The politics of the "Jap bike"

A lot of younger riders might not be aware of the impact that import bikes from Japan had on the American political machine in the 1980s. A little research highlights the very isolationist sentiment that American manufacturers fostered and created in Washington DC during an effort to blame poor American manufacturing, marketing and labor policies on foreign manufacturers.

It's interesting because its a micro view into the macro problem that American VEHICLE manufacturers are still facing - "Can we continue to offer junk to our customers, pay a premium to our no-skill, part-time workforce, and engage in wasteful practices.... and expect to survive???"

Being a quality assurance professional (in the civilian world), I've become a student of all things "quality", and its important to note that the manufacturing and corporate policies and procedures that the Japanese have successfully employed since WW2 were actually the result of consultation work done for the Japanese by an American - W. Edwards Deming. He was actually working for Gen. Douglas MacArthur while he was teaching the Japanese a work and business ethic that Americans will never fully grasp.

I love Ronald Reagan but his willingness to listen to and agree to imposing a tariff on Japanese motorcycles to support one company and their 3000 employees was liberal, extremist, and just plain stupid. In the long run it only served to hurt Harley Davidson as their marketshare fell steadily for another 15-20 years after the tariff ended.

Here's an article written about the tariff. It highlights the impact that poor quality and misguided lobbying had on the big HD.
www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=898&full=1

Interesting - and very appropriate since I live in Michigan!

I find it interesting that a lot of folks claim that stuff from Taiwan, or China and even Japan is "junk", then they turn to their cell phone, iPod, or whatever. I tell them "look where your iPod was made" - yep, in China!

Truth is, they are all capable of making quality stuff - it is just that we don't necessarily want to pay for quality stuff - look at the junk that Wally Mart sells!

In the end, we only have ourselves to blame. It is not that Japan, China etc. sell junk - they sell quality stuff and junk! We just make junk and try to tell folks it is quality!

If you want to read something interesting on this topic get a copy of "The Machine that Changed the World" - it is about how the Japanese conquered quality control, and how the others are playing catchup - it is a little old now, but still appropriate.

Interesting reading, I particularly liked the areas of tariff construction that involved exclusion of the europeans...I find it remarkable that the Americans pointedly ignored the funadmental issue of quality control...and continue to do so today. I did a big gamble this year and purchased my first American vehicle, ever...a Jeep Patriot...it has a lifetime powertrain warranty, and I intend to hold them to that as I don't sell 4wheeled vehicles once purchased...I drive them until they are destroyed, then I junk them.

I'm sure that some of you have read "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance"?

Do we really want to get into defining "quality"

I have to much to do to take a year(s) long sabbatical from reality

I deleted the "long" post on quality that was here

It's a little too easy to quantify the quality of an entire countries manufacturing effort as something that Americans will never fully grasp. A higher labor cost by its very nature of being higher affects compared quality. By the Japanese/Chino model your work as a QA would be considered a lower quality of work compared to someone doing the same thing in their native countries. All American workers could be as our cost of living is higher than most of the rest of the worlds and as such our labor costs. Lowering the auto workers wages won't help unless you lower all other costs of doing business here in the US rather than there. The comparison of union workers skills and costs has often been used as an scapegoat for bad quality and high costs. It's odd how that comparison is always bantered out when looking for something to blame for all the lost manufacturing in the US but then we accept that having millionaire baseball players is Ok as their teams owners are billionaires who can afford it if they want to stay here in our town. The common response is that the lower wage replacement players aren't of the same high quality. It's all about perceptions and not facts, just like quality.

My experience with eastern companies is that they don't use strict empirical measurement QC when judging acceptable quality for the vast majority of their production. They use cost to quality received. An oversimplified example would be if company "A" sells them a widget for $100 and company "B" sells them the same widget but for $80 because their quality measurement as called out by them is off by the same percentage or less the perceived acceptable quality of the two products are the same even though the measurable quality is not. If company "B" tried to sell them the lower quality widget for $100 it would be flat rejected as non-compliant quality. This is not to say they will accept junk but they aren't as set to the must meet these specs 100% as they are much more fluid in their quality standards than here in the US in the past.

It's culture and human nature, you sell something on it's perceived quality and not its actual quality as the consumer can't possibly know the true quality of the product until he has owned it for a time. As long as the product meets the look and initial feel of "quality" he will accept the general perception that this brand/countries product is better quality. The opposite is true, if your product or country is labeled as inferior it takes a lot of marketing to change that perception as the consumer will justify his belief in the general perception by seeking out flaws no matter how small and overemphasizing them. We love our belief systems, they make us feel grounded with understanding that "A" is good and "B" is bad without having to make that determination with an open mind and personal experience. That's when even more psychology comes into play as people are reluctant to admit when they end up with a product that doesn't perform up to their expectations as the larger group is still in consensus of the mythical quality of brand "X". Sony and Honda would be examples of this as their perceived quality is higher but their cost to compared quality of other brands doesn't support the price charged. This brand buying or even the perception that if it comes from Japan it's quality is better is what people base their purchases on. Marketing not actual quality can carry a brand a long way, "Someday you'll own a Honda" or "It's a Sony" imply you are moving up in status and buying the "better" quality product even if the price is disproportionate or even inverse to what you actually experience.

Quality is a mythical beast, it gets press like it is constant but it never really is, it's just a mean average of perceptions by consumers. Manufacturers will move the imaginary line of quality no mater what country they are form when production numbers must be met to meet market demand. Hope this wasn't too long as just like Steel said, you could spend a lifetime trying to catch and define this beast once and for all.

I don't believe the following statement is accurate:

A little research highlights the very isolationist sentiment that American manufacturers fostered and created in Washington DC during an effort to blame poor American manufacturing, marketing and labor policies on foreign manufacturers.

Harley-Davidson almost went bankrupt in 1985, but CEO Richard Teerlink convinced lenders to accept a restructuring plan that included the application of "Japanese management principles"... in effect the Toyota Production System or lean manufacturing. A temporary and reducing tariff on large imported motorcycles created a brief time window for the turnaround.

The plan worked. In 1987, one year before the 5-year temporary import tariff was scheduled to expire, Harley announced they no longer needed the tariff protection to compete

www.evolvingexcellence.com/blog/2007/02/what_harleydavi.html

Shortly after the Harley management bought the company from AMF they knew they were in trouble, so they requested a tariff be imposed to give them enough time to restructure before going belly up. It didn't have anything to do with isolationism, it was simply a matter of asking for help to save the company.

A Policy Analysis published by the CATO Institute describes it well.

www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa032.html

It was nothing less than asking the federal government to create a new tax, a buffer zone to benefit one small American company at the expense of the American consumer.


In ten years you don't go from 100 percent of the market share to 15 percent because of some fluke. It's not because Japan did something sneaky or even capitalized on our 8 MPG automobiles - it was a series of factors and none of them gave Harley Davidson the the right to get an audience with the President.

It was a bail-out at the expense of American consumers, and it was no less of a farce than the bail-out of utility companies or airlines.

It has been a while since I worked for an automotive manufacturer (Volvo Truck), but the thing that always amazed me about the US/Japan argument was warranty. Back then the Japanese were offering three, or sometimes five, year warranties. The warranty cost of a vehicle is built into the vehicle price, and the US manufacturers were going nuts - they couldn't offer three year warranties without jacking the prices up beyond what the consumer would pay.

I thought this was hilarious - if you asked the average Honda/Toyota (etc) owner they would proudly say "yeah, I got a five year warranty" - if you then asked them how many times they took it in for warranty work the answer would usually be "oh, never!". So, that five year warranty cost the manufacturer NOTHING! This is what the US manufacturers cannot work out - if you build it properly, it will not break, and there is no warranty claim - warranty is FREE!

Since I came to the USA in 1978, I have owned three new American vehicles and four foreign built ones (two French!) The TOTAL warranty claims on ALL the foreign built vehicles have been exceeded by the claims on EACH of the American built ones!

