BlueBazooka.com - anyone tried them?

[PCAUST]

There has been some interesting debate on this issue, I guess the point is that if we can buy it cheaper OS than we will. Personally I find the actions of the two companies mentioned deplorable, given that we all have the right(?) but definate ability to purchase OS.

I personally believe that supply of shooting accesories and firearms in Australia has become very expensive and limiting - limiting in the fact that I can not always get what I need for handloading. As a result I tend to shop from good old Sinclairs. They are also cheaper and easy to deal with - especially when they have made a mistake on an order.

We need more competition in Aust, and I agree with some in this topic that the companies involved do not warrant my business, but that is personal choice. I understand that Nioa have grown their business by offering greater sales (doubling) to a distributer; that is they research what the annual sales are and double it to stich up a deal and then order the stock and keep it. That is not a cheap business practice. This is hearsay, but from a pretty reliable source.

I would also ask that you cast your minds back to the First Gun Buy Back post Hoddle Street. I understand that an Adelaide based importer (firearms) sold his stock back the Govt at an inflated price. I then understand that that the said people moved interstate and set up another importers business - based on the financing of our taxes used to buy guns at an inflated price. If you think that I am on drugs, think about some of the policy issues surrounding the second national gun buy back and limits on businesses. Think about it!

I guess my final point is this - I don't mind paying a bit more when the delear/shop/gunsmith is doing the right thing and providing a good service. I absolutely beleive in supporting Australians in Australian business adventures. I don't support people who lack integrity and take us for mugs.

I am sure that this will spark some debate. Bring it on I say, especially when an outcome of price fixing might be the longevity of our shooting sport(s). We must do everything to ensure that we encourage people to partcipate in safe shooting sport and more importantly making sure that it is an affortable sport for the average Australian. ENJOY YOUR AUSTRALIAN DAY LONG WEEKEND!!

[zzsstt]

I would also ask that you cast your minds back to the First Gun Buy Back post Hoddle Street. I understand that an Adelaide based importer (firearms) sold his stock back the Govt at an inflated price. I then understand that that the said people moved interstate and set up another importers business - based on the financing of our taxes used to buy guns at an inflated price. If you think that I am on drugs, think about some of the policy issues surrounding the second national gun buy back and limits on businesses. Think about it!

[sarcasm]That's outrageous behaviour. I am certain that you, and everyone else on this forum would not have behaved that way. I know that if the government decided that they wanted to include my farm (the business that generates my income and in which I have invested large amounts of money, far more than would be indicated simply by the value of the land) in a national park that I, like every other farmer in Australia, would simply hand it over without asking for anything in return. After all, whilst I have worked hard to build my business to where it is today, and whilst it is no fault of mine that I will be losing my business, my income and my retirement fund in one go, I know it's for the general good and that's all the compensation I need. The thought that I, or anyone else, might in such circumstances take money from the government and use it to set up a new farm somewhere else is simply abhorrent. It is almost as reprehensible, and equally unlikely, as an employee expecting compensation when he is retrenched.[/sarcasm]

Now, out of interest, we have already shown that the actual markup over US retail prices is (from memory) about 19%, which does not include GST as that goes to the government. Some of this will go to the retailer, and some will cover import costs (duties?), warehousing, employing staff, advertising etc. So out of interest, what do people consider a "fair" markup should be? Please specify whether your figure includes the GST component, because that last 10% on the final price makes a big difference.

[alpal]

zzsstt,
In your post you mention the aus markup @ 19% above us RETAIL, I would imagine Aussie importers/agents (noia) would be paying wholesale us prices, plus import duties & taxes etc. so we would need to know the % above wholesale prices to compare on an equal basis.
Big ticket items such as scopes, rifles etc. would have a lesser GP% than everyday items like mounts, cleaning rods etc to stay competitive as per the hardware and electrical industries etc. (a lawn mower from bunnings might have 10-15% gp, and nuts and bolts and screws can have as much as 300%+).
Surely every business is entitled to make a reasonable profit and I for one think 20%gp is more than fair. If that was all Bunnings made on average they would be broke tomorrow.
Just my 2 bobs worth.
Regards Alpal

