2019 Gibson Lineup

[Adieu]

Re: 2019 Gibson Lineup

And just 3 short model years ago MSRP on that Studio was $1,999.

I saw a decent-looking minty Studio (full unfaded, not a submodel) for 600 bucks at GC tonight.... who the hell pays $2k for these things?

 

[Darg1911]

Re: 2019 Gibson Lineup

I saw a decent-looking minty Studio (full unfaded, not a submodel) for 600 bucks at GC tonight.... who the hell pays $2k for these things?

They didn't make an ES 335 faded "sub model". If you saw a minty ES 335 Studio for $600, you should have bought it and flipped it ...

 

[Zombiwoof]

Re: 2019 Gibson Lineup

For years many Gibson models have been incredibly overpriced.

Every year, their prices go up. Are you getting more value for your $$$? In many cases, due to Gibson's declining QC, you're getting less.

The solution is to stop fuggin' buying Gibson products.

They have been riding their name brand (and riding their customers) for far too long.

Vote with your wallet.

You can blame Paul Reed Smith for Gibson starting to raise prices substantially years ago. Before PRS, Gibson raised prices a little ever so often, but PRS (the person) did interviews where he claimed when he was questioned about the high prices for his guitars that the thought that "guitar players SHOULD pay more for a good guitar", citing violin players who pay outrageous prices for ancient instruments. I thought that was ridiculous logic IMO, as violin players are playing instruments that are hundreds of years old, some of them can't even pay for them, they are loaned to them by rich benefactors who actually own the violins. Anyway, right after that, you started seeing Gibson raising the prices steadily every year by sometimes hundreds of dollars, I'm sure they were responding to PRS prices. I can almost hear the meetings: "We make guitars that are just as good as PRS, we should be getting much higher prices for them if PRS can". There is a direct correlation to the introduction of PRS guitars and Paul Reed Smith's answer to his high prices, to the sudden yearly large price rises in Gibsons.
Al

 

[zionstrat]

Re: 2019 Gibson Lineup

You can blame Paul Reed Smith for Gibson starting to raise prices substantially years ago. Before PRS, Gibson raised prices a little ever so often, but PRS (the person) did interviews where he claimed when he was questioned about the high prices for his guitars that the thought that "guitar players SHOULD pay more for a good guitar"

This is true, but let's be clear- it doesn't make PRS the fall guy for Gibson's problems-

What PRS was saying was, there was room in the market for high quality, innovative electrics in the upper mid and boutique end of the spectrum and he was correct. Look at Suhr and Andersen in the same period- they had a good understanding of customer needs, and even more important, optimizing the value point = Customer Requirements at a price that the target market can afford.

Gibson's problem is they thought that they could simply increase price without doing the analysis and they entirely leaned on brand power- as a result, their value points were way off base, and over time, practically every other manufacturer was able to undercut Gibson with better ability to meet user needs/quality and Gibson's brand has suffered.

And that's ultimately why Gibson has a short window to get optimized- competitors from IBI, YAGS and Fender on the low end, Reverend & Godin in the middle, and PRS at the high end have significantly impacted Gibson's walletshare (the amount an individual spends with a given company), they have significantly displaced Gibson's mindshare (how much people think about a brand) and they have a lot more guitars on the wall.

And that last one is incredible- It's amazing that Gibson didn't recognize that 'eating the seed corn' could not end well- when they priced dealers out, they left lots of wall space for everyone else and younger guitarists are far more likely to play Schetre, esp, IBI, Yags or Fender and people tend to buy the things they are familiar with (not to mention that have well optimized value points = great value for the cost).

Bottom line, yeah PRS had tremendous competitive impact, but that's what they are supposed to do- Gibson was totally asleep at the wheel chasing Firebird X and robo tuners.

The rest of the industry were happy to fill the gaps.

 

[Aceman]

Re: 2019 Gibson Lineup

Gibson's problem is they thought that they could simply increase price without doing the analysis and they entirely leaned on brand power- as a result, their value points were way off base, and over time, practically every other manufacturer was able to undercut Gibson with better ability to meet user needs/quality and Gibson's brand has suffered.

