I agree with you, all the money spent on sponsorship, marketing and other halabaloo including so called "R&D", is nothing to do with improving the quality of the products but only to enhance the brand to make even more profits.kgt wrote:High quality is high quality, and is related to materials, design, manufacturing etc.
There are cotton t-shirts that cost 200 euros just because their tag is famous and a status symbol. It does not mean that they have to cost as much the moment that their production cost is no more than 2 euros.
The same with frames. I don't want to support - by giving them my money - brands with overpriced, outsourced in China, medium to low quality products just because these brands prefer to spend their money on marketing and sponsorships and not on proper wages and high quality manufacturing.
And this myth of "extensive r&d and testing" in bike industry is overemphasized. We are talking about bikes, not F35 fighters. A couple of good engineers can do all the r&d and testing a company needs. It is interesting to read what hambini (yes, the aerodynamicist who works for Airbus) notes about the 'famous' engineers of the big bike industries. They are nothing special.
I am not saying that they should not spend this money to sell their products, but quality speaks a thousand words and need not depend on marketing dollars to sell products.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk