Re: Gibson product ideas.
Certainly they must start there, poor playing instruments is inexcusable and must stop. Even a $99 instrument should be playable. For anything over 200 bucks in my opinion a guitar shouldn't leave the factory without a decent setup, regardless of where it is made or by who. At Gibson's prices they should be exceptional playing instruments leaving the factory. But in many ways quality problems are easier to solve than market problems. Well established ways of determining weaknesses and building in quality exist (what you can't do is inspect in quality).
As for the minor blemishes and other complaints the problem I perceive is a marketing issue. Gibson mass produces guitars by factory workers and then prices them like they are custom built by a skilled luthier. Gibson switched from cost based pricing to market based pricing years ago, but they priced them for a market they aren't in. They don't built custom pieces of auditory and visual art, they build mass produced guitars. While the M2 and Zero series are in my opinion a fair price, many of the high end instruments are priced too high for a mass produced instrument. If they don't address this I think they will slide in to more and more of a niche market as the nostalgia of the brand becomes less relevant with subsequent generations of guitar players.
I still see them as having a viable guitar making business, but with time if they don't change I think they'll become less relevant. Right now their problem as I see it though is a failure to achieve diversification that resulted in severe financial overreach. Even without the quality issues they would still be drowning in debt. Going from 300 million in revenue to 1.3 billion through acquisitions in 5 years like Gibson did is a recipe for disaster. There must have been a lot of hubris for everyone to think they would succeed.
Certainly they must start there, poor playing instruments is inexcusable and must stop. Even a $99 instrument should be playable. For anything over 200 bucks in my opinion a guitar shouldn't leave the factory without a decent setup, regardless of where it is made or by who. At Gibson's prices they should be exceptional playing instruments leaving the factory. But in many ways quality problems are easier to solve than market problems. Well established ways of determining weaknesses and building in quality exist (what you can't do is inspect in quality).
As for the minor blemishes and other complaints the problem I perceive is a marketing issue. Gibson mass produces guitars by factory workers and then prices them like they are custom built by a skilled luthier. Gibson switched from cost based pricing to market based pricing years ago, but they priced them for a market they aren't in. They don't built custom pieces of auditory and visual art, they build mass produced guitars. While the M2 and Zero series are in my opinion a fair price, many of the high end instruments are priced too high for a mass produced instrument. If they don't address this I think they will slide in to more and more of a niche market as the nostalgia of the brand becomes less relevant with subsequent generations of guitar players.
I still see them as having a viable guitar making business, but with time if they don't change I think they'll become less relevant. Right now their problem as I see it though is a failure to achieve diversification that resulted in severe financial overreach. Even without the quality issues they would still be drowning in debt. Going from 300 million in revenue to 1.3 billion through acquisitions in 5 years like Gibson did is a recipe for disaster. There must have been a lot of hubris for everyone to think they would succeed.