Someone should put Henry in a chair, and b!tch slap him while that plays on an endless loop for a few days. Man - that just cuts right to the nerve with no anesthesia right there.

they have significantly displaced Gibson's mindshare (how much people think about a brand) and they have a lot more guitars on the wall. And that last one is incredible- It's amazing that Gibson didn't recognize that 'eating the seed corn' could not end well- when they priced dealers out, they left lots of wall space for everyone else and younger guitarists are far more likely play Schetre, esp, IBI, Yags or Fender.....The rest of the industry were happy to fill the gaps.

I would, as a "New Owner" of Gibson, give everyone 5 minutes to find an email that states they were against doing that - or brand the word "retard" on their head and literally kick them out the door.

Michael - those paragraphs were a brutal dose of reality that I think most would rather cut their own intestines out than admit.

 

[zionstrat]

Re: 2019 Gibson Lineup

Someone should put Henry in a chair, and b!tch slap him while that plays on an endless loop for a few days. Man - that just cuts right to the nerve with no anesthesia right there.
...

Michael - those paragraphs were a brutal dose of reality that I think most would rather cut their own intestines out than admit.

Thanks buddy- As you well know, it's basic Business Transformation- Blockbuster may be the ultimate case study, but Gibson is so interesting because they could turn this around if they get their heads out of the sand fast enough.

And if we ever write the book, you've clearly got the graphic imagination and are in charge of illustrations

 

[PFDarkside]

Re: 2019 Gibson Lineup

You can blame Paul Reed Smith for Gibson starting to raise prices substantially years ago. Before PRS, Gibson raised prices a little ever so often, but PRS (the person) did interviews where he claimed when he was questioned about the high prices for his guitars that the thought that "guitar players SHOULD pay more for a good guitar", citing violin players who pay outrageous prices for ancient instruments. I thought that was ridiculous logic IMO, as violin players are playing instruments that are hundreds of years old, some of them can't even pay for them, they are loaned to them by rich benefactors who actually own the violins. Anyway, right after that, you started seeing Gibson raising the prices steadily every year by sometimes hundreds of dollars, I'm sure they were responding to PRS prices. I can almost hear the meetings: "We make guitars that are just as good as PRS, we should be getting much higher prices for them if PRS can". There is a direct correlation to the introduction of PRS guitars and Paul Reed Smith's answer to his high prices, to the sudden yearly large price rises in Gibsons.
Al

It’s not only vintage stuff. Guitarists have no idea how good they have it. Professional level instruments in other disciplines can be $5K - $50k+ depending on the type of instrument. We can get a really good instrument far lower than that.

 

[LLL]

Re: 2019 Gibson Lineup

And that last one is incredible- It's amazing that Gibson didn't recognize that 'eating the seed corn' could not end well- when they priced dealers out

I remember that well. That was a real d1ck move on Gibson's (aka Henry J.) behalf.

 

[Aceman]

Re: 2019 Gibson Lineup

And if we ever write the book, you've clearly got the graphic imagination and are in charge of illustrations

I'm a highly rated instructor because, as Steve Martin said, I speak with "pizzazz."

I never say anything simply and directly when I can say it in a way that will leave an image burned into your frontal cortex for all eternity. It's one of my super powers...

 

[justFred]

Re: 2019 Gibson Lineup

Still haven't seen anything anywhere that substantiates the guitar segment of Gibson is having a problem...what has been disclosed is that expansion investments into other business areas is what resulted in BK...unless anyone has something to the contrary it might well be assumed that Gibson guitar offerings and pricing are where they should be...of course as in any business continuous improvement programs are a necessity...again, there is nothing that has disclosed that Gibson guitars are not benefiting from these types of programs...If the Guitar segment was in deep trouble Henry J would have been gone shortly after the filing...evidently the BK financing group does not see a problem with his management of the guitar segment...

 

[zionstrat]

Re: 2019 Gibson Lineup

Fred,
We’ve gone through the numbers before and the only change is talk about a debt free deal. If Gibson has an agreement in which they are debt free and the ancillary lines aren’t liabilities, it is certainly true that the guitar side could be profitable.

However, that changes none of the brand or competitive issues listed above- At best Gibson would emerge a little ahead of Martin, about 1/3 the sales of Fender and less than 10th the size of Yamaha.

