Has Parker Always Been The Premier Pen Manufacturer In America?

[Matlock]

 

Interesting story about Waterman. It started as an American pen company and dominated the market up through the 1930s when it stagnated. It became Frenchified, acquired by BIC in 1958, which then used Waterman's American infrastructure and brand familiarity to distribute its Cristal pens stateside. The unloading of the disposable ballpoint pens into the marketplace is what caused fountain pen-based companies like Parker to start dwindling.

 

Even though BIC kept its identity separate from Waterman, I believe it banked on the name recognition of Waterman in the US to nudge its way into the American market. Some of the early packaging for the Cristal is sub-branded with Waterman.

 

Ironic really now that Parker pens are made in the Waterman factory in France as they are both part of the Newell group.

Edited April 7, 2018 by Matlock

[Methersgate]

Very interesting thread. I think that Parker's approach to business was very much the one that we associate with "American big business" of the 20th Century. The Lucky Curve, the Jack Knife and the Duofold - all assiduously promoted with a really good understanding of marketing - got Parker to the top in terms of sales and their heavy investment in the Vacumatic kept them there until they pulled off their biggest coup of all with the "51", but ironically the second half of the last century saw them run out of ideas, diversify away from pens and so on. It's a good business case study.

[Arstook]

 

Ironic really now that Parker pens are made in the Waterman factory in France as they are both part of the Newell group.

Haha, yes, as the company changed hands somehow things went full circle. So it's currently Newell (Parker, Waterman) vs. A.T. Cross (Cross, Sheaffer) for supremacy. They both seem to be gunning for market share of the mid-level corporate gift market. While I think the companies above make solid pens, I personally wish they would evolve to have a boutique line or two, something catering to fountain pen nerds. I'm thinking of the example of Kaweco, TWSBI, or Edison who really seem responsive to the fountain pen aficionados and create pens with wilder looking designs and systems.

[pajaro]

I liked some of the USA Parkers, 51 mainly. These Sonnets made in the Waterman factory, and each Sonnet I have with a nice little rivet punched through the inner cap, not so much, even if they are as beautiful as the Carenes.

 

Edit to add: The Carenes I have tend to dry out too.

Edited April 8, 2018 by pajaro

[mitto]

To me all the four brands - Parker, Sheaffer, Waterman and Cross have long been dead. I have no interest, whatsoever, in what is being produced currently under these brand names.

[Matlock]

Newell have recently set up a division within the group, called Fine Writing Pens of London. This is to promote the prestige range of Parker and Waterman pens and to manage the Parker Museum which is now located in London. It also handles the Parker records and the two Royal Warrants that Parker hold. Another aspect is the Travelling Exhibitions that Parker arrange throughout the world.

[Methersgate]

I can pick up a Vacumatic, an Aerometric 51 or an Aerometric Newhaven Duofold and, with one limitation, it will do the job that it was designed and made for, between 80 and 50 years ago, just as well as a modern pen will. (The limitation is - dont take a Vac (including Vac 51s) or a button or AF Duofold on a plane!) These pens were really well made, by people with a pride in their work.

Edited April 8, 2018 by Methersgate

[mitto]

+1

[welch]

Very interesting thread. I think that Parker's approach to business was very much the one that we associate with "American big business" of the 20th Century. The Lucky Curve, the Jack Knife and the Duofold - all assiduously promoted with a really good understanding of marketing - got Parker to the top in terms of sales and their heavy investment in the Vacumatic kept them there until they pulled off their biggest coup of all with the "51", but ironically the second half of the last century saw them run out of ideas, diversify away from pens and so on. It's a good business case study.

 

I don't think Parker ran out of ideas. It's more that their ideas ran along in fountain pens and good ballpoints. The P-61 was a great idea with flaws, and the P-45 was perfect. The P-75 was an excellent follow-on to the 45, if people had wanted to pay good money for a pen. Parker's problem: they could not make a good profit in the lower-priced mass-market. The Jotter was and still is a great product, but Parker would have needed to sell many more Jotters than they knew how. (See quote in Parker Penography from a Parker exec about the Jotter).

 

A second problem: the market went toward portable electric typewriters for home and dormitory, plus ballpoints and fiber-tipped pens, and then micro-computers and on to digital note-keeping. Take the biggest pen companies of 1950: only Parker survived.

[Methersgate]

You are quite right. I was much too glib. The business climate had turned against, not the companys products, but all products of that type. Parker were left selling buggy whips to motorists.

 

Which makes the history of Parker an even better business school case study.

Edited April 8, 2018 by Methersgate

[Arstook]

Welch and Methersgate, I believe both of you are absolutely right. To build off both of your points, the ballpoint revolution turned the pen marketplace into a race to the bottom, of who could produce the cheapest pen for the lowest manufacturing costs. It's not that Parker couldn't have transitioned into something like BIC. It certainly had the know how and infrastructure to do that. It's that it wanted to continue its reputation as an upmarket pen manufacturer. It chose to remain as that at a moment in which upmarket pens commanded a smaller and smaller market share for the reasons you guys pointed out. As Methersgate said, a very American business story indeed.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Arstook

[Matlock]

 

Take the biggest pen companies of 1950: only Parker survived.

