Way too early to tell, but I'm far less interested in ownership than direction-
1. Do they dis-invest in the ancillary brands and refocus on Guitars?
Seems likely that everyone realizes that Gibson overreached, but they still have to chose which guitar markets to go after- Boutique and Mid are logical as well as beginners- but they will need much clearer products and messaging.
2. Do they recognize that Fender and Yamaha are the kings of process and can Gibson learn the basics?
We love to focus on gurus and incredible luthiers (rightfully so) but, Fender and Yamaha (and Ibanez) are extremely focused with strong roadmaps justifying segments, quality and price points. Of course, Andersons and Suhrs are small enough to manage one off products, but Gibson has to do both- This is the BIG, BIG issue that the reorg will miss if they turn it all into financing.
3. Closely related, Gibson's quality has to match competitive price points- They have lived a long, long time off the brand (that most of us love)- But it's time that we can all look at a Gibson $5000 guitar and say, yep that competes well with the comparable PRS or a $300 Epi and say, yep that competes well with the comparable Ibanez.
That last one will fix a lot of problems and helps avoid the 'where was this thing made' argument- If US custom shop is making the best guitars for the $, they will stand on their own. Either way, it's going to take a lot of basic product management to get focused and a lot of marketing to get a new, better story that attracts new guitarists.
