Advertising, And Fancy Showrooms

[D.P. Roberts]

There's not enough arguments going on over Costco tubs. Let me add more!

Many pro-Costco people have stated that they're paying less for a Costco tub because they don't pay the extra expense of a "fancy showroom", glossy brochures, and everything else that goes into the marketing of a "premium" spa.

That's not entirely the truth, and here's why:

Good advertising pays for itself.

EXAMPLE NUMBER ONE: ADVERTISING

Say, for example, that you're a hot tub dealer. You buy your spas from the manufacturer/distributor for $5000 each, and you turn around and sell them for $5010 to the consumer, making a profit of $10 on each spa. So, every time you sell a spa, you make $10.

A magazine sales rep approaches you, and offers to sell you advertising space in the magazine for $100. Do you buy the space, or not?

First, you do the math. You need to sell enough spas from the magazine ad to make it worthwhile for you. At $10 profit per spa, you need to sell 10 spas to break even (10 spas x $10 per spa = $100). If you sell more than 10, the ad is worthwhile for you. If not, the ad is a waste of your money.

So, GOOD advertising - the kind that makes money for the dealer - actually HELPS the consumer. The costs of the advertising is indeed spread among all customers- you ARE paying for it. But by bringing in more profits than it costs, the dealer spreads the costs of doing business over a wider group, reducing the EXPENSES per spa.

EXAMPLE NUMBER TWO: FANCY SHOWROOMS

My local Sundance/Jacuzzi dealer just moved into a brand-new building. It has a big pond out front, with a pretty fountain. The local Hot Spring / Caldera dealer just expanded, nearly doubling the display area they have for spas. They also do a lot of advertising on TV. Both dealers have been around for decades.

Did these expansions cost a lot of money? Of course. But as I said, both dealers have been doing this for decades. They're good businessmen. They wouldn't have spent the cash if they thought it wouldn't help their business (i.e. make them more profitable). They could have spent more, and they could have done less. They invested what they thought was the right amount of money to maximize their sales (and profits).

EXAMPLE NUMBER THREE: THOSE GLOSSY BROCHURES

I love brochures. I love the pretty pictures, the fancy illustrations. I love the DVD movies. I like to read them carefully, to see how each manufacturer promotes itself, to see what their philosophy is. My problem is that I have a hard time getting my hands on brochures from most hot tub companies.

I live in a rural area, with only a few brands available to me. When I've requested brochures from the manufacturer's web sites, I've only received a handful of them - only for those dealers who are actually near me. Those who are not in my area have sent me a nice postcard, telling me they're hoping to be "in your area soon". Or, I've received a response via e-mail. In most cases, I've had to answer a series of questions before I could request the brochure, such as where I live, how soon I'm planning on buying, etc. They're trying to focus their advertising dollars on customers who might actually buy a spa from them. They know, as you do, that brochures aren't free, or even cheap. They want to put their money to good use.

The question, then, is where do the PROFITS go. It could be, as Costco buyers have said, that Costco charges a bare minimum markup on their spas, and the manufacturers are barely getting by. I guess the people who own Hydrospa, Infinity, or whatever are naturally good people, and not interested in making a profit.

On the other hand, the "premium" spas allegedly have a 100% markup. Premium dealers, and the manufacturers behind them, are more greedy than the people of Hydrospa and Infinity. They sit on their yachts, eating caviar, and laughing while the poor owners of the Hydrospa company live in a hovel and eat Ramen noodles every night.

Or, the owners of ALL spa companies are out to make a profit. They all set prices which they believe will lead them to make the most profit (remember supply and demand)? And they're all fighting tooth and nail for market share. The ones making the least amount of money are doing what they can to make more, and the ones who are on top are doing what they can to stay there.

So, buy a Costco tub if you want. You may be saving money by not buying a "brand name" spa. But if you think "wet testing" a spa is stupid because you don't want to pay for a "fancy showroom", you're wrong.

[104 Degrees]

IMO some dealers have given the spa buisness a bad name. the tubs from the internet and Costco type stores are giving there spa makers a bad name.

A proud(dealer & nordic backed) Crown xl owner and user.

John 104 degrees

[Stevie]

There's not enough arguments going on over Costco tubs. Let me add more!<snip>

So, buy a Costco tub if you want. You may be saving money by not buying a "brand name" spa. But if you think "wet testing" a spa is stupid because you don't want to pay for a "fancy showroom", you're wrong.

Well articulated! I'd add some things I thought of but we're heading out the door to go to Calgary for my sons Provincial Tourny... Have a good weekend all...

[104 Degrees]

There's not enough arguments going on over Costco tubs. Let me add more!

<snip>

So, buy a Costco tub if you want. You may be saving money by not buying a "brand name" spa. But if you think "wet testing" a spa is stupid because you don't want to pay for a "fancy showroom", you're wrong.

Well articulated! I'd add some things I thought of but we're heading out the door to go to Calgary for my sons Provincial Tourny... Have a good weekend all...

Same to you!!

[mark2550]

EXAMPLE NUMBER TWO: FANCY SHOWROOMS

Did these expansions cost a lot of money? Of course. But as I said, both dealers have been doing this for decades. They're good businessmen. They wouldn't have spent the cash if they thought it wouldn't help their business (i.e. make them more profitable). They could have spent more, and they could have done less. They invested what they thought was the right amount of money to maximize their sales (and profits)..

You make a very strong point here do dealer's make such a profit to add these nice features to their stores from the consumers or are they selling so many spas it just make sense to make a store more attactive to the consumer I think point #1 speaks for it's self no dealer makes their store more attractive do to poor sells they wouldn't absorb the cost might lower their product profit first(this is just another way of advertising) you be the judge.

[Tom]

Please, as a matter of netiquette, do not quote the entirety of a long post. Leave in the

line, edit the comment to leave only the relevant parts to which you wish to respond, leave the end

tag.

Makes it so much easier to follow the thread without scrolling forever to reach your comment!

Thanks

Tom

[spatech (the unreal one)]

do not quote the entirety of a long post.

I agree!!!

[Ddub69]

Short is good

[mark2550]

Since everyone on this site dogs the costco tub's for insulation could you all please tell me where the most heat lost would come from if it's the top of the spa tell me what your covers are using to keep the cost down and please don't tell me it styrofoam wrapped in plastic and then tell me a full foam sprayed in foam tub is more efficient since any fool knows heat rises!!!!!!!!!!!

[Pathfinder]

Heat actually radiates & radiates to the direction of thermal indifference first.(Hot travels to cold)-Fourier's law of heat conduction: heat travels from areas of high teprature to areas of low temperature in the direction of the temperature gradient

[104 Degrees]

Since everyone on this site dogs the costco tub's for insulation could you all please tell me where the most heat lost would come from if it's the top of the spa tell me what your covers are using to keep the cost down and please don't tell me it styrofoam wrapped in plastic and then tell me a full foam sprayed in foam tub is more efficient since any fool knows heat rises!!!!!!!!!!!

Wind also plays a factor.

[D.P. Roberts]

Since everyone on this site dogs the costco tub's for insulation could you all please tell me where the most heat lost would come from if it's the top of the spa tell me what your covers are using to keep the cost down and please don't tell me it styrofoam wrapped in plastic and then tell me a full foam sprayed in foam tub is more efficient since any fool knows heat rises!!!!!!!!!!!

Technically, as the others have mentioned, heat does not actually rise - the energy from heat transfers to areas with less heat/energy. Warm air rises because the air molecules are more active, and therefore less dense, and therefore lighter than heavier, colder air. The same is true for water.

So the question, then is this: is heat more likely to be transferred to the air above the surface of the water, or to the shell & insulation? I have no idea. I'm sure someone on this board knows. Either way, this is where - as you mentioned - a cover is vitally important. If you have a good quality cover that keeps the hot air in, heat will be less likely to be transferred to the air.

