As a Retailer of Sport Optics and You Could Only Have One Brand ,What Would That Be ?

Yeah Phil, your original question made perfect sense to me. Not sure why some people weren't understanding the question.

If I was just choosing a single line of scopes and wanted to attract the widest client base, then Leupold would probably be my first choice. Their line is probably the most expansive and all-encompassing in the sport optics game. People forget that i's not just rifle scopes, but LRFs, Spotters, Binos...pretty much anything with magnified glass.

Now, they're not the best available, but they are extremely good and represent a price point where a buyer could feel confident that they are buying a better scope than 90% of glass available. Sure, Leica and Swaro beat them, especially in the bino game, but do they beat them by $2000? Will most people use them enough in order to truly appreciate the difference? Mostly no. Swaro offers 21 different rifle scopes (all models and configurations). Leica offers 17 (including RDS). Leupold currently offers 144 ranging from $300US up to $4700US. That's something for exeryone.

Now, that's assuming that you want to be in the "Something for Everyone" market. Lots of people prefer to specialize and handle only a line like Nightforce which decidedly does not have something for everyone. If I was inclined to specialize (which would probably make the most logistical sense unless you're a massive company that can stock the majority of Leupold's 144 offerings) then a company like Nightforce with their 26 offerings. Still plenty of demand for their products, but not a line so complicated that you couldn't at least stock a reasonable number, even at their higher price.
 
Lots of great comments on here. There is pro's and con's to each line and the problem is you are very limited to a few manufacturers as there isn't many that can support both the cheap buyers and the expensive ones.

I think a huge problem with the rifle optics industry is consumer education. Most will spend $1500 dollars on a gun and only want to spend $500 on optics and mounts when in reality they would be much better off with the inverse. Those of us spending $3K plus on optics are limited and in niche markets (IE PRS, ELR, hunting etc) And will have very specific preferences regarding reticles, mils/moa, and FFP/SFP. Not exactly something your local friendly neighbourhood gun store can build a decent clientele out of, or stock. The "higher end brands" are a poor choice because probably 85% of all scope sales are between $300-1200.00. Bushnell is out because they need to modernize their product line and most will want something trendy.

I think Vortex is a poor choice, because most people who buy vortex will now be price checking you vs Cabelas and when they have a sale 9/10 cabela's will probably win unfortunately. So you want to offer something different to avoid the competition all together if you can. For me that narrows it down to two choices.

Leupold
Pros: great line up
lots to choose from
excellent price range
great warranty and after sale support
meet the needs of any and all shooters
great R and D
Constantly changing product line

Cons
lots to choose from, you present a first time buyer with 15 options for a scope you might scare them away. you need trained sales people to point them in the direction they should go and limit the options
competition Lots of other shops carrying Leupold. this is both a good and bad thing
Polarized customer base. Leupold isn't as bad as most but there is still a lot of love em or hate em out there.

Burris
Pros
Full line up but more limited in choices. This is a good thing IMO because it means less training for staff
Lots of new R and D and products coming out
great warranty
meets the needs of any shooter
harder to find, less competition
lots of Burris branded ring choices

Cons
Availability
more customer education may be required
being a not as common name may scare away the simplest of buyers

It would be a hard pick IMO between those two. Burris and Leupold both have amazing middle of the road choices. for the top end the Mk5 and the XTR PRO are both fantastic scopes. Leupold seems to be aggressively adjusting their prices up whereas Burris seems to be much more competitive.

the nice thing about Burris as their line up has less scopes, you could stock multiples without having to worry about inventory costs as much, where as with Leupold, 144 options x multiples sounds expensive.
 
Leopold isn't very feature rich at the low to mid tier and a LOT of buyers are in that segment.

Personally I'd say Bushnell has the best top to bottom coverage plus enough history for their lifetime warranty to mean something.
 
Grantmac said:
Leopold isn't very feature rich at the low to mid tier and a LOT of buyers are in that segment.

Personally I'd say Bushnell has the best top to bottom coverage plus enough history for their lifetime warranty to mean something.
Click to expand...

the problem i have with bushnell is the main line elite that was built in japan is no more ...
 
Bushnell has astounded me with how they have thrown out and replaced their entire lineup of scopes multiple times in the last 6 years, complete with strong attempts to erase any record of prior lineups. It's quite impressive, though ill-advised I would argue.
 
