[Teflon Mike]

I also figured that Victory was no longer that important to Polaris when they took the Victory entry level bike and made it into the Scout. It even looks like a Victory. Now that is cannibilzation at its worst.

I've seen a lot of people say this for a good while now. Has anyone actually substantiated this claim? Not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to read from Polaris that this is indeed what happened.

 

[Teflon Mike]

Can't say there wasn't some affect to Vic from sharing the same assembly facility. I feel they can handle both and so adaptable, once a new model can get its part built, well:

2015 Assembly Plant of the Year: Flexibility Shines Bright at Polaris ...
www.assemblymag.com › articles › 9306...
Oct 2, 2015 - In addition to building Indian and Victory motorcycles, the ..... factory-custom bikes on the sameline as high-volume .... The Indian and Victory motorcycle assembly lines use 40 AGCs.

I'm sure theyd have the ability to change a victory to an Indian scout as the rumor suggests. I've just never seen any concrete evidence that that's what happened. In my opinion the scout looks like an Indian, not a rebadged vic.

I just wouldn't mind getting to the bottom of that rumor, or if there was any sort of official verification that I missed that the scout was indeed meant to be a vic.

Not that it makes the slightest difference to me. Just wondering.

 

[Teflon Mike]

Pretty sure under the skin, there will be a lot of similar components, just smart business sense...

Oh for sure. It's just that I've read all over the place that scout was intended to be a Vic model first and Indian got the rights to it in the end because of the Indian name I guess? I think that's how it goes. I just wonder the validity of such claims and how that rumor even got started. Also, in addition, it looks like they took their time with the styling, making it look like an Indian with the fenders and head design and whathaveyou. To say it was supposed to be a Vic all along, they sure got the styling switched in a hurry.

 

[Teflon Mike]

It was a Victory. Polaris gave it to Indian. The Polaris guys just smile and say naaahh when you ask them but just look at it. It's a Victory with fake pushrods on the engine. Since all the good stuff they put on Indian could have been put on Victory why not steal the entry level bike and ride the wave of success they were realizing with Indian. They ****ed Victory for the sake of Indian. No doubt about it. It sure as hell doesn't resemble the Scouts of the past but it more than resembles a Victory.

Ok, let's say you're right, and Indian stole the Vic model and badged it scout. What will your angle be if victory comes out with the ignition sporting a beefed up scout platform? They still getting the shaft from Polaris? I don't see it. Polaris is dumping gobs of cash into victory. They literally just released an electric bike. I just don't see any issue, in fact I see them backing their company vision with Indian being heratige oriented and victory being performance oriented. It's exciting and I can't wait to see what they have planned for both Vic and Indian.

 

[Teflon Mike]

Is it too late in this discussion to ask what difference it makes at this point what the bike was "supposed to be"? As of the moment and likely hereafter, the Scout is an Indian and not a Victory. And all the debate in the world will not change that fact.

BOARHUNTER

I feel like coffeedave feels like the brand is on its way out and to prove his point, he's using the unsubstantiated rumor that Polaris had plans for a new Vic bike, but instead gave it to Indian. You're right, it doesn't make a difference and now we have an Indian scout and we have victory doing whatever the hell they're doing trying to stay on the cutting edge of what they feel is performance.

I guess some hold it against Vic, or Indian, or Polaris that Indian (the brand new acquisition they've spent hundreds of million of dollars on reviving) got dibs on a platform. Whereas me personally, am just curious to know if that was the case and why it should reflect poorly on any party, given that we have an Indian scout and more than likely an upgraded version for the victory line.

 

[Teflon Mike]

There's a mini doco that I've been searching for to post that gets played at my factory dealership.. It covers everything from the history to the design of the scout and interviews all the major players throughout the whole process I.e. filmed during the initial design phase through to release....

The scout was never a Vic!!!!!

I'd love to see it

 

[Teflon Mike]

This thread just took a deep, dark turn

 

[Teflon Mike]

When?

oil

 

[Teflon Mike]

On the on hand you say it's not a marketing issue and in the next sentence raise a major marketing factor, price. The Scout sixty is going to be introduced precisely because there is a marketing issue (price) with respect to the original Scout.

How many Scouts were sold the first year? Beyond that, as mentioned before, one year's worth of sales doesn't equate to a model being a success. That's true of the Scout or any other bike made by any other manufacturer including Harley.

As for why someone would spend $9K for something other then a Scout, that's a very personal, individual question with a very personal and individual answer. As one of the individuals in video said, "the public gets to say whether or not a bike is legendary" and I think it will take years to determine exactly what the public is saying.

A major point was made during the video regarding the issue of the Indian brand being legendary, and it is. That characteristic (legendary) is a factor in why people buy certain motorcycles and what weight it plays in the buying decision is an individual issue.

I say all of this as a person that likes the Scout and think it's a phenomenal motorcycle but I've seen exactly one on the road in the NYC area so I'm not yet ready to classify it as a legendary motorcycle.

This is a little beyond my scope to be honest. I like vic, I like Indian, hell I like some hds. I don't really get Into the iconic/legendary stuff and whether or not it lives up to its name. That was all before me.

