Gibson Crimson shop closed

[Jehu]

Until you can get tone down into the realm of metrics, you're only talking preference, and that is malleable in accordance with bias.

It's not even a matter of preference you can't identify the tone you love so much in a double-blind test. I think that was the point Scoop was trying to make.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's not even a matter of preference you can't identify the tone you love so much in a double-blind test. I think that was the point Scoop was trying to make.

... and the point I'm making as well, yes. "You" in my post was the generic and not specific.

"The tone I love so much" changes very frequently. I wonder why? I'm sitting here playing my flattop and where yesterday it sounded meh, today for some reason it sounds cookin'. Oddly enough, the fingertips on my fretting hand are a gun-metal grey from the workout.

[Dutchbopper]

I am pretty much a Gibson boy myself but I think Scoopthemids does make some some strong observations about the psychology of branding. I have been teaching brand management for years at a University and I find this discussion very interesting therefore.

For decades, blind product tests have proven that consumers do not adequately perceive the differences between different brands. Not even brand loyals are capable of that. In a blind product test with Ibanez, Eastman, Epiphone, Sadowsky, Gibson guitars etc. most of you guys would fail. There's very little doubt about that in my mind. I'd fail too. I once did a blindfold test with 7 Gibson models and nobody out of dozens of guitarists heard much difference between a 1976 Gibson Johnny Smith, a 1998 Gibson Tal Farlow, a 1995 Gibson L5, a 1987 Gibson ES 335, a 1951 Gibson ES 125, a 1982 Gibson ES 175 and a 1992 Gibson ES 350t. Some single models were identified correctly but on the whole the results were very poor.

Here's the blindfold test, just for fun. I'm convinced the result with different brands would be equally poor.

The results are in my Blog page so no need to state your findings here. You'll find the Blog entries here:

Dutchbopper's Jazz Guitar Blog: The Gibson Blindfold Test
Dutchbopper's Jazz Guitar Blog: The Gibson Blindfold Test Unveiled

Back to branding now. Branding is adding value to a product to make it distinguishable from other products. And you add that value into the mind of the consumer. Sure, you need a factory, a physical product and a chain of distribution etc. too but the brand itself is a mental construct. An image. A set of associations in the minds of consumers. It's important that literature perceives a brand as an EXTRINSIC attribute, NOT an intrinsic one (like the product itself, its specs, colour, taste, sound and what have you). If this mental construct (the brand image) is strong and there is a lot of psychological value added to a product or commodity in the minds of your target audience you can get a premium price. Here's a definition of premium pricing. That's Gibson's pricing strategy:

Premium pricing (also called image pricing or prestige pricing) is the practice of keeping the price of a product or service artificially high in order to encourage favorable perceptions among buyers, based solely on the price.^[1] The practice is intended to exploit the tendency for buyers to assume that expensive items enjoy an exceptional reputation or represent exceptional quality and distinction. A premium pricing strategy involves setting the price of a product higher than similar products. This strategy is sometimes also called skim pricing because it is an attempt to “skim the cream” off the top of the market. It is used to maximize profit in areas where customers are happy to pay more, where there are no substitutes for the product, where there are barriers to entering the market or when the seller cannot save on costs by producing at a high volume. Luxury has a psychological association with premium pricing. The implication for marketing is that consumers are willing to pay more for certain goods and not for others. To the marketer, it means creating a brand equity or value for which the consumer is willing to pay extra. Marketers view luxury as the main factor differentiating a brand in a product category.

The status of Gibson is that it's a mythical and, these days, a luxury brand. It has a huge brand equity (brand value in the mind of its target audience) and therefore the guitars demand premium prices. These prices are not based on its intrinsic qualities (though a minimal quality IS required for any brand) but mostly on its brand image in the mind of consumers (which is extrinsc) . As a matter of fact, Gibson can charge any price because the brand (not the product!!!!) is so strong that people will perceive its superiority no matter what. Gibson is not about a product only, it's predominantly a brand. It's status is mythical, mainly due to the fact that it is indeed a historical brand.

I'm not saying that they make bad guitars. I own three of them and love them. But the fact is that it has become a luxury brand a la Rolex or Armani and that its target audience for new guitars has changed a lot. I think Scoopthemids defined that target audience very well.

By the way, I'm checking out an L5 tonight. A friend is coming over with his. I full well realise at least 40-50% of the price of that guitar is the brand, not the piece of wood itself.

Regards,

DB

[medblues]

Thanks Dutchbopper, great wrap up worthy of linking again and again to future threads. I am not a great fan of anything but enjoy your blog and playing greatly.

[plasticpigeon]

I can't read this whole thread but I get the gist. I'm more from the camp that believes in an object's intrinsic value. So I am usually as happy with something non original, non branded (or non period correct) if the quality is comparable. However I have bought into the L-5 dream, because my favourite players played L-5s and it sounds daft but those wonderful musicians have brought me joy! It is an emotional response not a logical one.

I remember hearing an interview with Bruce Foreman (probably guitar wank) where he was asked why he played an L-5. His response was that it looks beautiful and his heroes all played one. Perfect.

[skiboyny]

I cannot pass your test and agree with you that most, if not all, can not either. You have done no better in providing proof of your position. I don't believe you can either. I don't find you a troll, nor take anything you have said as insulting. I hope the others that have will reconsider. Your position is a valid one indeed. This post may as well be about politics or religion, same sort of argument with no resolve. Out of curiosity, what brand or maker of archtop is your current choice?