[500Nitro]

zzsstt,
In your post you mention the aus markup @ 19% above us RETAIL, I would imagine Aussie importers/agents (noia) would be paying wholesale us prices, plus import duties & taxes etc. so we would need to know the % above wholesale prices to compare on an equal basis.
Big ticket items such as scopes, rifles etc. would have a lesser GP% than everyday items like mounts, cleaning rods etc to stay competitive as per the hardware and electrical industries etc. (a lawn mower from bunnings might have 10-15% gp, and nuts and bolts and screws can have as much as 300%+).
Surely every business is entitled to make a reasonable profit and I for one think 20%gp is more than fair. If that was all Bunnings made on average they would be broke tomorrow.
Just my 2 bobs worth.
Regards Alpal

alpal

20%GP, less the cost of running a Retail Shopfront (17%)
means a Nett Profit of 3%.

Why the Fuck would you bother.

BTW, Bunnings makes a shitload more than 15% on a lawn mover,
just like Rays Outdoors et al make a minimum 100 - 400% on everything.

[zzsstt]

zzsstt,
In your post you mention the aus markup @ 19% above us RETAIL, I would imagine Aussie importers/agents (noia) would be paying wholesale us prices, plus import duties & taxes etc. so we would need to know the % above wholesale prices to compare on an equal basis.
Big ticket items such as scopes, rifles etc. would have a lesser GP% than everyday items like mounts, cleaning rods etc to stay competitive as per the hardware and electrical industries etc. (a lawn mower from bunnings might have 10-15% gp, and nuts and bolts and screws can have as much as 300%+).
Surely every business is entitled to make a reasonable profit and I for one think 20%gp is more than fair. If that was all Bunnings made on average they would be broke tomorrow.
Just my 2 bobs worth.
Regards Alpal

Not really. We are simply comparing retail price here to retail price in the US, and assuming the difference goes to the importer. It's a simplification, but it's the best we can do.

We don't know the wholesale price, either here or in the US, all we know is that there is an extra mouth to feed (the importer). He buys wholsesale in the US (like the US retailer) and sells at his new "Aussie" wholesale price to the retailer.The retailer then puts their markup on top of this, and in any case everyone pays/claims GST. Therefore, if the retail price is 19% more over here (disregarding GST), then that is the maximum the importer can be taking, in fact slightly less if the % profit for the retailer is the same as for a US retailer. I don't think that 19% (GP, not Net) is excessive given his investment in stock and infrastructure and the risk he's taking. I appreciate that his markup may be higher on low priced goods, though my experience is that low turnover, expensive "luxury" goods - and a AU$1000 scope must surely be a luxury - often have markups of 30% or more. Higher priced articles at Bunnings are still relatively high turnover "everyday" items - most families have a lawnmower, far fewer have a $1000+ Leupold!

My question was, in reality, how much more expensive can the scope be in Australia without it being a "rip-off"?

[daisy]

zzsstt,
In your post you mention the aus markup @ 19% above us RETAIL, I would imagine Aussie importers/agents (noia) would be paying wholesale us prices, plus import duties & taxes etc. so we would need to know the % above wholesale prices to compare on an equal basis.
Big ticket items such as scopes, rifles etc. would have a lesser GP% than everyday items like mounts, cleaning rods etc to stay competitive as per the hardware and electrical industries etc. (a lawn mower from bunnings might have 10-15% gp, and nuts and bolts and screws can have as much as 300%+).
Surely every business is entitled to make a reasonable profit and I for one think 20%gp is more than fair. If that was all Bunnings made on average they would be broke tomorrow.
Just my 2 bobs worth.
Regards Alpal

Not really. We are simply comparing retail price here to retail price in the US, and assuming the difference goes to the importer. It's a simplification, but it's the best we can do.

We don't know the wholesale price, either here or in the US, all we know is that there is an extra mouth to feed (the importer). He buys wholsesale in the US (like the US retailer) and sells at his new "Aussie" wholesale price to the retailer.The retailer then puts their markup on top of this, and in any case everyone pays/claims GST. Therefore, if the retail price is 19% more over here (disregarding GST), then that is the maximum the importer can be taking, in fact slightly less if the % profit for the retailer is the same as for a US retailer. I don't think that 19% (GP, not Net) is excessive given his investment in stock and infrastructure and the risk he's taking. I appreciate that his markup may be higher on low priced goods, though my experience is that low turnover, expensive "luxury" goods - and a AU$1000 scope must surely be a luxury - often have markups of 30% or more. Higher priced articles at Bunnings are still relatively high turnover "everyday" items - most families have a lawnmower, far fewer have a $1000+ Leupold!