What I will say is it's a hell of a bike and in my eyes it resembles an Indian more than a vic in my humble opinion.

Also, ghostrider, I know you're a tall dude. Ride a scout anyway to see what the fuss is. I was reluctant to take it for a spin because of the ergonomics, but afterwards, I couldn't shake the smile from my face. It's just a hoot to skip around town short distances. It just brought out the kid in me that I thought was long forgotten.

 

[Teflon Mike]

First, I didn't use the term "marketing failure". What I said was there was a marketing issue that limited the ability to sell the Scout. That issue was price and Indian is addressing that issue with the Scout Sixty, a less expensive bike.

It's actually pretty widely known that the scout is a smash hit and the only hindrance in sales was the ability to fulfill orders fast enough (I believe it was a paint issue that polaris decided to nip in the bud right away because they were so focused on the introduction being as perfect as possible.)

"Polaris' successful 2014 came in spite of a few problems, which can be expected for any motorcycle brand. In the company's case, delays in production slowed down what could have been a stronger sales figure. The resulting backlog of bike products didn't help Polaris, either, while the stop sale and ride order issued for the Slingshot could still have some long term ramifications for the company in the event a full recall is issued."

Polaris Posts Fifth Straight Year Of Increased Motorcycle Sales

This issue carried all the way through 2015 as polaris worked to find a solution to the paint issue asap. I haven't read anywhere that sales were impacted by price point of the scout. The paint issue was a major cluster**** and cost the company 20 million to upgrade grear and thats not taking into account warranty work with the paint. They decided to go against advisors advise and cut corners instead of investing into a paint facility. Some heads rolled after the decision to save money backfired on the company.

 

[Teflon Mike]

I dont know why it came out like that ^. But I am well aware of what went down with the scout sales because I have one and it took 6 months to get it after the order was placed so I kept up on what was going on the whole time.

 

[Teflon Mike]

If a company predicts it's going to sell 100 of a particular model and sells 125 it can characterize those sales as a smashing success. But that success has to be put in a context beyond what the company says. Where are the hard numbers on the number of Scouts sold? That is the only number that defines whether the bike was a smashing success.

Its relative. A small mom and pop burger joint doesn't have to keep up with mcdonalds to be a success and have a healthy profit. Market share isnt the only indicator of success. Besides Steve Menneto went on record saying they'd like to see Indian and Victory combined take up 15%-20% market share. Harley dominates market share. Polaris is still a healthy profitable company.

f​

Where are the hard numbers on the number of Scouts sold?

They don't release those numbers, or the number of units sold on any of their motorcycles for that matter.

I've provided my sources indicating the problem with sales was due to an issue with paint. Would you like to share your source indicating their sales were effected by price point, or would you like to move the goal posts again?

 

[Teflon Mike]

Without sales numbers there is no context in which to proclaim a product is a resounding success. As far as sourcing to indicate sales were affected by price point, if pricing wasn't an issue in reaching a broader market there would be no need to produce the smaller displacement and less expensive Scout Sixty.

I feel like you're arguing for the sake of argument. I could pull up a dozen sources all saying sales were impacted by an issue with paint and they weren't able to meet the demand on time because of it. You've yet to provide one source claiming poor sales due to price point. You said a page back you'd wait for someone to source weak sales for scout. I did that. Now I'll wait for you to source weak sales due to price point.

FYI, if sales were so weak, why couldn't they fulfill the demand. I should have ridden out on the scout the day I ordered it due to so many being built they should have been over stocked since they can't get rid of them due to price point.

 

[Teflon Mike]

Anyone who thinks that the Scout isn't selling well is dead wrong. Why not add the 60 to the lineup? The original Scout is a rocket on wheels and actually overpowered for a starter bike. The 60 fits that bill perfectly. Now just get something like it to Vic.

Coffee Dave talking some sense

 

[Teflon Mike]

You start this post with "I feel" so let me clarify, I'm not having this discussion for the sake of argument or in any way to bash the Scout. It was one of the bikes I considered in my search for my next bike. I read the reviews and probably watch ever video on YouTube about the bike. But after sitting on one at the dealer I realized it didn't fit what I was looking for which was more in line with the Gunner, Highball and Street Bob.

That said, having spent 30 years in marketing and engineering, I'm a numbers person. I'm not impressed by marketing superlatives but by numbers that support the superlatives. Triumph900 mentioned VIN numbers and individuals checking in with numbers in the 9000 range. Do we assume the numbers started at 000001 and the 009000 represents 9000 Scouts sold?

Polaris 2014 motorcycle sales (Indian, Victory and Slingshot) was $349M. Bump that up by 20% for 2015 and it's $418M. At $10K per bike (round number for a Scout), selling 9000 bikes would be $90M. That would mean almost one quarter of all the motorcycle revenue (Indian, Victory and Slingshot) came from the sale of Scouts and the number of Scouts sold would be more that 25% of all the motorcycles sold by Polaris given the significantly higher pricing of the other bikes they sell. I don't think so.

