the plot thickens. Axiss’s own lawsuit appendices documents and acknowledges a history of faulty Soulution equipment before blaming another dealer and speaker company, their owners, and a youtube reviewer (but not Jay’s Audio even though Jay discussed the incident, perhaps because he also raves about Soulution amps). Presumably, behind the scenes Soulution endorses and is feeding the lawsuit.
Depositions and trial testimonies of executives and their experts will be interesting and influence many purchase decisions as the lawsuit has infuenced mine. I also still wonder how Soulution sales increased 300% while also declining 78% due to alleged fault of Axiss’s defendants. Its calculations seem bogus as much as the lawsuit (which also seems poor marketing for the Axiss brands).
Was there information shared, or lack of that makes these claims dubious? From a growth standpoint, that should be pretty easy to show with YoY performance. Decline or stagnation after that growth period would also be easy to show – the hard part is attributing it to the defendants’ actions. It sounds like they intend to use Jay and his two customers to help prove that.
Both numbers are manipulated. I understand that the 78% drop is based on comparing a couple good months with a couple bad months and then blaming the drop on Bovaird/Suncoast/Weigand/Clarisys and the youtuber. If this is a fact, it is a fraud upon the court. I suspect that the 300% is similarly bogus and fraudulent.
I guess I’m not sure what information/dataset you’re basing that on? Sure, it’s a possibility that someone tries to manipulate their reporting, but I don’t see how you could come to that conclusion with the information currently available. IIRC they quoted the 300% figure was since taking on Soulution, so roughly a 2 year period.
From the link I referred to a few posts ago, although the number is 88%, not 78 (a typo on my part)…taking data from a couple quarters excited by a new high-promotion launch to 3 months a couple years after excitement subsided and Axiss prepared and acknowledged reports having nothing to do with the defendants but a much larger sample compared to the one amplifier in the lawsuit. (juries just love confusing statistics) I’d do better on the witness stand and have much more to say about this and other lawsuit matters after review of discovery documents and executive/expert depositions. That Jay may testify against the defendants in view of what he has reported over the years would be most interesting to many and possibly impact his business. Cross examination can be intense and impact one’s reputation. I might even travel to the trial, popcorn in hand, and post a review. I so enjoy the witness stand.
(edit: a few months ago, Jay published a remarkable video with Bovaird and Wiegand about industry and magazine pressures on marketers/manufacturers, about the pay to play)