The bottom line is you aren't particularly rational, nor are your beliefs rooted in anything credible.

You believe things that are not true and if examined, would fail scrutiny.

You sincerely believe everything you're saying but the reason you can't justify it with anything substantive is because no such substance exists.

[Max405]

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.

Yogi Berra

There ya go.. Nothing like a Yogi quote to loosen things up a bit.

I've been following this thread a little bit. ScooptheMids, just a little advice. A lot of people have worked together to make this site the very best site of its kind on the internet. It is the best because we all love Jazz Guitars and we all HELP and RESPECT one another. I personally don't take too kindly by seeing my buddies challenged by a new guy who hasn't built any track record of helping other forum members. You have been on here for only a couple of days and you've managed piss off a lot of people. Take note of who agrees with you in concept and take notice of How they do it. Respectfully and with substance.
We welcome new members, with new perspectives with open arms. But if you are gonna come on here, and knock what some of us love, not help anybody and not stand for anything in particular then take your bullshit elsewhere.

Joe D.

[goldenwave77]

I am pretty much a Gibson boy myself but I think Scoopthemids does make some some strong observations about the psychology of branding. I have been teaching brand management for years at a University and I find this discussion very interesting therefore.

Back to branding now. Branding is adding value to a product to make it distinguishable from other products. And you add that value into the mind of the consumer. Sure, you need a factory, a physical product and a chain of distribution etc. too but the brand itself is a mental construct. An image. A set of associations in the minds of consumers. It's important that literature perceives a brand as an EXTRINSIC attribute, NOT an intrinsic one (like the product itself, its specs, colour, taste, sound and what have you). If this mental construct (the brand image) is strong and there is a lot of psychological value added to a product or commodity in the minds of your target audience you can get a premium price. Here's a definition of premium pricing. That's Gibson's pricing strateg

Regards,

DB

With all respect, I think you're a little too enamoured with the psychological manipulation aspect of this. There are solid historical and rational reasons for some brand attachments.

One huge factor is reliability. Early on in the history of refined petrochemical products, quality control was frankly not reliable. Fuel oil and kerosene contained impurities or could even be doctored. John D. Rockefeller, rationalized the system of refining, so that consumers could be assured of buying a consistent, high quality product, produced to a certain "standard". Hence, the Standard Oil Company. You could buy his kerosene knowing it wouldn't smoke, or give off odors.

Second, there is assurance of quality. I'm told that PeterBilt truck tractors command a premium in the U.S. trucking industry. They are not cheap, but have a reputation for reliability, that commands a higher price. The same is true with power tools. Black and Decker is cheap homeowner grade stuff...whereas other tool brands (Milwaukee) are heavy duty, pro grade items.

OTOH, unfounded quality distinctions don't persist. My gf's 1998 Volvo wagon cost her $25 K secondhand, and in 12 yrs. of ownership, she had $27K of repairs. I know because I added up the bills. Never again, will I swallow the propaganda about the Swedish worker circle of quality.

There is also the matter of product support and service. Less of an issue with musical instruments, but seriously a HUGE disincentive to buy a custom-made instrument is the need to figure out what went into it, how it can be repaired, and what parts are needed, or are compatible. Just take a look at the extended discussions on here dealing with minutia of instruments/parts compatibility...life is short.

Thirdly, there is historical factors. Frankly, America's most popular chocolate brand, Hershey's is not very good, more sugar-y than chocolate-y. The European chocolate trade is older, better established, and probably uses more high quality basic materials...again at a higher price, which is to be expected.

I suppose you'll say----yes, but these are justifiable price differences based on real quality distinctions, and not "brand management", but if so, then you're just repeating a tautology, i.e. "brand wizardy" is literally making something---a price difference---out of nothing.

Perhaps that is true...but you can't fool all the people all the time, and as argued earlier, these non-essential, imaginary differences tend not to persist.

When people's attachments to things are based on ephemera, almost assuredly the next generation will find a reason not to fall in love with their parent's preferences. There are probably people on this forum who once played thrash or punk rock...I sincerely doubt the children of these forum members wouldn't roll their eyes at their now middle-aged parents jumping around on a stage playing the Ramones.

There is something to the notion that people have a psychological investment in their sunk costs--nobody likes to admit they've been suckered, but they also won't repeat the behavior, and people do talk. It's no accident that Hitler retreated into his bunker once things started going awry on the Eastern Front in WW II, and showed himself only rarely in public. All of the mass propaganda of the German media became unpersuasive once letters started coming back to Germany from soldiers stating that things were not going so well.

[Alter]

There are a shit-ton of luthiers in China who are in no way whatsoever 'less skilled' than what Gibson employs in their custom shop. Hell, you can contact Yunzhi and tell them you want a 100% (down to the smallest detail) L5 reproduction and they'll definitely make one... and it will cost a fraction of what a Gibson does and not be even slightly inferior

Your problem is that you don't know what you don't know.
You're utterly clueless to the huge swathes of higher end Chinese made guitars that exist the world over (Europeans seem to love them) and support everything I'm saying.

Genuine curiosity here, could you mention any brands or specific guitar models that you believe would match that criteria? Some brands or other examples? My only personal experience with quality chinese instruments are the models of the Eastman and Peerless brands (aren't the later corean made?), which i 've found decent, good even, but, especially on their pricier models, not really up to par with the better western made luthier or factory made guitars (Just my assessment).

Generally speaking, fanaticism + unsupported generalities + personal attacks, very rarely amount to serious and informed opinions, just saying..