My question was, in reality, how much more expensive can the scope be in Australia without it being a "rip-off"?

When you can't be brothered to buy from overseas then the price is right.

Daisy

[zzsstt]

When you can't be brothered to buy from overseas then the price is right.

Daisy

Yes, and therein lies the problem. When we are talking about items that cost a few dollars, the importer can make 200% and we still won't think it's worth buying from overseas, as the 200% is "only a few dollars" and the shipping charges will kill any savings. But when we are talking of a $1000 scope, then +20% +GST is $320 which will buy us a second scope, or a truck load of ammunition. So we buy the scope overseas. But the risk and expense on the part of the importer means that he has to charge that markup.

End results? Maybe the importers will only bring in the low cost items that we will buy, and the choice of locally available products will shrink so that if we want a choice we will HAVE to buy from overseas, with the associated risks of lack of backup and legislative road blocks. Or perhaps the current pressure on the manufacturer to prevent unauthorised imports will be extended to include the rejection of warranty claims from outside the country of purchase, as was done by many computer companies when "grey import" computers from the US hit the European market in the 90's.

And before anyone mentions that other scope manufacturer currently popular on this forum, it has already been suggested by one of their devotees that he can see prices going much higher when they gain market acceptance.

By the way, I am still not against personal imports. I just think that we should all understand the possible outcomes of the decisions we make. I have seen many nasty situations resulting from "short term gain" actions. It seems to be a very human trait, in all aspects of life, to grab with both hands with no regard to the future, often even when we know without doubt that it presents an alarming risk.

[500Nitro]

Well put.

Knowing full well the cost of AirFreight and Seafreight
into Australia, my guess is that Vortex would have to
be selling at a low margin to keep the prices here the
same as the US.

There are alot of products in the US that would be really
useful here that a lot of people can't be bothered bringing
in for the reasons you have stated. It also applies to products
made overseas that never even see the shores of this country
because the way the industry / shooters are.

The loss is the shooting industry here in the long term.

[Rinso]

zzsstt,

You have raised many points some I believe are very valid some not so.
You cant in fact make a simple comparsion between retail prices here and in the USA.

We are simply comparing retail price here to retail price in the US, and assuming the difference goes to the importer. It's a simplification, but it's the best we can do.

This does not provide any degree of reasonable comparision as pricing is relevant to various issues including but not limited too, market size which as Alpal suggests allows you sell high volume at low profit or not. The basics of the economy in which you operate ie an AUD $32,000 Toyota Camry compared to a USD $20,000 Camry so the value of the market in a given country is relevant in a large degree to price.
Another issue in pricing is label mark up, that is you pay more for some brands simply because of the reputation that brand has developed or due to its acceptance in the market place or both. By which I mean if 2 identical scopes where marketed one with a Leupold brand and the other with say a Tasco which would be priced higher regardless of equivilance of quality ????

Either way and all other things aside your points about needing to support the local market to ensure that local importers/retailers etc remain is a particularly valid one. As is the suggestion that warranties may be void if items are sold out of contracted agreements (grey imports).

The issue here as I see it is that if you can obtain the same product at a much reduced price than a percentage of buyers will take that option especislly when that difference can mean a major improvement in optics when operating on a limited budget ... no amount of discussion or debate will ever change that.

As I said elsewhere I have no objection to Nioa or any other importer protecting there business and thats exactly what Nioa are doing, anyone that says that if in the same position they would act differently is a fool and would soon be out of business.

I do however believe that if buyers are not happy with the price of a product then they have the ability to communicate that either by registering there opinion with the importer/retailer or by taking there business elsewhere. This is something that all importers/retailer/manufacturers etc must deal with to stay in business and is not solely a firearms industry issue.

As far as your comments regards Vortex Optics and higher prices when they gain market share ..

And before anyone mentions that other scope manufacturer currently popular on this forum, it has already been suggested by one of their devotees that he can see prices going much higher when they gain market acceptance.

Isn't that normal practice in retail, as something becomes more popular and demand increases then market reactions tend to increase prices ???? or have I been living under a rock.