And to me, this is where the argument for many thermopane spas has never made sense to me. Many thermopane companies go on and on about how the thermopaned area keeps the plumbing warm, and how the air from a blower or injectors is warm - "with full foamed spas, you're cooling the spa with cold, outside air! Our thermopane spas use warm air, so you don't pay to reheat your spa!

That's just false. The air in a thermopane spa is hot because that heat was LOST from the spa. You paid for that heat that escaped from the spa, and you pay to reheat the spa after that heat is lost. Some of that heat may come from the pumps, but if you consider that the pumps are only on for a fraction of the day, the bulk of the heat in a thermopane spa must come from the spa itself.

This is NOT to say that thermopane is necessarily a bad design. If the manufacturer fully insulates the side walls and the floor, the thermopaned area is pretty much the same thing as the air space above the surface of the water. Companies like Arctic seem to have put a lot of thought into their designs (like having special panels to cool the cabinet area during summer, which keeps pumps from overheating). I just wouldn't trust a manufacturer who treats thermopane as some kind of magic bullet that's inherently superior to full foam. And I DEFINITELY wouldn't trust a manufacturer that only has a sliver of foil inside the cabinet and calls it a thermopane.

[Tom]

So the question, then is this: is heat more likely to be transferred to the air above the surface of the water, or to the shell & insulation? I have no idea.

You are looking at energy transfer at an interface between two disparate substances, in the first water to air and in the second water to acrylic. The thermal conductivity of these substances can be found fairly readily. Google "thermal conductivity of acrylic" and you'll get figures ranging from about 0.14 to 0.23 Watts per square meter degree C (depending on the properties of the acrylic and the temperature gradient for the test). Do the same for air and you'll find .024, .025 or thereabouts.

Just from that, you can see that acrylic is about 6 to 10 times as conductive as air, so more heat will transfer through the shell. So much for "heat rises"! The air sitting over the water is actually a fair insulator.

However, because air is a fluid and the volume of air above the water in a hot tub is significant (several hundred litres), convective currents and heat lost to evaporation may come into play. Evaporation will reach equilibrium after a while (water condenses on the underside of the cover, returning heat to the system) so I think we can discount it as a significant source of heat loss. Convection will speed the heat exchange, by continually bringing new lower energy air molecules over the water, and the heated air molecules will rise to be next to the cover, where they will lose heat. While this convective loss cannot be denied, I can't see that this would be a sufficient additional loss compared to the many times greater thermal conductivity of the acrylic.

So my answer is: more is lost to the shell next to the water than to the air above the water.

[Chas]

Convection will speed the heat exchange, by continually bringing new lower energy air molecules over the water, and the heated air molecules will rise to be next to the cover, where they will lose heat. While this convective loss cannot be denied, I can't see that this would be a sufficient additional loss compared to the many times greater thermal conductivity of the acrylic.

So my answer is: more is lost to the shell next to the water than to the air above the water.

Well put. I will add this: any large volume of air will have convection currents, and that will cause cooling. How much cooling is hard to say - it would have to be measured on a case-by-case basis. That would include the air in a TP spa cabinet, where the convection currents could be helping to draw heat from the back of the spa shell if there is no insulation there.

Look at some TP spas and note that they have a full 3" or even 4" of foam on the back of the spa shell. That will stop just about all significant heat loss, so the only heat going into the TP air chambers will be from pumps, or plumbing that might be located there.

[Tom]

That would include the air in a TP spa cabinet, where the convection currents could be helping to draw heat from the back of the spa shell if there is no insulation there.

Depends on the temperature gradient. If the air inside the cavity is warmer than the water (which can happen), the energy exchange will be in the other direction, and heat will be conducted through the shell into the water.

But we digress. To tie this into the topic of the thread (cost of fancy showrooms), if a running spa has no or little insulation and is leaking heat into the showroom, the dealer's heating costs will be reduced, thereby saving him money, allowing him to sell his uninsulated spas for even less!!