posted 07-06-2003 10:29 PM ET (US)            

If you really want a Whaler and don't want the engine that the dealer wants to sell you with it, you can try two different approaches:

--buy the boat you want, sell the engine immediately, and put what you want on the transom;

--buy a boat from the Government and Commercial product line and rig it with the engine you like. These boats are more expensive and take longer to get, but if you really don't want a Mercury they are one alternative.

Both of these approaches cost more, but if you really have to buy an engine other than a Mercury, they are the solution to your dilemma.

It would be interesting to hear about your searches for other boats that can be bought without an engine in a package. My thinking is that some of these package set ups are good values and the engine-delete credit may not be nearly enough to cover the replacement with a different choice of engine.

posted 07-06-2003 10:38 PM ET (US)            

Your comments and thoughts have been addressed in the forum just a short time ago. You can go back maybe 20 days ago and read all of those comments.

Many, including myself share your thoughts and while I have nothing against Mercury, the approach taken by Boston Whaler and Mercury in trying to force the Mercury engine down my throat REALLY turns me away from them.

But as was pointed out in the previous discussions, many manufacturers are doing the same thing. I don't understand it because it thwarts competition and increases prices - by definition.

posted 07-06-2003 11:50 PM ET (US)            

The above is cited in an article I have written on the corporate history of the Boston Whaler company. See http://continuouswave.com/whaler/reference/history/whaler.html for more details.

posted 07-07-2003 03:31 PM ET (US)            

I am curious as to why you take any negative comments about Mercury so personally. Is it not all right for the rest of us to have our own opinions even if they differ from yours?

I bet if you look at your last twenty posts to this fine forum the majority of them would be defending Mercury against some perceived attack.

Seems like such a waste. A man who posesses your in depth knowledge of boats and motors should be spending his time on this forum helping those that need help not trying to win a pee-off.

Remember....

You are what you write.

Greg, who has nothing against Mercury or OMC/Bombardier.

posted 07-07-2003 03:56 PM ET (US)            

I do have a strong antipathy toward Brunswick, who seem to have led the way in no-option packaging of their engines with Boston Whalers. That means no new Whaler for me until I can specify how it is equipped and powered.

There are many Merc fans out there, and many who don't know a Mercury from a Force. They can easily be convinced that a Mercury is the "right" power for them, and perhaps correctly so.

If vertical marketing is the future of new boat marketing, Brunswick will next paint their engines desert tan and put Whaler logos on them. That approach didn't do Tracker any good.

Maybe if Brunswick had an engine line as clearly superior as the boats they want to sell engines for them are, it would make better sense. Boston Whaler/Bearcat made sense, but the Bearcat was 50 years too soon.

posted 07-07-2003 04:16 PM ET (US)            

Jimh, I notice there aren't any forms of advertisement on your forum. Is this just a hobby for you or is there somewhere one can donate to help supplement the costs of running the board?
I hope I haven't offended you by asking.

posted 07-07-2003 05:09 PM ET (US)            

Just kidding Big_S and also to a lot of you new members.

Forgive me Jimh, but I don’t know if you’ll answer this question, so I’ll take a stab at it.

This site started by a very good guy with very good intentions to be an educational, informative site to show the history of cruising the Great Lakes with Boston Whalers.

It has turned into a world-class site that gets over 1,000,000 hits per month, maybe 2,000,000 by now. This site contains more knowledge about everything possibly imaginable about Boston Whalers. It may even get more traffic than Whaler’s own website.

This site has No commercial funding, ads or anything of the like. In the past 3 years we kind of all get together and pass the hat for Jim. I have had the honor of organizing the last 2. I want to personally apologize for the last one because it seems to some, that there were some strings attached that were not intended. Some contributors were lead to believe, by me, that certain things were to be upgraded and for this I am sorry. Many of the “old timers” tried to make it clear that we were just passing the hat, but not everyone saw things that way.

Our gracious host has never asked for a thing other than some minor manners, that’s all. He has put up with more grief on this site than I think anyone here could stand. I know more than I could.

Sorry All I needed to get that off my back.

Regards, Jay

posted 07-08-2003 09:25 PM ET (US)            

As for "neutral" article, this began with:

"I have never been a Mercury fan and don't intend to start now.
What could Whaler have been thinking, trying to force their loyal customers into buying something they don't want."

I would say that from reading that it is clear that the author is not "neutral"; the author is anti-Mercury.

