year. Many will
remember that before the war the National Association
of Music Merchants used to promote a competitive dis-
play of advertising in various classifications and lov-
ing cups were presented to those whose promotion efforts
had the approval of judges who were appointed from
without the industry. This competition used to bring
out some very interesting and very effective institutional
and quality advertising material as well as window dis-
plays, etc. It is of similar character that the Brand
Names Foundation conducts its campaign, and to enter
such a competition music merchants must naturally put
forth their best efforts along institutional and educational
lines and exploit their business through the highest type
of promotion. At the same time, they would have an
opportunity to see how many of the larger business insti-
tutions in the country devote their energies toward the
promotion of brand names.
Editor
Awards
lE had the privilege of attending a very im-
pressive luncheon on April 11th at which
awards were presented to various groups of
dealers in various industries for their efforts in promot-
ing brand name commodities. This effort is sponsored
by the Brand Names Foundation, which is supported by
various manufacturers of brand name commodities as
well as advertising agencies mediums, etc. The 1951
THE MUSIC TRADE REVIEW, APRIL, 1951
11

Download Page 10: PDF File | Image

Download Page 11 PDF File | Image

Future scanning projects are planned by the International Arcade Museum Library (IAML).

Pro Tip: You can flip pages on the issue easily by using the left and right arrow keys on your keyboard.