I would also suggest that Vortex will take years to develop a market share large enough for that to occur although if you look at the prices listed for binoculars which they have done for much longer they are still much cheaper than the high end competition they have. Its a concept called value for money and seems to have worked well for many manufacturers over the last 100 years. The popularity of these Vortex scopes has come from the many owners on this forum who are happy with the product they have received for the money they spent ... go figure hey.

Suffice to say that I would rather see unhappy buyers go to Vortex or Weaver or any other scope supplied locally, as this is in fact still aiding the industry in this country albeit via a different importer/retailer rather than they purchase from OS via places such as the Optic Zone.

I think what really has peoples attention is not the fact that importers/retailers have to make a living but rather that when the AUD falls prices go up overnite but when the AUD rises the prices don't seem to follow (or at least not as quickly) which puts people in mind of the price of petrol at the pump or the way banks adjust interest rates ie up overnite down 3 months after the event. This is again an issue for the importer/retailer to address its called marketing.


500Nitro,
Mate I think you would be very suprised at the prices Vortex use to arrive at a RRP as listed on the web site .. It is possible that the company is more sensitive to change and market forces and I know that the importer is looking for more retail outlets ... maybe you should get in touch and stock some of the gear yourself.

cheers
Rinso

[alpal]

500nitro,
I agree with you on the why would you bother but the assumption that bunnings make more than 15% on a lawn mower is not necessarily correct (although it was just used as an example). Quite often large companies use a big ticket item as a "loss leader" whereby they advertise something (like a lawn mower) that everyone knows the price of (people research expensive items) at a much lower price (sometimes a loss) which creates an impression that they are cheaper than anyone else in general, yet they pick up the shortfall overall with the "extras" people buy once they are in the store sold at the usual markup.
The idea being that you will always remember how cheap the lawnmower was but not the price of the other items you will hopefully buy from the store forever.
And it is cost effective as I cant remember too many people leaving a bunnings or big W store with only one item.
As I stated earlier, nobody can run a retail business on 20% gp, not even bunnings and the like with their huge turnover, let alone gun shops
and other small businesses.
Regards Alpal

[zzsstt]

Rinso,

Your points about prices being based on the economy of a country is perfectly correct, and I think I said the same thing earlier in the thread. Equally for market acceptance and product "status". In the thread you quoted, however, I was only trying to get a feel for what people felt was an acceptable price increase over the US, not trying to define what was a suitable price from any other viewpoint, as that would involve in depth analysis of average salaries, standard of living, size of market etc. etc. However, as you say, I suspect that no matter what that complex calculation suggested, the people who believe in their right to buy at the lowest global price would still buy from the US. Daisy's response was a case in point, the acceptable price difference is set in dollars ($50, $100 or whatever) not percent. An expensive item with the same percentage markup will inevitably have a high dollar value markup, so will encourage that personal import.

The variation in exchange rates is an interesting point. Should the importer be allowed to sell based on the rates when he bought? Or should he modifiy his pricing daily to follow the exchange rate? I would guess that an importer may only receive a few shipments a year, and some items may sit on shelves for a long time. Should he reduce those prices and sell at a loss because the rate has changed? Equally, if the rate goes the other way, should he be allowed (morally) to up his prices on the stock he bought at a lower price? Then, to add complexity, if he has a shelf of identical items, some bought at the lower price and some at the higher, what price should he sell at? And then to further muddy the waters, as you said a price is based at least partially on the standard of living in the country in question, so should the exchange rate even matter? If the item was priced "correctly" before the rate change, why should it change?

It's a large and complex issue. At the end of the day there will always be people who will try to save a few cents. As long as they understand the possible ramifications of what they are doing, I don't have a problem with it. I just get annoyed at the "this guy is a b*stard and is ripping off us" when/if he is simply trying to make a living.

[500Nitro]

zzsstt

Well put again.

What people seem to fail to realise is we are talking Millions of $$$$,
not Thousands of $$$$ worth of stock - and if you have dealers who
stock product, you can't just change pricing every week or devaue the
stock they have.

[Knackers]

We all have to look after our own hip pocket. I'm on stockmans wages, I admit that they are pretty good but.

At the end of the day there will always be people who will try to save a few cents.

