Brooks Berdan was a dealer of both Wilson and Vandersteen. The Vandersteen Models 1, 2, and 3 were his (and many other hi-fi dealer’s) bread and butter speakers (Brooks was one of Richard’s "biggest" dealers). Wilson’s were bought by a different kind of customer. The price differential between the two brands prevented them from creating completion for each other.
That changed when Vandersteen starting making upmarket models (beginning with the Model 5 iirc). For whatever reason, Brooks wanted to sell only the models 1, 2, and 3, but not the 5, which would have posed competition for the Wilsons. Richard said no, to remain a Vandersteen dealer Brooks would have to demo and (hopefully, presumably) sell the Model 5 as well. Brooks elected to drop Vandersteen (or was it the other way around? ;-), a decision I considered a huge mistake (though I kept that opinion to myself ;-) .
But from sitting in on a CES meeting between Brooks and Wilson’s then head of sales, I got a glimpse into how the hi-fi business works. The sales manager had all the stats for the past year (it was the January CES in Vegas), showing Brooks’ Wilson sales in comparison with other past years, as well as with all the other Wilson dealers. Brooks was given a sales target for the upcoming year, which he was expected to meet. I concluded that Brooks felt to reach the mandated sales goal he would need to sell only Wilson’s in their price range. To split his sales between Wilson and Vandersteen would have made him a less "valued" dealer to both companies, perhaps even endangering his qualifications to be a Wilson dealer at all. Apparently Brooks valued being a Wilson dealer more than he did a Vandersteen dealer. Perhaps he totaled his income from the sales of both company’s loudspeakers, saw that he made more from the sales of Wilsons, and made the pragmatic choice. I don’t know.
Is that what’s considered politics in business? ;-)