LHG responds with "tell us your preferred brand", and suddenly he is accused of being an obsessive pro-Mercury booster.

posted 07-08-2003 10:17 PM ET (US)            

I think he is just letting go of some of his frustrations about being stuck with only one brand of engine... Even it were another brand of engine like OMC, or Yamaha, etc., we still would not be given a choice...

Even with Automobiles, we do have a little choice in the engine we buy along with our new car or truck.. For Dodge, you can buy a gasoline dodge engine or go with a Cummins Diesel, etc..... For Chevrolet, you can buy the Chevy 350 or the new DuraCell (DuraMax) Diesel...

I think all Outboard engine manufactures these days make a fairly good product. Are their going to be lemons with every manufacturer??? Definitely..... I would hate to see the day when there was only one Outboard engine manufacturer left to choose from....

We all have our preferences. Like Automobliles, Computers, Stocks and Bonds, etc..... I don't care if someone does not like the brand I use as long as they don't bash it over and over.. Obviously, they had a bad experience with that particular brand.

Some people would own nothing but Mercury, but Mercury is not for me... I am not putting it down, I just prefer another brand besides Mercury... I can't stand the Mercury Binncale Controls. I also won't buy a Dodge Truck right now because they don't offer Captain's Chairs.

Like jimh points out, buy the boat and the Mercury, sell the Mercury and get what you want.... Or, buy a Commercial Hull and put the engine on it of your choice.... Both Great Ideas.... There is always more then one way to skin, scale, fillet, or steak a fish......

Get what you want and enjoy it....If it doesn't work for you, then get rid of it and try something else..... Life is too short....

posted 07-09-2003 02:00 PM ET (US)            

Neither would (could) quote me a price.

Yea you can get a CPD boat, (I have one), but if you don't want the added weight and expense you're out of luck.

jimh,
I don't think you're being fair by the qoutes you chose to use in your last post.

posted 07-09-2003 02:42 PM ET (US)            

The idea that because other companies do it, it's okay for Whaler to force a particular brand of motor on us is offensive nonsense. We're BW lovers because Whaler is, or at least was, different and distinctive. Who the hell cares what some other corporate bean counter decides about his/her marketing bottom line?

As some of you know, I've come to this fairly well along in life (I've done extensive worldwide sailing; this is my first motorcraft, if you don't count dinks). I've only owned my '71 Katama since last October, but I use her two or three times a week (130 hours on my new motor since repowering this past March). I'm absolutely in love with my old beauty, though those '80s 18/19 Outrages sure catch my eye. If/when I get two-footitis real bad, you'll find me over in the Marketplace forum, looking for a true, classic Whaler, not a pre-packaged bowling ball.

No offense, guys. I was hesitent to write at all on this topic, but I just got back from court where a corporate defense attorney was trying to convince me, the judge, and my clients that it was "corporate policy" to forgo badly needed repairs to an apartment complex, since the complex was to be sold next year, and it was just too bad for the tenants that had to live in uninhabitable conditions.

Corporate policy be damned.

posted 07-09-2003 07:13 PM ET (US)            

What's so hard to understand here? The concept that annoys many of us is being forced to buy any kind of motor at all, if we'd rather not, when we buy a new Whaler.

I'm trying to think of examples of similar marketing strategies...here are a few, and see if you'd like them:

Ah, just found my dream house...too bad I've got to buy it completely furnished (very nice furniture, too -- just not my taste).

Nice suit...but they won't sell it to me unless I buy their choice of shirt and tie.

Just offered $50k for a Boxter. We had a deal until the salesman said he couldn't swap tires for me...some sort of dealership policy. Guess I'll check down the street.

Finally...a brand, spanking new 32 ft Cheoy Lee ketch, canoe stern, teak decks and trim, roller jib AND stays'l, set up for single-handing, only $200,000...but they won't sell it to me unless I buy Head sails (great stuff, but not what I want), a gasoline auxiliary (I like diesel), and, to top it off, a Carolina Skiff dingy instead of the little Whaler dink I want. "Hey, it's corporate policy," the salesman says. "Anyway, you can buy it as it comes, all nicely pre-packaged, and just sell the stuff you don't care for and replace what you don't like. What's the problem?"

You know, when you (better you than I) go into a McDonald's fast food joint, you really don't expect the chef (!) to cook your burger to your specification, or whip up a variation on that yummy strange-colored Big Mac sauce for your gastronomical pleasure. But when you dine at a decent restaurant, you expect your culinary preferences to be acknowledged and acted upon. If Brunswick sees Boston Whaler as just another money-making part of the "fast food nation," that's their corporate right, I guess. But how very, very depressing...and it's our right to sorrow and complain.

posted 07-09-2003 09:45 PM ET (US)            

It does appear that we've all been suckered by this one-post Rudy.