Our first recommendation was disinvestment and 2nd was to rebalance the portfolio with an easier to understand mix with more competitive value points- so if they have worked out a deal and if the 2019 offerings are embraced by the market, they would be in better shape than they were. Keep in mind, that we wrote the series in hopes that Gibson would get their act together.

However, from discussions with dealers and employees, it doesn’t sound like continuous improvement is on the radar yet. In a way that is understandable, if they hire a CEO who understands Business Transformation, it’s likely that they will modernize processes and Gibson could easily stabilize and grow.

On the other hand, if they continue to lose mindshare, marketshare and dealers, at some point the brand will be more valuable as an acquisition than as a standalone- hence the real concerns for an Asian acquisition.

As far as Henry, it’s hard to see any positives- They had to work out a deal that allowed him to leave in a non confrontational way – he’s been there way too long and a lot of knowledge transfer has to take place.

And keep in mind that Private Equity firms aren’t know as big transformers- they like to buy into companies that are already growing to siphon off the excess- It’s unlikely that they had the level of change management necessary or they would have started modernizing long ago and they wouldn’t be in the mess that they are now.

As always, I appreciate your perspective- a strong, stabilized, growing Gibson would be much better for the industry than a brand sale- but they have a lot of work to get there.

 

[justFred]

Re: 2019 Gibson Lineup

so "put Henry in a chair an ***** slap him" is part of the plan???Henry saved and Grew Gibson (fact)...no consideration for that???
Who is deciding Gibson is not right where they should be...they know the sweet spots...remember, Gibson invented these instruments...they have been doing this successfully for a long time...
Henry J has stated in interviews he is ready to retire and ready for a new CEO to move in...translated that means he understands that it's time for changes...but not for change sake...Gibson and partners should and probably are taking a long hard look at who is going to lead the company forward...it is a very complex task that is going to take someone who knows exactly what to do without blowing out 60 years of being the most sote after high end guitars on the market....
discussions with what percentage of employees, dealers???the disgruntled are always gonna talk a lot...
there is no model for what Gibson does or valid case study because they are unique...
the only word we have from the inside is that Gibson is profitable and growing in their market segment...

my primary point is that everyone here is on the outside making wild guesses about what is going on...have three Gibson guitars myself and there isn't another brand out there I would trade one for...that is the facts that I have...Suhr makes a fancy copy but that is all it is...and you think Gibson price points are out of line???

 

[zionstrat]

Re: 2019 Gibson Lineup

Fred, I get the emotional side of this discussion... My SG is actually a 62lp and it alone makes me want G to be around forever...

But we've avoided emotion in the series to focus on business best practices because they were designed to do exactly what Gibson needs, they work and the outcomes are clear...

There isn't any guessing going on... A company either has 6 sigma (or similar mfg quality processes) or they don't... they have segmented product development roadmaps or they don't... They have persona driven messaging or they dont.

The list goes on and on and Gibson performs poorly on most counts... Even if no one was talking, you can profile the org and predict where they are optimized and where they aren't. It works across industries and scales relatively well.

But there is no reason to beat this horse... The series is a case study for business transformation, and it's only an interesting sidebar for me because I also love guitars.

And either way its clear we are both pulling for a Gibson win.





Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[Aceman]

Re: 2019 Gibson Lineup

No company doing things right generates 20 posts of "Buy a used Gibson" and "Try a bunch until you find a good one"

And this is just one of many forums.

What Gibson is doing wrong is painfully obvious to even people without any business sense.

Henry's history means nothing. Did he turn around a dog...yes. And then ran it into bankruptcy. This is a business and Uncle Henry gets no pass because he "used to be" a good guy. He either drove, or allowed everything that has happened for the past decade or two. This company was on a long glide path to oblivion and he was in the pilot's seat. He does not deserve to retire.

 

[Aceman]

Re: 2019 Gibson Lineup

have three Gibson guitars myself and there isn't another brand out there I would trade one for...that is the facts that I have...

That's nice old man. And the facts of the market is there isn't anyone under 30 that feels that way.

See, when you actually have 60 years of being the most sought after high end guitars, that would make sense. They really had more like 35....They certainly haven't been that since maybe Use Your Illusion or so....

 

[Mincer]

Re: 2019 Gibson Lineup

I think forums as a whole are mostly speculation, aren't they? When a major company seems (from the outside) to be failing, it is only normal for those who are passionate about the industry to speculate and state what they think is going on and how they would fix it.