In my life before i discovered the S&B scopes, i have own maybe 25 scopes, Most decrepencies i had was with 2 Leopold and one Sightron. Warranty did a good job
 
One line only, would likely be Bushnell, because I have seen too many issues with Vortex. I personally use Zeiss and Swarovski, but they don't offer the really cheap, low end scopes that many people buy. Leupold is strong in the mid range, but not as good at the top end, and no really cheap bottom end scopes.
 
Athlon and Vortex provide a full spectrum from cheap to hunting to PRS type to target.
Bushnell does not seem to, Leupold seems to struggle with the PRS type in an affordable price range. ( only Mark 5?? )
I don’t like the fact Vortex has so many failures but they sell a pile of scopes to be fair.
 
guess if one line only it would be leupold but there is a lot to be liked in some of the sightron,ziess and other lines.
 
With all the different demands for various styles of scopes out there now, tough to beat Athlon or Vortex for dealer stock purposes. Only issue with Athlon is they haven't been around long enough to cement their rep one way or the other, but, they are full on in taking on Vortex. The point about Cabela's and Vortex and specials is a good one, also the Leupold local warranty is a good one, and there isn't anything wrong with the product. And yet, if a dealer could pick and choose amongst the mfgrs without meeting min order reqs, there are some great deals out there with various mfgrs in certain price points in their lines. Tough choice to make to settle on one brand. For my guns I have Leupold, Swaro, Zeiss, Delta, Sightron, Tract and an old Redfield and Nikon.
 
One retailing filter you may want to consider for your customers is where the optic is manufactured. A while back I made a personal decision to not buy any optic made in China.

Fortunately there are many optics companies making optics in friendlier parts of the Planet, so the selection across a range of function, price and quality is excellent.

(If I can help it I won't buy anything made in China, but of course that is extremely difficult, e.g. the computer I am typing this on is made in China, my coffee maker is made in China, etc. But moving forward this filter is a major factor in my purchasing decisions).
 
Biologist said:
One retailing filter you may want to consider for your customers is where the optic is manufactured. A while back I made a personal decision to not buy any optic made in China.

Fortunately there are many optics companies making optics in friendlier parts of the Planet, so the selection across a range of function, price and quality is excellent.

(If I can help it I won't buy anything made in China, but of course that is extremely difficult, e.g. the computer I am typing this on is made in China, my coffee maker is made in China, etc. But moving forward this filter is a major factor in my purchasing decisions).
Click to expand...

Excellent comment. I totally agree!

It’s not always possible, or the cheapest option, but I rarely send money to the PRC, if there is any other option.
 
Good question but it’s a loaded one and IMO implementing this would be a suicide pill.
The retailer has to balance five factors in the equation; Customer expectations, availability, profitability, quality and warranty support.

Customer Expectations; Customers will carry personal perceptions of quality and value for any given brand regardless of the actual quality (perception is reality).
To choose only one brand will require one heck of a sales pitch that I can guarantee will not always be successful, and that’s money out the door.
Targeting brands which meet most customers preconceived notion’s for a given price point should minimize lost sales.

Availability; In todays world can a single manufacturer even offer depth of product in a timely fashion, across the whole spectrum?
If you raise the flag for only one brand you are inevitably discounting the others. If you have to later compromise and sell another brand due to availability what hit in your customers eyes does your credibility take?

Profitability; Does one brand offer the features (with availability) across the spectrum which maximizes ROI? If you committed to one manufacturer, do you increase your discount structure?
If a single brand doesn’t increase profitability then there is no point in pursuing it, and if it isn’t a substantial increase is it worth risking increased lost sales?

Quality; There are good values at every price point but not always in the same brand, this is where the professional core knowledge and experience of the retailer shines.
Junk is junk, it’s not worth selling, but only selling high end brands will cost sales, choose accordingly.

Support; How responsive is the manufacturer when your customer has an issue? Because at the end of the day if your customers have an issue, you have an issue. The quicker you can spin an issue into a win, the better your chances on future sales.
Lack of after sale support is a great way to sour a customer and it’s not worth tainting your image due to a manufacturer who isn’t responsive.

I’m not in the sporting goods game, never have been, and I can only imagine the stress with the amount of capital tied up in a costly, rapidly changing segment.
The one brand idea sounds great from an accounting perspective but I can’t imagine it would be one the sales floor would love.
I definitely agree with limiting the amount of manufacturers but instead of one, why not two or three?
No idea if these meet the retailers needs described above but from a customer viewpoint wouldn’t Vortex & Leupold or Bushnell, Vortex & Leupold cover it.
Or is the increased profitability that enticing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom