What do you think of Gibson and potentially illegal woods?

[fumblefingers]

interesting. what is the basis of that prediction? do you think that all but the finest of the Gibson guitars simply cannot be made affordably in the US? or is there another rationale to the prediction?

if they go offshore, will this wood protection, and nationalistic protectionism (i know, that’s redundant) remain an issue for the offshore operations? or will it allow them to escape the environmentalist constraints and maximize sales/profit?

thanks.

[abracadabra]

^^I was wondering that too.

Gibson obviously highly values its MIA status. off-shoring the production of Gibson-branded guitars would be a big move.

[Synchro]

Originally Posted by fumblefingers

interesting. what is the basis of that prediction? do you think that all but the finest of the Gibson guitars simply cannot be made affordably in the US? or is there another rationale to the prediction?

if they go offshore, will this wood protection, and nationalistic protectionism (i know, that’s redundant) remain an issue for the offshore operations? or will it allow them to escape the environmentalist constraints and maximize sales/profit?

thanks.

Originally Posted by abracadabra

^^I was wondering that too.

Gibson obviously highly values its MIA status. off-shoring the production of Gibson-branded guitars would be a big move.

In my opinion, Henry & Company will eventually run Gibson into the ground and someone will buy the name and IP but have no need for the production facilities. Voila, Gibsons from the far east.

[Patrick2]

Originally Posted by Synchro

In my opinion, Henry & Company will eventually run Gibson into the ground and someone will buy the name and IP but have no need for the production facilities. Voila, Gibsons from the far east.

I think that's been pretty much the prediction for the past 20 years hasn't it? Yet, Gibson keeps growing . . keeps attracting new upstart guitarists . . continues to retain most of their super star endorsers . . . remains one of the 2 most desireable guitar brands on the planet. I wish all American iconic brands had a CEO that ran their companies into the groung like that.

[Synchro]

Originally Posted by Patrick2

I think that's been pretty much the prediction for the past 20 years hasn't it? Yet, Gibson keeps growing . . keeps attracting new upstart guitarists . . continues to retain most of their super star endorsers . . . remains one of the 2 most desireable guitar brands on the planet. I wish all American iconic brands had a CEO that ran their companies into the groung like that.

You may be overestimating their health as a company. The first 10 years or so they performed a miracle and brought Gibson back form the brink of death. Somewhere along the line things shifted. It is my understanding that they have had cashflow issues in the last few years. I read this from a business news source perhaps two years ago. They are also rated as the worst corporation for which to work and they treat their reps like trash. Bullying dealers has become a cliche at this point. It may take a while but this is going to come back to haunt them in the long run.

[Patrick2]

Originally Posted by Synchro;198593

[B

"It may take a while but this is going to come back to haunt them in the long run."

[/b]

Not a chance in hell that any of this will cause their demise. Even if any of the rumor, innuendo, stories etc., that you have heard or read about them are at all true, it might cause them enough pain to react in a business like fashion. But, it won't take them down. Like all companies with a BOD, when the CEO is recognized as a potential threat to the company's long term health . . . there is a vote . . . there is an ouster, and there is a newly appointed CEO. Henry doesn't own Gibson. He is an employee, an officer and a major share holder of its stock. It seems he hasn't yet been fired or demoted.

Gibson will be around long after you and I are long gone. Hopefully, my grand sons will be playing my Gibson guitars and loving them as much as I do well after I'm gone!

Here's a quick example; I have a 12 year old grandson. Working real hard at learning guitar and actually playing pretty well for his age. When he first started at 8 years old, I bought him 3/4 strat copy. He has always had his eye on my 2002 R9. Around 4 months ago he said he would love to get a Gibson Les Paul. I gave him one of my Heritage H150s It's a dark sunburst with a drop dead gorgeous flame maple top, Duncan '59s and Tone Pros bridge and tail piece . . (not that he know what any of that is.) It is every bit the equivalent of a Custom Shop Gibson Les Paul reissue. He was thrilled out of his mind. However, When he comes over for a lesson, he asks if he can play one of my Gibson reissues.

The Gibson brand allure is absolutely priceless. Even most who continuously bash Henry and Gibson . . . still own Gibsons . . . and most of them will more than likely still buy Gibsons.

[abracadabra]

but brands don't keep themselves going, they have to be well-managed and avoid major shocks. Toyota? Pan Am? Nokia? Kodak? I'm sure an MBA could list hundreds of examples of demised or diminished brands.

[Patrick2]

Originally Posted by abracadabra

but brands don't keep themselves going, they have to be well-managed and avoid major shocks. Toyota? Pan Am? Nokia? Kodak? I'm sure an MBA could list hundreds of examples of demised or diminished brands.

In general, I would agree with you and the brand names you listed are just a few examples of many. However, in the case of Gibson, I would argue the opposite. In Gibson's case, if all of the negativity is factual, then the only thing that has kept it going IS its brand. People have said; the quality control is abismal, the price is to high, the new products are stupid, there are too many artist models, they have raped, pillaged and plundered natural resources through out the world, they have broken the law, they have violated trade agreements, they have bullied their customers . . the very life blood of their business, their employees hate the management and hate wouking there, their customer service is the worst . . . have I missed anything?? I'm sure I have. But, still . . . people buy tens of thousands of their products every year. Now, why is that?

Of the examples you've listed, as well as others who have eventually failed, how many of those situations were similar to Gibsons? How many of those brands had strong enough brand value to survive the perils of mismangement? I see Toyota as one who is. And remember, Toyota is MUCH MUCH more than cars. A safety issue with an automobile, whether real or perceived, is the kiss of death. Toyota was hurt by that, but not killed off. And, due to their brand value and allure, there are coming back and will soon be at or near number 1 all over again.

[Synchro]

Originally Posted by Patrick2

[/b]

Not a chance in hell that any of this will cause their demise. Even if any of the rumor, innuendo, stories etc., that you have heard or read about them are at all true, it might cause them enough pain to react in a business like fashion. But, it won't take them down. Like all companies with a BOD, when the CEO is recognized as a potential threat to the company's long term health . . . there is a vote . . . there is an ouster, and there is a newly appointed CEO. Henry doesn't own Gibson. He is an employee, an officer and a major share holder of its stock. It seems he hasn't yet been fired or demoted.

Gibson will be around long after you and I are long gone. Hopefully, my grand sons will be playing my Gibson guitars and loving them as much as I do well after I'm gone!

Here's a quick example; I have a 12 year old grandson. Working real hard at learning guitar and actually playing pretty well for his age. When he first started at 8 years old, I bought him 3/4 strat copy. He has always had his eye on my 2002 R9. Around 4 months ago he said he would love to get a Gibson Les Paul. I gave him one of my Heritage H150s It's a dark sunburst with a drop dead gorgeous flame maple top, Duncan '59s and Tone Pros bridge and tail piece . . (not that he know what any of that is.) It is every bit the equivalent of a Custom Shop Gibson Les Paul reissue. He was thrilled out of his mind. However, When he comes over for a lesson, he asks if he can play one of my Gibson reissues.

The Gibson brand allure is absolutely priceless. Even most who continuously bash Henry and Gibson . . . still own Gibsons . . . and most of them will more than likely still buy Gibsons.

I'm in no way disrespectful of Gibson's stature as a premium brand. They have a wonderful heritage of luthiery going back over a century and there is no doubt in my mind that the brand will be preserved.

BODs have sat idle while CEOs have torpedoed many a company. Henry J, as I understand it, is a very major stakeholder in Gibson and is unlikely to be successfully challenged unless or until it's too late.

Originally Posted by abracadabra

but brands don't keep themselves going, they have to be well-managed and avoid major shocks. Toyota? Pan Am? Nokia? Kodak? I'm sure an MBA could list hundreds of examples of demised or diminished brands.

Indeed. GM, for many years the flagship corporation in the US, fell hard and wouldn't have survived without government money. Their importance in the overall scheme of things dwarfs Gibson's.

Frankly, I like what happened with Gretsch. They went out of production in the late '70s but Fred Gretsch III regained control of the brand name. He started very limited production of an inexpensive guitar that had no roots in earlier Gretsch production but he was able to bootstrap it into a modest builder using offshore production. When things started to look up he partnered with Fender, a company with plenty of experience in building reissues, and the Gretsch line was retooled to be more compliant with the vintage instruments. At this point I have heard any number of people opine that today's Gretsch is the best in the history of the name and I agree.

I do not support Henry J's way of doing business and I never will. Just because he has deep pockets and an interest in guitars does not mean that he will do a good job in preserving the brand or its values. Forty-six years ago, when I started playing, the Gibson name stood for quality, integrity and customer service. The local Gibson dealer had been a Gibson dealer for a long time and had a good relationship with the manufacturer. That simply does not exist any longer, especially for dealers in smaller markets. It WILL come back to them and bite hard just when they need it the least. There's no question in my mind about that.

For decades GM lived in denial. They saw the Japanese companies take more and more of their market and refused to believe what they were seeing. It never occurred to them that offering value and quality was the answer and to this day they don't get it. Just at lunch I spoke to a gent' in his 70s that had driven Cadillacs all of his life. His CTS sedan was getting long in tooth and he was looking elsewhere for a replacement citing acquisition costs and fuel economy. He'll buy an Avalon or a Maxima and GM will lose one more of an ever shrinking, rapidly aging customer base.

Do you really believe that people will buy a Gibson just because it's a Gibson. If so, you might apply for work at GM in the marketing department. There are a lot of good guitars out there being made in a lot of places. The brand value of Gibson can be forgotten in a flash if the product r the company is poorly perceived. There are a handful of Gibsons I'd like, a Wes model or an L-5 CT, but go one notch lower in price and they aren't even in the running. I'd much rather have an Aria D'Aquisto Jazz Line than an ES-175. I'd prefer a Collings over a Les Paul, etc, etc. Gibson can rest on its laurels but it's a death sentence if they do. That's exactly what happened to Gretsch in the Baldwin years . . . and for that matter, that's exactly how Norlin came within a hair's breadth of killing the company in the '80s.

[mattymel]

the only place to buy Gibson guitars in Seattle (and I suspect most of the country) is Guitar Center. nuff said?

[Synchro]

Originally Posted by mattymel

the only place to buy Gibson guitars in Seattle (and I suspect most of the country) is Guitar Center. nuff said?

Kinda like putting all your eggs in one basket. I'm not a GC basher, the GC in Tucson is pretty decent and well managed. Unfortunately, this is the exception and not the rule. There's been a lot of speculation about the longevity of GC and I suspect that they will have a challenge to stay alive. ALL retail . . . is facing an uncertain future in our day. I can think of hardly anything I buy that is not purchased online except gas, groceries and guitars.

[SamBooka]

I have stayed out of this but I will say something that someone infinitely wiser said .. (probably in this forum.. and I am paraphrasing but the intent is the same).

Gibson (like Harley Davidson) .. is no longer just a brand.. it is a lifestyle.
The HD parallel is apt in many other respects..

[Patrick2]

[quote=Synchro;198648]


Do you really believe that people will buy a Gibson just because it's a Gibson. quote]

Well, I enumerated quite a few of the perceived and alleged faults and problems that Gibson is said to have had for the past 5 years or so. Yet they remain one of, if not the preeminent brands of guitars . . . . in the world.

If not for the brand . . . . then why?

[Buster Loaf]

Originally Posted by Synchro

Do you really believe that people will buy a Gibson just because it's a Gibson? .

Yes they will. There are deep psychological principles active here. I recommend James Frazer's book, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion, a reading will illuminate much of what's going on in today's consumer market economy.

[Synchro]

Originally Posted by Patrick2

If not for the brand . . . . then why?

