What sorts of marketing blunders do companies in the billiard industry commit trying to bolster themselves?
I have recently been turned off slightly by some of the claims made on behalf of Kamui products. I still respect their products and support of billiards but I think that their marketing copy could use some fresh perspective and a professional touch.
But this paragraph by another company struck me as slightly negative for the company presenting it as something to be proud of.
"2. William Cockerill
At the end of the eighteenth century, a spinner in Verviers would work with a single spindle, whereas in England, the Industrial Revolution had already resulted in machines being used for spinning wool. The British government threatened anyone who exported this technique with permanent exile, in order to protect the country’s monopoly.
Nevertheless, William Cockerill, a young British engineer, departed for Sweden in 1797 with the blueprints for his famous wool-spinning mill. However, no one seemed to be interested in his ideas, and he eventually ended up in Hamburg. There, he met a wool buyer from Simonis who realized the value of this technique, which had until then been unknown in continental Europe.
This pioneer in the field then came to Verviers with his family and signed a contract in which he agreed to produce spinning machines exclusively for his new employer. The first machine was constructed in 1797 in the building known as “Au Chat”, pictured here.
Success was not long in coming to Simonis, which, in addition to being able to compete with the English on level terms, had gained a major technological advantage over its continental competitors."
This is part of the company history of Simonis as published on this page; http://www.simoniscloth.com/about/history
The reason I see this as slightly negative is that many people regard Simonis cloth as the undisputed best and cite their longevity as one reason . No one can argue much with a company's experience that has been in the wool business for over 300 years. But what struck me as interesting and which I did not know is that the English wool industry had been using higher technology for quite a while before an Englishman decided to take it out of England. So this means that some of the wool firms now operating in England which have been in business as long as Simonis also have a longer experience with technology in wool production. Now of course one would expect that at some point they would all be about even in both tech and knowledge so that is a wash.
My question to the forum is why is Simonis regarded as the best when there are other firms with a similar amount of experience and tech? Is it simply because the brand has outmarketed the competition?
And lastly, what other kinds of marketing blunders can you find about billiard products? What sorts of claims are made that don't hold up or which reveal something about the maker which could be seen as a negative. To be fair I find that this passage about Simonis' history to be only slightly negative as it essentially ascribes the ascension of Simonis due in large part to acquiring the tech needed to be competitive. One must wonder how badly Mr. Cockerill was treated in England that he felt compelled to leave for greener pastures elsewhere on pain of permanent exile.
Let's see if there is any interest in a fresh topic on this forum
I have recently been turned off slightly by some of the claims made on behalf of Kamui products. I still respect their products and support of billiards but I think that their marketing copy could use some fresh perspective and a professional touch.
But this paragraph by another company struck me as slightly negative for the company presenting it as something to be proud of.
"2. William Cockerill
At the end of the eighteenth century, a spinner in Verviers would work with a single spindle, whereas in England, the Industrial Revolution had already resulted in machines being used for spinning wool. The British government threatened anyone who exported this technique with permanent exile, in order to protect the country’s monopoly.
Nevertheless, William Cockerill, a young British engineer, departed for Sweden in 1797 with the blueprints for his famous wool-spinning mill. However, no one seemed to be interested in his ideas, and he eventually ended up in Hamburg. There, he met a wool buyer from Simonis who realized the value of this technique, which had until then been unknown in continental Europe.
This pioneer in the field then came to Verviers with his family and signed a contract in which he agreed to produce spinning machines exclusively for his new employer. The first machine was constructed in 1797 in the building known as “Au Chat”, pictured here.
Success was not long in coming to Simonis, which, in addition to being able to compete with the English on level terms, had gained a major technological advantage over its continental competitors."
This is part of the company history of Simonis as published on this page; http://www.simoniscloth.com/about/history
The reason I see this as slightly negative is that many people regard Simonis cloth as the undisputed best and cite their longevity as one reason . No one can argue much with a company's experience that has been in the wool business for over 300 years. But what struck me as interesting and which I did not know is that the English wool industry had been using higher technology for quite a while before an Englishman decided to take it out of England. So this means that some of the wool firms now operating in England which have been in business as long as Simonis also have a longer experience with technology in wool production. Now of course one would expect that at some point they would all be about even in both tech and knowledge so that is a wash.
My question to the forum is why is Simonis regarded as the best when there are other firms with a similar amount of experience and tech? Is it simply because the brand has outmarketed the competition?
And lastly, what other kinds of marketing blunders can you find about billiard products? What sorts of claims are made that don't hold up or which reveal something about the maker which could be seen as a negative. To be fair I find that this passage about Simonis' history to be only slightly negative as it essentially ascribes the ascension of Simonis due in large part to acquiring the tech needed to be competitive. One must wonder how badly Mr. Cockerill was treated in England that he felt compelled to leave for greener pastures elsewhere on pain of permanent exile.
Let's see if there is any interest in a fresh topic on this forum