Go figure!

BeeSting wrote:

It was nothing less than asking the federal government to create a new tax, a buffer zone to benefit one small American company at the expense of the American consumer.


In ten years you don't go from 100 percent of the market share to 15 percent because of some fluke. It's not because Japan did something sneaky or even capitalized on our 8 MPG automobiles - it was a series of factors and none of them gave Harley Davidson the the right to get an audience with the President.

It was a bail-out at the expense of American consumers, and it was no less of a farce than the bail-out of utility companies or airlines.

And this is different than all the incentives being offered by States, Cities, and Counties, to companies to get them to build or improve factories/warehouses/etc in some way?

You sure are down on Harley for some reason, as far as I can tell (and I followed this at the time) Harley never blamed the Japanese for anything, they admitted up front that it was their own problems they were trying to solve.

Harley does have the right to petition the government for any reason they choose, it's enshrined in the US Constitution (unfortunately, corporations have the same rights as individuals, thanks to a Federal Court in California).

Harley petitioned the ITC for temporary relief, not the President, the ITC passed it by a slim margin then sent it to the President for his signature, which he reluctantly gave, according to all accounts I can find.

If you want to talk about corporations buying the laws they want, then lets discuss the outrageous extension of Copyright to life of the author plus 70 years, bought and paid for by Disney and friends, or Monsanto and their attack on dairy farmers that refused to use BGH and advertised it so consumers would know, or any of a bunch more similar actions by big corps.

If I had been running Harley at that time, I would have done exactly the same thing, so I don't have a problem with their actions, I consider them ethical and proper.

In the end, whether you agree with it's practicality or not, A company's "quality" of product has only so much to do with their success.

Politics aside, the management of HD have all in all been brilliantly succesful in their turnaround of the company since the takeover.

Look at it this way. They do build a product that runs and is loud. Although they may not be as dependable or efficient as a rice burner, they run well enough for the group they are marketed to. But where did that market come from? They made it. They effectively positioned their product as a patriotic symbol, and as a "rebel flag" if you will. Not since the belt buckle has something so worthless been made to seem so important.:blink:

Meanwhile, while Japanese manufacturers were worrying about market shares and quality control, building a product for say $2000 and selling it for $3000 (this is only a guess for the sake of illustration) and trying to overcome their foreign image, HD was pulling in hand over fist money by marketing image accessories like Chinese t-shirts and leather and tripling the price of these items by licensing their brand image. (Black t-shirt $3. Black HD t-shirt $30). They were selling base units and then marketing "upgrades" when Bill Gates was still learning to use a slide rule.

Face it Harley Davidson is on the front line of image markiting and have been more successful at it than their peers Ford, American Motors and Chevrolet. While these have had some successes with their muscle and luxury lines but been unsuccessful with head to head competition with foreign makes, HD has avoided direct competition with other Motorcycle manufacturers and concentrated rather on amassing an almost cult like following of the American ego.

This I do not believe is such a bad thing. We all know people who wish they could ride an American Icon, but can only afford a Honda Shadow with no baffles. So the Marketing done by Harley benefits the Japanese guys by spillover merchandising. And when the post adolescents are bored with this phase and opt for a rust bucket that comes with a 350 crate engine and two old roots turbos in the trunk, those of us who ride for pure pleasure of the road and bugs in your teeth can get a low miles, low maintenance, fuel efficient, long lasting, maybe slightly damaged, definitely needs baffles bike for cheap!:lol: :lol: :laugh: :laugh:

Sounds like a win, win, win to me.

It's late, I gotta get to bed, etc, but I'm puzzled by the assertion in the OP that H-D's market share steadily declined for the next 15-20 years after the tariff ended. I'm no apologist for the Motor Company, but that assertion just doesn't square with my perception of reality.

What am I missing?

According to This Study , Harley's market share was at 23% in 1983, and had increased to 47% in 1988, so I'd say your perception matches reality

Good reading.

A Case Study of Harley Davidson's Business Practises