That's really my point. A generation ago RCA meant something and people would pay extra to buy a brand they trusted. These days RCA is a brand you can license for any product. If some fool wanted to slap an RCA logo on a can of tomato sauce they'd be glad to take his money but only the uninformed fall for that brand name any more.

People are undoubtedly buying Gibson for the cache associated with the brand but that will erode over time if the company is perceived as no longer standing for quality. If your grandfather or father struck it rich he probably would have bought a Cadillac. If you or I struck it rich a Mercedes or a Lexus. Cadillac still has some stature as a brand but it's severely eroded from 50 years ago.

Norlin era Gibson played fast and loose with their brand status near the end and came very close to going under. Henry & Co. literally saved the day . . . and the Gibson brand. Their status as a premium brand was restored and everything was fine until it seems to have gone to their heads. Nowadays the reports of quality control problems seem to be on the rise and the market can turn on a dime. The same is true for Fender or any other brand; you are only as good as your buyer's most recent experience.

A friend that is a Gibson dealer has been known to call me for moral support before meeting with his Gibson rep and I've heard relief in his voice when he's through with the ordeal. I realize that this is just one man's opinion but I am confident that Gibson is steering into treacherous waters. They've built up a lot of negativity among customers and dealers. They are ripe for a fall.

32 years ago I spoke with Gibson employee Mike Elliot. He was enthused about the new lines they were creating to fight Japanese imports. I told him that they were diluting the value of the Gibson name and that there would be backlash. In the mid '80s, during a boom economy Gibson nearly went out of business, mainly because of their disdain for the customer. It could happen again and this time the man on the white horse might not be interested in production facilities; he might just want to use the logo.

[fumblefingers]

unless Gibson really screws up their guitars royally then - yes! people will buy a name. brand "mojo" is a hugely valuable thing.

case in point - people kept buying Mercedes and BMWs after Lexus and Infiniti surpassed them on reliability, bang for the buck, ergonomics, and even fit and finish in a lot of cases. (of course the two Germans have also responded quite aggressively to the Japenese challengers since their brash upstart days - but not on price so much. They're still more expensive. You know, kind of like Gibson.)

Brand mojo.

[Patrick2]

Originally Posted by mattymel

the only place to buy Gibson guitars in Seattle (and I suspect most of the country) is Guitar Center. nuff said?

That's strange. A quick search of Gibson's website showed approx 7 or 8 dealers in and around Sea-Tac area.

Limiting distribution is a well proven marketing strategy of protecting brand value and helping to maintain enjoyable margins of profitability for dealers. A saturation of distribution leads to an erosion of market pricing structure and thereby devalues the brand. Gibson also cleaned up the internet price wars which were adding to devaluation of the brand. They have differentiated amongst their dealers as well. Their Historic Collection dealers have access to their more premium products that you will not find at the local GC or the smaller Gibson dealers who are unable to take in the massive amounts of inventory required to get and maintain Historic Collection dealer status.

Gibson has positioned itself and its brand as premium. It needed to take steps to justify that status. This is a time proven successful market approach. It does, however, require that Gibson meticulously monitors and maintains its level of quality and after sales support consistent with the image it projects. They clearly need to do better at that. I imagine that they will.

The unintended and unexpected results of its concept of stratigically limiting its dealer network, especially the Custom Shop dealers, is that now some of these dealers who are forced by the requirements of the program, to take in more inventory than they can afford or sell in a reasonable time frame . . . . are now selling these brand new guitars to independent guys/gals . . . who offer them for sale on the inter net, at prices substantially below retail. But they do so with the upfront knowledge that they are not an authorized Gibson dealer and the guitar will carry no warranty, therefore no recourse for dealing with a potential problem being covered under warranty. It seems to be working out pretty well for everyone. If the dealers were screaming at Gibson that they are losing sales to these independent inter net dealers, Gibson could and probably would stop it. It's easy enough to trace by the serial number of the guitar.

No . . . these guys and gals running Gibson are far from being the dumb ass holes that too many people give them credit for being.