Re-reading his initial article--to which he has never responded--it does sound like its intention was to stir the pot, and nothing more. Both LHG and I explicitly solicited one-post Rudy to respond, but nothing heard.

posted 07-09-2003 09:48 PM ET (US)            

Let's look back and see what the old Montauk was unrigged, than add a Yamaha 90 2 stroke, then a Shorelander trailer. Right about $24,000- $25,000. Now let's look at a new one, Motauk 170, 2 stroke Mercury 90 and E-Z Loader trailer for $18,000- $19,000. Seems like about a $6,000.00 savings. What's a Mercurcy 90 2 stroke cost $5,000- $6,000. The bottom line is your getting a FREE motor. Throw it away and buy what you want, you'll still probably be ahead of the game. This is not rocket science people.

I know the boats are different and I personally think the new 170 Montauk cost more to make.

posted 07-10-2003 02:58 AM ET (US)            

I knew I should have never even read, let alone commented upon, this topic. But while Mercs might be the finest outboard motors ever made, it's unkind of Brunswick not to sell hulls sans power, no matter how great a deal their pre-packaged boats are. Then again, Jarhead's absolutely right...since I don't intend to buy a new Whaler anyhow, I should, and hereby do, butt out of this conversation for ever and ever. Good night all, and good Whaling in whatever fine craft powered by whatever good motor.

posted 07-10-2003 02:20 PM ET (US)         

Yamaha should make Mercury an offer they can't refuse to buy Boston Whaler, say $250,000,000. But the Japanese, being the fair minded and liberal businessmen that they are, should sell their Whalers without engines, so the Mercury fans could still get their engine of choice, and Mercury could still make plenty selling these engines. It would also avoid the endless complaining on this site. Would Yamaha ever do this? HARDLY, if their Century Boat company model is any indication! Then think of all the fun the Mercury, E/J, Honda and Suzuki people could have unrelentingly bashing Yamaha and their DFI engines.

posted 07-10-2003 03:08 PM ET (US)            

I know you will pretend to ignore this but what the heck let me ask you a question.

What would be the downside of Whaler selling hulls without power through their recreational division dealers?

They very likely would have sold me a boat last year.

I would love to see your reaction if the unthinkable happened and Brunswick sold Whaler to the new owners of Bombardier's outboard motor division.

That would be interesting...

As far as disc space goes, If you count em up you and jimh are tied with the lead for the most "disc space wasted" in this thread.

Nothing personal.

posted 07-10-2003 10:25 PM ET (US)            

I was reading an article in a magazine for boat dealers (sorry I don't have the citation handy). The article was looking at the hull motor packaging from the manufacturer's point of view. From what I read, it seems like boat builders are not exactly crazy about having to keep on hand a large (and expensive) inventory of outboard motors to put on the transom of their boats so they can ship them with the engine pre-installed and pre-rigged.

One concern for the builder was trying to guess what the customers were going to order in terms of engines. The point was made that this is an additional problem when dealing with engine makers that have three month lead times for deliveries. I took that to mean Yamaha, since they have to ship their product over on a slow boat from Nippon. It was much easier to keep the engine mix on hand current with orders if using domestic engines available on shorter delivery schedules. I took that to mean Mercury.

If the boat builder guess wrong he might get stuck with unsold engines that are about to become last-year's model. I think this accounts for the source of some of the better deals that show up at dealers. They get great deals on engines from their boat builder connections.

Of course, buying these engines wholesale direct from the engine makers probably allows the boat builder more profit on this boat. That has to be the reason, otherwise why would they go through all the extra labor and logistics?

Since Mercury and Boston Whaler are all part of the same conglomerate, it may be that they get engines without big interest payments and floor plan charges. Thus they can probably make even more profit out of the selling the motor with the boat.

posted 07-10-2003 11:06 PM ET (US)            

Jamie and I are laughing so hard we are crying.

The peanut gallery, what a hoot. I still can't stop laughing. That's a beaut!

posted 07-11-2003 12:28 AM ET (US)            

Jimh, since you like diveorfish's steak house analogy so much, let's examine it a little further...

I walk into one of those corporate franchise steakhouses (grudgingly, since I posited a "decent" restaurant in MY analogy). I sit down and order a porterhouse, medium rare, and, of course, a Sierra Nevada pale ale. The waiter (I better say "waitperson" or "server" here on the left coast) tells me that my steak comes with a baked potato, salad, dessert and coffee.
"Thanks anyway," I reply. "Just the steak and brew for me tonight."
"Oh no, mon dieu, zut alors, et cetera," the server exclaims. "You MUST have the baked potato, salad, dessert and coffee, whether you want them or not."
"No thanks...just the steak."
"But it's the rule..."
And back and forth until that great film from happier times gone by, Five Easy Pieces, contributes this dialogue and concludes this rant:
"But sir, this restaurant only serves the porterhouse with baked potato, salad, dessert and coffee...I mean, how could I do it any other way...it's corporate policy and it's just too confusing!"
"I'll tell ya what," Jack Nickelson replies. "Bring me a porterhouse steak, medium rare, a Sierra Nevada pale ale, baked potato, salad, dessert and coffee, and hold the baked potato, salad, dessert and coffee, understand?"
"But sir, where should I hold the baked potato, salad, dessert and coffee?"
"Hold 'em between your legs!"

Yummeeee! Makes me think about the then young Karen Black, in thoughts much, much more interesting than this very important discussion. Those who remember the film will know what I mean...

posted 07-11-2003 08:43 AM ET (US)            

I also remember Jack saying; “Here’s Johnny” in the Shining, and how about Randal McMurphy in “One Flew Over The Cuckoo Nest”. Seems like Jack is always playing some crazy madman or a troublemaker just like in the movie you suggest.

In my entrepreneurial spirit I have just decided to start another company. This one will take the Mercury Engine off the transom of any Boston Whaler and dispose of it for $1,000.00. Not a bad deal and you might even be able to twist my arm and I’ll rid you of it free. How’s that for a real deal?

posted 07-11-2003 09:02 PM ET (US)            

Your variation on the Five Easy Pieces dialogue is funny, but you neglect to consider the character who is speaking those lines.

Bobby Dupea (Jack Nicholson) is the son of a wealthy and artistic family from whom he has disassociated himself. He works and lives as a trashy oil rigger in Texas or someplace. He treats his girlfriend Rayette (Karen Black) cruelly, abandoning her at a truck stop.

posted 07-11-2003 11:54 PM ET (US)            

I'm not sure that disagreeing with Brunswick's marketing plan for Boston Whaler constitutes a cruel attack on authority, discipline, structure and responsibility, jimh. But what do I know?

Tell me one thing...how do you get italics in your posts? I'll take my answer off the air, that is, over in Meta.

Tony

What do I know? I do know that Karen Black wouldn't have to hint too hard to get my attention.

posted 07-12-2003 08:11 AM ET (US)            

A little primer on tying arrangements:

A tying arrangement has been defined as an agreement by a party to sell one product, the "tying product" (Whaler or Century hull) but only on the condition that the buyer also purchases a different product, the "tied product" (a Mercury or Yamaha motor in this discussion). Such arrangements are viewed harshly by the courts, because in the typical tying arrangement the buyer is forced to purchase a product he or she does not necessarily want in order to obtain one which he or she does, and because such arrangements are thought to serve hardly any purpose beyond the suppression of competition.

A tying arrangement must involve two distinct products (in this case hulls and outboard motors) and is unreasonable under the Sherman Act (antitrust law) in and of itself when the seller has "sufficient economic power with respect to the tying product [boat hulls generally, Whaler or Century hulls specifically] to appreciably restrain free competition in the market for the tied product [Mercury or Yamaha outboards] and a 'not insubstantial' amount of interstate commerce is affected." The primary anticompetitive effect of tying is to foreclose competitors of the seller from supplying the tied product (outboard motors in this case) to the buyer, and to prevent the buyer from seeking alternate sources of supply for the tied product (outboard motors). The greater the desirability of the tying product (boat hulls in this case), or the seller's competitive position or market power with respect to it, the greater the likelihood that competition in the tied product (outboard motors) will be adversely affected or even stifled.

Thus, this backlash against this practice is not a backlash against Mercury or Yamaha at all although it happens to frequently involve the discussion of Mercury in this case as it is the tied product to the Whaler hull, the tying product. The tying arrangement is a form of market segmentation and is intended to relax competition. I submit that anytime that competition for a product is reduced, that cannot be a benefit to the consumer and that all those who are Mercury fans (or Yamaha fans in the case of Century, for example) should be highly skeptical of these marketing practices.

posted 07-12-2003 09:17 AM ET (US)            

It's not hard to understand the frustration felt by those with a preference over Mercury outboards.

