Comments on: Sad news: Consumers don't pay up for quality

Pioneer's decision to get out of the TV business is further evidence that the race to the bottom is taking a toll on the quality of available consumer electronics. Do you care?

[Josh BSN]

BOSE FTL. You spend several thousand for a system that can even reproduce 30 or so hertz in the middle-lower bass. Call it a "Bass module" because it doesn't meet the definition of a subwoofer...

[tvviewer46]

Look at who is the majority in this country today and how the economy is unraveling. The dominant consumers buy at the lower end, look at the success of Vizio. They don't possess the resources with other priorities demanding large portions of their income to buy high end technology. As more citizens find themselves unemployed, they'll look at price first and dismiss quality. There are we few who are willing to afford high end technology because we don't have the responsibilities the aforementioned possess and do have the resources to entertain the products we desire. I just afforded high end speakers and enjoy the audio nuances found in them. So, manufacturers, there are still we single few more than willing to afford the higher end of your product lines.

[Tim_Draper]

(Apologies for the Great Wall of Text)

Just as few people will spend thousands of dollars on a stereo system if a $500 boxed set is "good enough" for them, not many will spend the extra money to get a 'better' TV when they can get one (better than what they had before) for less. As the economy goes, so goes that sliding measurement of how much "more" you need to get when spending money on an item for it to be worth the money - to you.

Which people spend more money on more expensive beers and wines compared to the bargain brands? The market, be it for upscale cars, upscale TVs, or upscale beverages, is the people who meet all the following conditions: they (a) have extra disposable income, (b) can both discern and prefer the difference, and (c) are willing to spend for the difference. I can tell the difference between pure garbage and halfway decent audio gear (nowhere near audiophile quality), and I had _some_ spare cash, so I spent a bit more than I could have to get a decent 5.1 system. Had I won the lottery, I still wouldn't have spent $10k on an audio system; I frankly can't tell the difference between a $2k (more than I spent) system and a $10k system. I can tell the difference between what I bought and a $2k system, but I didn't consider it worth the difference for my particular needs. And had I been out of work or in other severe financial trouble, my taste in audio systems would have been irrelevant; I'd have the same 10 year old system I had before and been happy to have it.

It sounds like for Pioneer, the intersection of (a) (b) and (c) has been shrinking at the same time that the profit margins for TV manufacturers overall has been shrinking. They should probably have either gotten out of the game entirely or gone entirely "niche" or at least more upscale last year to where they could make a profit per unit at least.

[Tec Consumer]

This was as inevitable as the end of Circuit City. The Kuros are REALLY nice TV's for dark room theatres. But I think there's a bit more to the story. IMO, when you look at the plasma displays thinking I'm going to be watching this in a room with a bay window during the day time -- the Kuro screens are a bit too Kuro (black). I have two Panasonic plasmas and I think that all around they perform better. They're bright enough in the day and dark enough for home theatre at night, but not too dark for bright room viewing. Add the whopping price tag into the equation and most people will pass on them (or did pass on them accordi this article!). I also think most people are wowed by the bright vividness of the LCD's in the store -- particularly the better Samsungs.

[tech_junky48]

I have a mixed opinion on the question of paying more in quality.

If it's a difference of a few hundred dollars for significant improvement (to, say, a samsung ln52a650 from a vizio) it's worth it. However, it becomes not worth it when the item is 5x the price for a marginal improvement. The law of diminishing returns prevents this from being as big of a difference, and , frankly, it seems like a ripoff. Pioneer just priced themselves out of the market by marketing themselves to everyone and refusing to change their prices in the face of stiff competition like Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic.

[igarrison]

"The central axiom of Capitalism is that the best allocation of resources is achieved through consumers having free choice, and producers responding accordingly to meet collective consumer demand."

Thank you capitalism, you prevail once again. Too bad the USA has forsaken you.

[ztiger93]

Willing to pay higher prices for a better display? Yes. I'll pay the premium of a Panasonic or Toshiba over Vizio, and Vizio over everything else beneath it. But up to Pioneer prices? That's a leap that I can't afford to make (though if I was in a higher income bracket, I'd give it a thought then).

[make_or_break]

Bad business model. Premium priced Pioneer Elite was destined to fail. The 'videophile' as a consumer concept is too young a market segment. TV tech reinvents itself too often, making previous tech outmoded and outdated too quickly. Sounds like Pioneer wanted mass market sales popularity for their offerings when they clearly were pandering to at best a niche, boutique sort-of market segment.

I never thought the high-priced Pioneer Elite sets offered real value for the cash outlay they demanded. It's a bloody BOOBTUBE, for crissakes. I don't care how HD the stupid thing is...it's still television.

[friscoG]

Well, it is sad for Pioneer to be stepping out of the TV game, but I do think that their sets were great but too expensive. It is funny that this whole situation has came up. I have been watching the prices of the Kuro 5020, along with the Panny 800u, Sony XBR6, and the Samsung A650. At current prices, the Kuro is priced on point with the Samsung A650, but it irritates me that at $2000 for the 5020 Kuro, I still have no advanced picture controls without stepping up to the elite at $3500. I have looked at the Panny 800u in the store and the THX mode didn't do anything for me, but it was running on Best Buy's horrible demo reel. The Kuro did look great on Blue Ray, but so did the XBR6, and A650 which also had great black levels, and much more tweakability and control. I don't feel the Sony XBR6 though is worth the $500 more over the Samsung A650 which had the exact same picture quality if not better for less, with the same options and tweakability. I can't justify the extra $5-$600 for the same exact picture from the Sony to Samsung. Both have the same HDMI, component, etc features.

