Absolutely correct. My own son (aged 7) does not care whether or not his latest toy car is Corgi or some Chinese copy. I care very much - the Chinese stuff is much cheaper, and the toy will probably end up trashed whether it cost three pounds or ten pounds.
I'm not sure that brand recognition is as important to children today, as it was when I was growing up. Actually, I'm sure it is not important today - my son certainly doesn't worry, yet when I grew up, I would have thanked no-one for a Corgi toy. My die cast vehicles were all Dinky Toys.
So you are saying that if Hornby had not survived either of it's two (three) financial crises in the 1970s and 1980s people would have stopped buying train-sets even though other companies had stepped in a filled the shelves?... The point is, if the name no longer exists they will still buy the product, just as no one who bought Rover have stopped buying cars just because the name has disappeared from the showroom.
Dont think that is what was suggested. More if Hornby name had not survived then someone would have asked for it, told its not available but considered alternatives. However as it did survive then alternatives frequently not considered.
Didn't everyone of a certain generation call them "Dinky" toys whether they were made by Meccano or not? It was a generic term for any die-cast road. vehicle. I think even Lesney's products were often referred to as "small Dinky toys" rather than "Matchbox".
I would agree to a certain extent, but I do feel that boys, forty or more years ago, where fans of either Dinky or Corgi. I can really only quote my own memories of what I and my friends thought at the time. However, I think you are correct in that our parents, uncles, aunts etc. at that time described all such vehicles as Dinky Toys, whoever made them.
Not quite, because I don't think such a situation would have arisen. Had Hornby failed, yet another company would have bought and used the Hornby name. The contents of the box is far less important than the name on the outside of the box.
Indeed, but there are still people who buy Rover cars because of the name, even though the original Rover company disappeared generations ago. When was Rover an independent company? I have no idea. They were part of BMC in the 50s, and, like Hornby, have survived as a name only.
I don't accept that. Bachmann moved production to China (from Hong Kong) years before Hornby, and most of the USA manufacturers moved there well before them too.
As with most things, Hornby followed rather than led.
"John Turner" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@supernews.com:
Not necessarily a bad thing in this context. The first people in to China had their designs stolen and were quite frankly used as cash cows to seed the emerging Chinese economy. By waiting until the Chinese achieved a degree of responsibility and respectability Hornby has quite possibly saved themselves millions. Indeed if they'd gone over any earlier - considering their finances they could have lost everything. Just my 2ps worth.
1967. The first victim of the Leyland merger was Alvis Cars whose products competed head-on with Rover and Jaguar. Daimler bus production was also halted.
Difficult to keep up with all these changes. I was talking to a bus enthusiast on Saturday, and he was telling me about Dennis. I had not realised that Dennis fire engines, buses, dustcarts etc. were not all the same Dennis these days.
But model railways aren't really the kind of product where you can steal ideas directly from the manufacturer. If the Chinese wanted to steal a Hornby design they could just take a model apart and copy it. Plus you forget that Hornby's models are about ten years behind what the Chinese\ Hong Kongese (is that a word?) are making for the rest of the world.
When I was at Lucas Rists we had a chart of who owns what in the motor industry, and it is indeed a tangled web. From the historical perspective it was interesting as it threw up some of the contradictions in the public perceptions of vehicles. When Volvo cars were making their mark as (possibly over) sturdy reliable vehicles, they had more British content that a "British" cars. All the electrics were supplied by Lucas, just with the 'A' surfaces (the finish) changed, often with Volvo badging. Yet Lucas were awful in a Britsh car, and wonderful in a Volvo. From a different thread - that is the power of branding.
As for BL history, when reading up one has to be very careful to identify the writers meaning, or interpretation, of "owned" etc. Both Jaguar and Land Rover were set up as seperate companies (in terms of legal entities) in the early 80's (might have been late
70's), but still used Leylands central resources until Gaydon was built. In the case of Jaguar it was done as managmenet finaly realised that Jaguar had a particular image, and being seen to seperate it could revitalise the brands flagging fortunes, for Land Rover it was most likely done to perpare for sale to Ford (first time round), which failed after public pressure was applied. Also, Sir Anothony Wedgwood-Benn (title dropped, but dosh kept), was keen to inject money into Land Rover, and Land Rover only, for development of the "Stage I" update of the Series III for export, which could only be ring-fenced by having a sperate entity. Both still remained as part of Leyland (or whatever it was being called that week) in reality. i.e. their Boards acted as directed by BL.
The same sort of thing was going on with Rover/Land Rover in the early 90's when I worked there for a spell. Rover, MG and Land Rover were theortically separate entites, each employee having a badge on their jacket to show which they worked for. In reality most engneering staff simply had all three badges on their jackets and worked interchangeably between the three. The bean counters might have viewed them as saparate compaines, but in day-to-day terms it was all just one, once away from the production lines.
There's an Open University programme that covers all the wheeling and dealing from Jaguars persepective which is most enlightening - more than few sharp knives heading towards various backs. Presumably this would now be in the Ancient History section of their archives - kipper ties and all!
Try the kids on X-Box, Nintendo, etc! I too was a Dinky lad rather than Corgi, but my loyalty was as nothing compared to the games console afficianados (sp?).
According to the glorious web, Hornby *finished* moving prodution in 1995, and Bachmann stared moving production in 1992, so it would seem that they were both at it at the same time. There is a big difference though, Bachmann has been owned by Kader, based in Hong Kong (set up by one Ting Hsiung Chao) since 1984, Bachmanns delay in transferring production is rather bemusing! ("Politics"?)
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.