As I see it the only way Brunswick would change their current policy would be for their sales to suffer. I don't believe however that's the case at this time.

Even with the economy in the shape it's in Whaler [Brunswick] seems to be doing well.

The only thing I can say is if the consumer speaks loud enough [$] the supplier will listen.

My 2 cents...

posted 07-13-2003 09:30 AM ET (US)            

If there ever was a case of tying one product with another, it has to be the market for PCs. For a while there it was almost impossible to buy a PC without having to buy the Microsoft Operating System. Even a billion dollars of government prosecution could stop it.

Back to boating.

With its recent moves to acquire a major marine parts distributor, and from the clear and unmistakable comments of CEO Buckley, Brunswick plans to take over the replacement parts market, too. In a few years you will be buying parts from Brunswick owned sources, not an aftermarket supplier.

And the investment and ownership of electronics manufacturers like Navman probably foretells more pre-installed electronic equipment on the boats.

posted 07-14-2003 11:05 AM ET (US)         

I'm not sure the "tying arrangement" applies to this situation. Since both Whaler and Mercuruy are owned by the same parent corporation (Brunswick), then there is no tying.

GM uses motors from different divisions in cars of other divisions without any offer of another manufacturers engines (i.e. Ford, Chrysler, etc.). Ford and everyone else in the auto sector do the same.

I would agree, the ice may get a little thin in the event of a hull manufacturer forcing you to buy the engine of another manufacturer where they may be no corporate tie. However, if the manufacturer can show a compelling reason to offer this exclusivity, then so be it. I'm not fond of the courts telling a manufacturer what he can and cannot offer in his product any more than a manufacturer not giving me choice. The difference is I can walk away from the product if I don't like the package. The manufacturer cannot walk away from government intervention.

posted 07-14-2003 02:04 PM ET (US)            

As far as I know, there is no common ownership exception to tying arrangements. In other words, the analysis does not, and should not, take into account whether the products come from a common source. You can have a tying arrangement whether it comes from a common source or two sources in agreement with each other. However, I believe that it is more likely than not that a tying arrangement will involve a single source.

One of the key words in the tying analysis is "distinct" products. I submit that comparison of outboard hulls/outboard motor to an automobile/engine is not a very good one.

In the case of automobiles, the automobile is a highly engineered product from stem to stern and the engines are very much integrated into the entire automobile for safety, performance and efficient manufacturing reasons. That is a compelling reason to permit no choice in engine brands and I do not believe it is a tying arrangement as previously defined because there are no "distinct" products. Perhaps accessories like air conditioning might be better candidates as "distinct" products relative to the automobile as a whole. However, even that might be a hard one to argue these days because as cars got smaller in dimensions with more and more required saftety features, it became necessary to highly integrate and engineer air condition into the whole automobile in order to provide that feature.

In contrast, in the case of outboard hulls and outboard motors, the various outboard brands are readily interchangable without any appreciable change in safety, performance or efficient manufacturing of the hull or motor. This is evidenced by the use of common shaft lengths and bolt hole patterns among other things by all manufacturers. They are all designing to a common set of standards which evidences the manufacturer's belief in interchangability and distinctiveness relative to the hull. Because a Mercury or ____________(insert your favorite brand) motor works, or should work, just the same whether it is bolted to a Whaler or _____________ (insert your second favorite brand) hull, or vice versa, I suggest that an outboard is a distinct product relative to the hull. As far as I know, no additional engineering of the outboard motor is required to use it from one hull brand to another and no additional engineering of the hull is required to use one brand of motor or another.

In fact, I just swapped two different brands of two diffent horsepower ratings a week ago on two 15' classic hulls. The dismount/mount and derig/rig procedure was exactly the same and took about the same amount of time for both. I don't believe that I could have done that with automobiles.

posted 07-14-2003 02:22 PM ET (US)         

I have no idea how many hull manufacturers have these restrictions, but I would imagine that it is in the minority. I would have to believe most boats can be bought sans engine. In fact, a Whaler can be bought without an engine by purchasing it through the Commercial Division. I can't imagine how that throws a monkey wrench into the tying scheme.

posted 07-14-2003 02:49 PM ET (US)            

Can one buy a commercial Conquest or the retired Impact sans engine?