I couldnot afford a quality scope at Australian prices. So do I just use inferior products or do I source from the cheapest seller.
I didn't save a few cents Zzsstt, I could have brought two of these scopes and still had change to buy ammo, like I said $467 delivered and $950 quoted in Aus.
OTOH I buy every other thing from here in Aus, you know, the stuff you use everyday, brushes, powder, primers, etc, etc.

[HiWall]

This is why people buy from overseas...

Burris Black Diamond 8-32x50 fine plex
N.V.T. - AU$1415.00 + $18 postage
Q.G.E. - AU$1330.00 (pick up).
T.O.Z. - US$729.00 + post & charges.

And THIS explains why not many people buy the Burris scope in Australia.

Nightforce 12-42x56 BR NP-R2
Q.S.S. - AU$1381.82 after 10% SSAA member discount. Pick up.

(Queensland Shooters Supplies is the SSAA owned shop in Ipswich - my LGS and had the scope on the shelf).

Seems to me the Burris is outclassed by a big margin, both in quality and Australian retail price. Maybe a bit less margin would provide the Importer with some income, rather than seeing the sale go to someone else altogether - either to an O/S retailer or another manufacturer.

[zzsstt]

OK, so what margin would be acceptable?



Lets say I'm considering starting importing scopes to sell, and take an example. Assume we're talking about a (US price) AU$1000 scope. What price do you feel would make you buy from the local importer?

Keep in mind that GST adds the first 10% (AU$100), so if I pay for all the transport, storage and whatever duties are applicable out of my own pocket, making a loss on the deal, the scope would still be $1100 locally. Lets say the import process costs 5% to cover all charges, at a guess.

I can invest money at the ING and make in excess of 7% at the moment, so to make it worthwhile if I had money in the bank I'd have to make more than that. If I borrowed money I be paying about 9.5% on it, so I'd have to make more than that to be viable.

So, assuming that the retailer in the US has made 25% (just a guess), I'd be buying that scope wholesale in the US for AU$800. Shipping it to Australia, storing it etc. costs 5%, so now we have $840. We add GST, to bring the total buy price (for me, the importer) to $924. Assume it takes me a year to sell (for ease of math), and that I borrowed the money at 9.5%, so the total cost to me is now AU$1012.

Already it has cost me more to import than you are paying the US retailer for your personal import, and neither I nor a retailer have made any money.

So lets say I (on HiWalls advice) decide to make just a bit of profit, on the basis that it's better than nothing. So add 5% for me, bringing the Australian WHOLESALE price to AU$1060. Lets say the retailer decides to cut his margins as well, and mark it up by 15% (from alpals comparison with a lawnmower). So now the bargain basement Australian retail price is AU$1220.

With neither me (the importer) nor the retailer actually making anough money to make it worthwhile, or even stay in business, the scope is already costing $220 more over here.

Lets say I decided that I need to make 15%, because I felt that otherwise I'd be far better off trading shares, or cattle, or real estate, and in any case the retailer is making 15% GP so why shouldn't I? Now my sell price (Australian wholesale price) becomes $1165. The retailer markup of 15% (still probably less than he needs to stay in business) makes that up to $1340.

So with both importer and retailer making a mere 15% each, barely enough to stay in business let to live on, we have a scope which costs AU$1000 to the personal importer now costing $1340 retail here in Australia. If the retailer ups his GP to 25% (probably much more realistic), matching the margin we have assumed the US retailer is making, the retail price becomes $1456. Remember that whilst we are talking about the importer PROFIT (after at least some of his costs) being 15%, the retailers 25% is before any costs are deducted.

From HiWalls example, the Burris scope is AU$830 in the US at current exchange rates. If that scope has been on the shelf for a year, it's equivalent price based on the rate at that time was AU$944. On our calculated 34% increase over US retail (and barely in business) markup, that scope if imported today should retail here for $1110. If the retailer wants 25%, the price becomes $1210.

If, however, it was imported a year ago, the same 34% overall increase would make it retail at $1264. Taking the retailer markup to 25% makes retail price $1374

Overall? If the Burris scope was imported today and QGE sold it for $1330 as Hiwall suggested, both they and the importer would be making a profit sufficient to live on. Possibly even doing a little better than that. If, however, that scope was imported January 2007 and has been sitting on shelves ever since, then the 15% profit calulation above are not far from the mark, and neither the importer nor QGE are making much on it.....

Yet it's still too expensive for us to buy it.