Actually that is not quite true. Parker folded and was bought out by the Newhaven Management team. They the sold the operation to Gillette. Now owned by Newell and manufactured by Waterman. The name has survived but not the company.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Matlock

[max dog]

Welch and Methersgate, I believe both of you are absolutely right. To build off both of your points, the ballpoint revolution turned the pen marketplace into a race to the bottom, of who could produce the cheapest pen for the lowest manufacturing costs. It's not that Parker couldn't have transitioned into something like BIC. It certainly had the know how and infrastructure to do that. It's that it wanted to continue its reputation as an upmarket pen manufacturer. It chose to remain as that at a moment in which upmarket pens commanded a smaller and smaller market share for the reasons you guys pointed out. As Methersgate said, a very American business story indeed.

I think quite the contrary. Parker should have adopted the business/marketing logic of Montblanc in the 1990s and pushed the writing instrument as object of desire. Instead they kept making Jotters, IM, (low tier pens) and got run over by BICs and Papermates. They lost ground competing in the mud with the bottom feeders.

 

The same can be said of Sheaffer and Cross.

Edited April 9, 2018 by max dog

[Arstook]

I think quite the contrary. Parker should have adopted the business/marketing logic of Montblanc in the 1990s and pushed the writing instrument as object of desire. Instead they kept making Jotters, IM, (low tier pens) and got run over by BICs and Papermates. They lost ground competing in the mud with the bottom feeders.

 

The same can be said of Sheaffer and Cross.

I wasn't arguing for the virtue of one marketing model over another. I was just saying that the model that Parker adopted was fighting over a piece of a shrinking pie, the upmarket. I don't believe Parker tried to compete toe to toe with the bottom feeders. Its Jotter for example, was $2.95 when it debuted in 1954. Adjusted for inflation for 2018, it amounts to $27.04. In 1957 with the introduction of the T-Ball Jotter, the price was lowered to $1.95 which amounts to $17.87 in today's money. By comparison, the BIC Cristal which was unleashed on the American market in 1959 was sold for $ .29 or $2.47 in today's money. Even by cheap ballpoint standards, Parker seized the affordable quality mid-range niche and not the bottom.

(I used dollartimes.com for the inflation estimates)

 

I believe that Parker's strategy was geared towards making some money from the mid to affordable range market, but trying to secure big profits in the gift/luxury pen niche. They just chose a bad time to do so in the 1960s and 1970s.

 

An anecdote I found on the creation of the Parker 75 from ParkerPens.net gives an example of its thought process: "Parker tried (as they had before) to capture the broad markets with cheaper pens: Parker '21', Parker '41' and the Parker "45" (introduced in 1960, that was to become Parkers greatest seller in the low-priced area). But Kenneth Parker was not satisfied. The Parker company was always reluctant to appear as anything but a high-classed company that made high-classed pens, and since the Parker '61' never became the ultra-seller Parker had hoped, KP (so called by his employees) wanted to introduce yet another top-line fountain pen. Another reason was that even if the Parker '45' and the Jotter sold very well, they also sold for very little money, leaving Parker with a small margin. Kenneth Parker characterized the company as being 'in the early stages of rigor mortis unless something is done to recapture the higher-priced, gift-oriented business'. Kenneth Parker wanted the new pen to be aesthetic, innovative, expensive and a good writer." Source: https://parkerpens.net/parker75.html

 

I hear what you're saying about the Montblanc model though. I believe Aurora did a similar thing. I heard an interview with its CEO who was saying that in the 1990s, he had the tough choice of outsourcing pen manufacture to East Asia or climbing way up the luxury ladder to sell Italian-made pens but at very high prices. He chose the latter.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Arstook

[max dog]

I think in the 1990s, all the big established pen brands faced extinction by computers, word processors, and email. Suddenly you didnt need pen for written correspondence. The writing instrument market became a rapidly shrinking market. Instead of competing in that shrinking market, Montblanc tried to grow a boutique higher end, pen as a very special item market, to survive. My point is Parker would have been better off focusing there.

[Arstook]

I think in the 1990s, all the big established pen brands faced extinction by computers, word processors, and email. Suddenly you didnt need pen for written correspondence. The writing instrument market became a rapidly shrinking market. Instead of competing in that shrinking market, Montblanc tried to grow a boutique higher end, pen as a very special item market, to survive. My point is Parker would have been better off focusing there.

I wouldn't have been able to afford any of them, but I agree with you.

[max dog]

I wouldn't have been able to afford any of them, but I agree with you.

It doesn't have to be high end luxury necessarily. Lamy ascribe to the same philosophy as Montblanc, and yet they offer some affordable pens. It's not about the utilitarian aspect of the writing instrument (utilitarian pen market was in a race to the bottom), but the meaning of it that they shifted their focus to, creating a niche "enthusiasts market" distinct from the rapidly shrinking "utilitarian pen" market.

 

A Montblanc executive said in the 1990s:

"....with the advent of the computer. The consumer didn’t need a fine writing instrument anymore as a day-to-day tool the way they used to. There was also a behavioral change.....

 

"...so we began to focus less on the function of our product and much more on the meaning of our product and how it relates to you as a person..."

 

 

This strategy saved their hides and enabled Monblanc to flourish, while Parker and many other established brands tried to be everything for everyone producing ultra cheap to ultra expensive pens, and could not make a profit, and went down or out of business.

.

Edited April 10, 2018 by max dog