This isn't a matter of me being argumentative but trying to put some flesh (hard numbers and facts) on the bones of motorcycle marketing superlatives. I'm not a Harley fan boy, a Victory fan boy or an Indian fan boy. Actually I'm a motorcycle fan boy. I think the Scout is an awesome bike although it's not personally for me an the type of riding I do. I hope both the Victory and Indian lines do well (couldn't care any less about the Slingshot) because I'll be considering both of them in my next go around (and Harley). But I don't buy into the hype from any company raving about their numbers unless they are willing to reveal the numbers.

To my cheese wedge brothers that may have taken offense to anything I've said, I really did not become a member of this forum to bash anybody or the motorcycle they ride. I came here to learn about the Victory line, share out common love for riding and maybe offer some input based on my experience. That's it, no ulterior motive, no axe to grind and no chip on my shoulder.

This is a solid post. And also I'm happy to engage in discussion with anyone that may have opposing views.

That's fine that you place emphasis on cold hard numbers and without any, it's purely speculation. We're in agreement. Where we differ is when I bring up facts based on vetted sources that you either disregard or change the subject because it doesn't fit your narrative.

I'll sleep soundly tonight regardless of how the scout is selling. I have no stake in it. I just want to bring facts to the table no matter how upsetting they may be.

So here's to a cut and dry discussion about Indian sales without regard to how I feel about the company. I try to be unbiased but we all are in one way or a other. Anyway, have a good one. Ride safe.

 

[Teflon Mike]

Well ok, we can go here. But I did warn you I was armed with facts to have this discussion right? You see this world is full of people who would rather live worse off and have someone to blame it on than live better off yet give a little credit to, or admit they were wrong about someone they didn't vote for. This goes for both sides btw. And as I mentioned, there never has nor will there ever be a perfect economy. Give me any decade, 1980, 1990's, 2000's, 2010's...pick any period that you think times were good and I can give you a laundry list of "yeah but..."s. The presence of a less than ideal indicator does not negate the overall aggregate.

Now, weren't you the one a few pages ago that didn't want speculation or conjecture but cold hard factual numbers? The cold hard numbers are we went from terrible collapse to pretty good. 6 million jobs in the last two years, almost 14 million new jobs over the last seven years. That's job growth, not job loss. Foreclosures down, savings up. Gas prices down, disposable income up. Consumer confidence high, consumer spending high. Construction, manufacturing, service...actually ever sector, job growth.

Here's a simple way to look at it. Remember those people I mentioned that would rather be worse off with someone to blame? What comes with that is a market. A market for politicians out of power to try and gain power and a market for biased media to feed it. Don't tell the people what they need to hear, tell them what they want to hear and you'll get them coming back for more. That equals ratings, that equals money, that equals power and influence. Don't think it doesn't happen, and again both sides guilty at different times. These are the people trying to tell us "yeah but" today. Ignore the cold hard fact that we've had 70 consecutive months of positive job growth, blowing away the previous record of 51 months. Never mind that because a lot of these jobs aren't great. Well lets look at what else these nay sayers have been telling us over the last seven years. Remember the stimulus? That was a certain failure that was going to lead to hyper inflation. Economy went from contraction to expansion, inflation practically non-existent. Remember the GM bailout? Certain failure, could never succeed. In 2015 GM and the rest of the American auto makers posted their best year ever. Not best year in 5 or 10 years, best year EVER. They sold more cars and truck than any other year since the invention of the automobile. Certain failure hah. I could go on and on but in a nutshell, everything the opposition said was going to cause doom and gloom...didn't. They have a perfect record of being wrong every time they made predictions.

So now I'm being told look beyond the cold hard factual numbers because even though auto manufacturers sold more cars than ever before, even though motorcycle manufacturers sold more motorcycles than ever, even though construction is up, corporate profits are up, unemployment is down, interest rates are low, inflation is low, gas is 1.65 a gallon and about to drop more, yada yada yada. Ignore all those cold hard fact and believe someone who says Harley introduced the Street and Indian introduced the Scout because we're living in a dream. We're about to wake up and no one will be able to afford a Chieftain or Street Glide. Um...no.

Harley introduced the Street because they want to go from a 250,000 units a year American cruiser manufacturer to 1,000,000 units a year worldwide competitor. Polaris introduced the Indian Scouts and soon to be Victory Octane because they want to go from 50k units a year to 150k units a year. Today IS motorcycles Heyday. Harley has never had this extensive a lineup. Same for Victory, Indian, BMW, Triumph, Ducati, etc. Their sales justify it. Will there be a recession tomorrow? Well we can bet our asses there will be another one sooner or later, that's how it works. That doesn't negate the fact that the economy was so good in 2015 that more cars and bikes were sold last year than any other year. You can't get better than the best.

Wtf am I supposed to do with this pallet of baked beans I just ordered?

 

[Teflon Mike]

Mike
There good in good times and bad. Your good to go..... Lol

Lol. Disclaimer, I'm a wannabe prepper in all seriousness though. But No pallets of beans......... Yet.