As far as the Kuro, it is very tempting to pull the trigger at the falling prices, but I am starting to wonder what kind of support it will have. On quality content like HD and Blue Ray, the picture is only a little better to my eyes, and no control over picture is not good, although the out the box picture is good. If the elite 50 inch comes down I may bite, but the choice is hard. I have pretty much eliminated the Sony due to price with no clear advantages, and the Panasonic for just not caring for the picture with the in store media, even in the magnolia room, the picture wasn't as good as the Pioneers in my opinion. So now the real question for me is the A650, or Kuro 5020 with less control and questionable future support.

[larryleobig]

$10,000 for a TV is going the way of wall street bonuses - that era has ended.

[geforcewong]

And which Kuro Elite is currently selling for $10,000? The Non-Elite Kuro 5020FD is priced at $2k, which is the same price the Panasonic TH50PZ800u is going for. Even the Elite line is selling in the $3-5k range. Expensive yes, but some of you people should get your facts straight before speculating about Pioneer. The top of the line Samsung 950 series and the Sony XBR8 series cost as much, if not more than the Pioneer Elite Kuro.

[kgross]

Have you ever been in a Best Buy and looked at the array of TVs and wondered why one set is twice the price of the other even though the picutre being displayed on the more expensive one was either no better (or more frequently, worse) than the cheap set? These stores do not take hardly any time or put in any effort to properly set up or mainain any of the display units to put out their best image qaulity. Their audio section is even worse, with most of the connections not even functional. Even if one brand's qaulity is truly better than another, it's ludicrous to expect any consumer to be able make that distinction from the in store displays. Even if these stores took the time to optimize settings and have good quality signals and connections, the environment of the store usually makes any evaluation of quality impossible.

I've also read many reviews of different brands of products on this site (and others) and it's not easy to compare differences in quality since the reviews often cite similar shortcomings for each. Few, if any, true side by side comparisons are really made by these web sites and other than Consumer Reports, none give reliability or longevity information. In my opinion, that is a much greater component to the definition of "quality" than strictly performance since so many of the technical aspects of A/V design are the same from one brand to another. Things like display resolution, viewing angle, frequency response, total harmonic distortion, etc don't differ much between cheap and expensive on the spec sheets. Other things like color accuracy and menu design can be too subjective to really care about.

And don't forget, even Pioneer makes junk.

[AppleSuxLeo]

That`s what you get now that this new generation takes pixelated YouTube videos as a video standard and compressed audio files played on a cheap iPod as their hifi standard.

[pentest]

So people have figured out that they don't need the best? Good for them!

No matter how good it looks, a bad movie is still bad; and a good movie is still good on a 10 year old TV.

[BRKistler]

Customers want value. Saying they don't want to pay for quality is misleading. Your Pioneer example proves that the market didn't think that the performance offered was worth the premium. The fact is that there were TV's availble with almost as good performance at half the price.

[Teknerd]

The other problem is the rate at which TV technology changes. I'm happy to pay up for quality when I know that it'll be "state of the art" or at least close to it for years. Why should I pay top dollar for a technology that will be surpassed in a few months (e.g. better blacks, faster refresh rates, etc.).

I agree that Pioneer's displays were among the best I ever saw at any given time...but the premium (at least twice as much) wasn't worth what I was getting. TVs are increasingly becoming more fungible.

[HRHalderman]

It's not that people won't pay a premium but they won't pay that much of a premium. Panny displays are almost equally as good at 1/2 the price. Some of those are premium priced yet still sell well. Pioneer is in no mans land. It's not that people won't pay; it's more of a question people who can afford these probably step up to an overhead projector with a 100" screen. Perhaps Pioneer could have lowered prices to that just over the best Panny displays. Go for volume at the expense of margins, not withstanding R&D, manufacturing costs, etc. The bigger question is does this signal the death of plasma. I hope not b/c it's a better technology than LCD.

[ospideyo]

Cost vs. benefit. Panasonic makes a terrific plasma for many thousands less. Personally i can not justify the quality vs. price gap.

[ospideyo]

I love plasma displays. I understand about black levels and instant response times but I bought an LCD. Sony KDL52XBR6. I love the look of the 120hz displays. I know videophiles will be upset with my choice but I just love the look. Some people love it some people hate it, I think it's incredible looking. I can't wait to see the 240hz and 480hz LCD. Yes I know about the 480hz sub field drive on Plasmas but they do not have the look of the LCD displays. As someone who used to sell TV's I can tell you more people gravitate to the LCD displays vs the plasma's. I think it just has to do with that unique picture the LCD's produce. Videophiles out there are going to beat me up on this statement but it's OK there are plenty of LCD owners out there who will agree with me.

[one_flat_monkey]

i'm not a videophile, but i like beating people up... especially people who used to sell TVs.

j/k

[Composer_1777]

I Buy quality and so does anyone who can afford it/knows better. Thats why people buy samsung and sony. Why would anyone need pioneer.

[c|net Reader]

There has always been a majority of people which wouldn't pay for the best quality. They couldn't afford it, they couldn't discern the difference, or just having something was good enough because they weren't terribly interested. Only a small minority ever bought audiophile quality audio equipment. The masses were satisfied with a record player or portable radio. Pioneer expected more people to pay top dollar for the best video performance than existed. They were wrong.

Having stated all of that, there are still a great number who care to get the very best their money can buy, but their money is limited. It is for them that competition and price pressure is a boon. At some point, such people must sink their money into a purchase, to avoid forever looking to the future for the next great advance, but waiting longer usually pays dividends. Such people research, read reviews, and compare.

There are also those waiting on the sidelines -- happily, given the current state of the economy -- biding their time until the technology matures a bit more. Such people are happy to get another few years of service out of their old equipment, while it lasts, and will sink money into new devices only when the "need" arises. (I quoted "need" because none needs a TV, much less a home theater.)