Topic: Marketing ploys (Read 8429 times)

InternalTraining · « **Reply #15 on:** October 09, 2017, 10:07:34 PM »

^ I was going to mention GM and I applaud them for doing what they DO but from performance perspective, their bats are too hard presssed and just plain suck.

It is probably what turned your customer off.

But kudos to them for putting all the technical information there. I just wish other bat makers will follow suit.

Aussiecollector · « **Reply #16 on:** October 09, 2017, 10:12:09 PM »

Most popular bat by GN AUS this season so far "chris Lynn" velocity players choice , say no more , had a player on the weekend with one , didn't even know it was 20mm shorter blade , all about the name

Vitas Cricket · « **Reply #17 on:** October 09, 2017, 10:13:01 PM »

Quote from: InternalTraining on October 09, 2017, 10:07:34 PM

performance perspective, their bats are too hard presssed and just plain suck. It is probably what turned your customer off.

If you say so.

InternalTraining · « **Reply #18 on:** October 09, 2017, 10:19:14 PM »

Quote from: DorsetDan on October 09, 2017, 10:09:31 PM

A customer might think "science" gives them their best bat in IT's scenario but realistically it's a variable product and everything you want to know can be done with the bat in your hands and a mallet/ ball. Waft it around, give 'er a whack and jobs a good 'un

Mallet response and bouncing ball on a face is one of the most inaccurate, and yet most applied, methods of testing a bat. I have a lot of bats sitting in my house that bounce the ball to the ceiling and sound wonderful off the mallet. Take them to the net and they just don't feel the same or are responsive in the areas where you are NOT consistently hitting the ball. I think bat buying today is a very poorly informed process.

skip1973 · « **Reply #19 on:** October 09, 2017, 10:45:31 PM »

Quote from: InternalTraining on October 09, 2017, 10:19:14 PM

Mallet response and bouncing ball on a face is one of the most inaccurate, and yet most applied, methods of testing a bat. I have a lot of bats sitting in my house that bounce the ball to the ceiling and sound wonderful off the mallet. Take them to the net and they just don't feel the same or are responsive in the areas where you are NOT consistently hitting the ball. I think bat buying today is a very poorly informed process.

I think most of your posts are pure rot.

InternalTraining · « **Reply #20 on:** October 09, 2017, 10:49:48 PM »

Quote from: skip1973 on October 09, 2017, 10:45:31 PM

I think most of your posts are pure rot.

If that's what you think, that's your prerogative. Going back to my earlier point, people don't like change and are frightened by it. They also don't like views that challenge conventional wisdom. Cricket gear is so archaic it is not even funny anymore. MCC bat size regulations, anyone?!! HAhahah.

Let's standardize bat specs. Let consumer make informed choices. Simple.

Tom · « **Reply #21 on:** October 09, 2017, 11:28:52 PM »

Quote from: InternalTraining on October 09, 2017, 10:19:14 PM

Mallet response and bouncing ball on a face is one of the most inaccurate, and yet most applied, methods of testing a bat. I have a lot of bats sitting in my house that bounce the ball to the ceiling and sound wonderful off the mallet. Take them to the net and they just don't feel the same or are responsive in the areas where you are NOT consistently hitting the ball. I think bat buying today is a very poorly informed process.

100% agree with you. Tapping tests are very inaccurate and there must be a better way to sell bats, not sure the market or bat buyers are ready for it though.

Sitonit · « **Reply #22 on:** October 10, 2017, 05:52:42 AM »

Quote from: InternalTraining on October 09, 2017, 05:15:32 PM

..... balance point, location of node of percussion, and swing velocity ......

Sounds Chinese to me.
Plain English please?

Neon Cricket · « **Reply #23 on:** October 10, 2017, 06:16:49 AM »

Quote from: InternalTraining on October 09, 2017, 10:07:34 PM

their bats are too hard presssed and just plain suck. It is probably what turned your customer off.

My �160 rocket of a GM Chrome would disagree with you

manno · « **Reply #24 on:** October 10, 2017, 06:26:35 AM »

Quote from: Aussiecollector on October 09, 2017, 10:12:09 PM

Most popular bat by GN AUS this season so far "chris Lynn" velocity players choice , say no more , had a player on the weekend with one , didn't even know it was 20mm shorter blade , all about the name

So this player must have bought it online yes?

Ajdal · « **Reply #25 on:** October 10, 2017, 07:57:13 AM »

Quote from: InternalTraining on October 09, 2017, 10:07:34 PM

^ I was going to mention GM and I applaud them for doing what they DO but from performance perspective, their bats are too hard presssed and just plain suck. It is probably what turned your customer off.

But kudos to them for putting all the technical information there. I just wish other bat makers will follow suit.

