Taurus Firearm Forum banner
1 - 1 of 1 Posts

356 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I remember from my marketing classes examining the relationship between 'quality' (as perceived by the consumer) and 'price'; there was typically a close correspondence between how much a person paid for something and the degree of 'quality' perceived in that thing. Two shirts from the same manufacturer (sans identifying labels), one priced cheaply and the other priced expensively were regularly ranked accordingly: the cheap one was, well, 'cheap', poorly made, of poor material, etc., while the expensive one was rated as high quality, of good material and workmanship, and expected to last longer.

This had a secondary affect, which re-enforced this attitude: goods which were expensive were carefully maintained, sometimes seldom used and often kept in service even when it might otherwise be considered 'worn out'; contra-wise, the 'cheap' goods were typically treated more casually, received less attention and care, and were disposed of as soon as signs of wear and tear appeared.

I submit that Taurus is a victim of this syndrome - and may explain why the brand gets more than it's share of complaints and negative attitudes. I think it also explains the reluctance of some dealers to sell them - if for no other reason than the customers to whom they sell them are quicker to perceive fault and failure in them, as opposed to a 'higher quality' firearm. Unhappy customers bring things back and are hard to satisfy. Ironically, many of those customers were buying the Taurus for the 'good' price, and then blame the dealer/gun/somebody else for any and all faults in that gun, whatever the actual reason.

Taurus has a no-win situation here - sell at a good price and you get hypercritical attention - sell at a high price and their sales volume goes down... and by now, Taurus is too closely associated with the 'value' pricing to go that way anyway.

My 2 cents.
1 - 1 of 1 Posts