 

[Securb]

Re: 2019 Gibson Lineup

I am in love with the Modern Double Cut but $4900 is way too rich for my blood.

 

[evan47]

Re: 2019 Gibson Lineup

I saw a decent-looking minty Studio (full unfaded, not a submodel) for 600 bucks at GC tonight.... who the hell pays $2k for these things?

I had a great studio years ago but now have a far better ltd ec1000 with seymours, beats or at least matches any of the 5 gibson lp models I have owned.

 

[Gtrjunior]

Re: 2019 Gibson Lineup

I am in love with the Modern Double Cut but $4900 is way too rich for my blood.

I hear you...if these were at a more realistic (in my mind, anyway) price point I would have scooped one of these up the minute they were released. These guitars are HOT.

 

[Zombiwoof]

Re: 2019 Gibson Lineup

This is true, but let's be clear- it doesn't make PRS the fall guy for Gibson's problems-

What PRS was saying was, there was room in the market for high quality, innovative electrics in the upper mid and boutique end of the spectrum and he was correct. Look at Suhr and Andersen in the same period- they had a good understanding of customer needs, and even more important, optimizing the value point = Customer Requirements at a price that the target market can afford.

Gibson's problem is they thought that they could simply increase price without doing the analysis and they entirely leaned on brand power- as a result, their value points were way off base, and over time, practically every other manufacturer was able to undercut Gibson with better ability to meet user needs/quality and Gibson's brand has suffered.

And that's ultimately why Gibson has a short window to get optimized- competitors from IBI, YAGS and Fender on the low end, Reverend & Godin in the middle, and PRS at the high end have significantly impacted Gibson's walletshare (the amount an individual spends with a given company), they have significantly displaced Gibson's mindshare (how much people think about a brand) and they have a lot more guitars on the wall.

And that last one is incredible- It's amazing that Gibson didn't recognize that 'eating the seed corn' could not end well- when they priced dealers out, they left lots of wall space for everyone else and younger guitarists are far more likely to play Schetre, esp, IBI, Yags or Fender and people tend to buy the things they are familiar with (not to mention that have well optimized value points = great value for the cost).

Bottom line, yeah PRS had tremendous competitive impact, but that's what they are supposed to do- Gibson was totally asleep at the wheel chasing Firebird X and robo tuners.

The rest of the industry were happy to fill the gaps.

There were no robo tuners and Firebird X around in the days when PRS first launched, and that is when the multi-hundred dollar price increases from Gibson started. It was a direct response to the then new PRS sky-high guitar prices, they were much more costly than anything on the market at that time, and Gibson obviously took PR Smith's comments as as a slap in the face to their company. I used to check out the new Gibsons every year in the Musician's Friend and similar catalogs, I noted each year pre-PRS that Gibson prices would creep up maybe $50 each year and I thought that was weird, when PRS started making an impact on their sales I suddenly saw annual $200 or so price increases in Gibson guitars. I could see it was in response to PRS and the fact they were getting ridiculous prices for guitars that were similar in quality (in Gibsons' eyes), and they greedily wanted their slice of that pie. In 1992 I could get an SG Standard for 700 bucks, LP's were only a little bit more. Just look how much those prices have escalated since then, it certainly isn't in line with inflation.
I was only talking about one point, the annual massive price increases, and I hold PRS's entry into the market, making quality guitars but gouging as much out of the buyers as they could, directly responsible for those crazy Gibson price increases. It was evident if you watched the guitar market as closely as I did, and others also did. After that came the "Gibson" lifestyle crap, which was IMO their way to explain away their new pricing structure. The insane attempts at marketing bizarre guitars that nobody wanted came later.
Whatever, I just wanted to make a point that I have believed for a long time. Those remarks from Paul Reed Smith were in an article, probably in Guitar Player Magazine (which I read constantly from the time I was a young guitar player), where a group of guitar makers discussed the guitar market at the time, and his remarks made me want to puke. Guitarists SHOULD(?) pay big bucks for electric guitars, what balls to make a statement like that, but it seems a lot of people ignored his intent to wring as much money out of them as possible and PRS was successful, which impacted the market in a bad way.
Al