I had similar bias against GM, but in all honestly I had only seen a friend's 808 from 2014/15 and it did sound like it was very 'hard-pressed' when tapping a ball on it. Regardless, I took the plunge on a Quinton de Kock players edition from @Vitas Cricket a couple of months ago. At 2.10.5 with a concave profile, 35mm(small?) edges, 64-65 spine I didn't think the bat was exactly light for the size and as big as I had expected for a pro(shape) bat and was slightly disappointed. Bounced a ball on it, it felt firmer and sounded different than my other bats.

Anyways, I decided to give it a go. Did some throw downs before the match and wow, hard-pressed my ass. The response was sooo good I took it in the middle scored 38 off 21 opening the innings. No nets, no mallet love. Played my second match with it this Sunday scored 60 off 28 went at number 3. The bat is absolutely fantastic! The ball rockets off the bat with extra-ordinary speed and even though it seems to be firmly(crisp?) pressed the ball just flies all across the blade, hit two fours from the very bottom of the bat as low on the bat as it gets lol.

My friend has offered me 40% more than the price i paid for it, and I still don't wanna sell it it's that good.

manno · « **Reply #26 on:** October 10, 2017, 08:29:04 AM »

DorsetDan - I agree with what your saying i think. Sounds to me like a pointless layer of duplicate information, that may or may not be accurate anyway, on a product that is by its very nature, imprecise.

You pick bat up, next you allow youself to look like an idiot by air batting with said bat. Then, you attack the face with a mallet. Doesnt that basic process replicate the only two functions required of the bat? The bats feel/pickup/balance is nice, or it isnt. The bat feels responsive enough over enough of the blade or it doesnt. What else do i need to know?

Please tell me how some written information on the characteristics of the bat is going to or even should alter or confirm how the bat actually feels to me?

Information that may help online purchasing is a completely different issue but would likely still have people end up buying bats that dont feel right for them.

I also take exception with the attitude that 99.9% of the bat buying public are blind consumers of marketing. "Ready for it"

Or "frightened by it"

Give me a break. A guy walks into a retailer, says to the staff, "ill have a chris lynn please". Has one handed to them, they pay, and walk out. This scenario, if it exists at all would be an absolute minority. Oh, and i dont blame joepublic for having no idea the lynn was shorter. If it was an in store sale then the staff arent doing their job...

Information is great. Information for the sake of information. Why?

The Doctor · « **Reply #27 on:** October 10, 2017, 08:59:20 AM »

Quote from: WalkingWicket37 on October 09, 2017, 06:39:17 PM

You're thinking everyone buys bats like we do on here. The forum is a strange place (full of strange people!)

How many club players even own 2 bats? I know that 95% of my club will go into the local shop when they need a bat, buy one (price or which pro uses "one like that") dictating their choice then proceed to use that one bat until it breaks. They repeat this process every X amount of years as needed.

Nobody cares about the balance point, location of node of percussion, and swing velocity. In fact I'd bet a lot of badgers on here wouldnt even know what all of those things meant, let alone Joe Public...

I think the quote "nobody cares" is a little miss leading, the fact is they have never had such information and not that they do not care, also 99% do not know what this means. This doesn't mean that they wouldn't use the information in future to select the right bat, based on the attributes of their previous stick.

The truth of the matter is that the cricket trade is in the dark ages.

If the above information was made a available it would take the guess work out of buying a bat, driving more sales through the internet.

The Doctor · « **Reply #28 on:** October 10, 2017, 09:03:00 AM »

Quote from: Tom on October 09, 2017, 11:28:52 PM

100% agree with you. Tapping tests are very inaccurate and there must be a better way to sell bats, not sure the market or bat buyers are ready for it though.

Also been scientifically proven (well in golf) that the sound gives the perception of performance but has no correlation whatsoever on the CoR

Tom · « **Reply #29 on:** October 10, 2017, 10:15:04 AM »

Quote from: The Doctor on October 10, 2017, 09:03:00 AM

Also been scientifically proven (well in golf) that the sound gives the perception of performance but has no correlation whatsoever on the CoR

David from SHU has also done some studies on the reliability of the tapping test, which you've likely seen.

Author Topic: Marketing ploys (Read 8429 times)

InternalTraining

Re: Marketing ploys

Aussiecollector

Re: Marketing ploys

Vitas Cricket

Re: Marketing ploys

InternalTraining

Re: Marketing ploys

skip1973

Re: Marketing ploys

InternalTraining

Re: Marketing ploys

Tom

Re: Marketing ploys

Sitonit

Re: Marketing ploys

Neon Cricket

Re: Marketing ploys

manno

Re: Marketing ploys

Ajdal

Re: Marketing ploys

manno

Re: Marketing ploys

The Doctor

Re: Marketing ploys

The Doctor

Re: Marketing ploys

Tom

Re: Marketing ploys