Where Gibson went wrong

[BigJoe77]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

OT:
Me thinks you are overestimating the quality of the Asian work force. It is pretty well documented that quality suffers tremendously from overseas sourcing. The only difference is that labor is so cheap they can throw more people at it, both in the factory and in customer service and repair after the fact. Most companies that outsource consider that cost part of the equation. Plus, seeing made in china or wherever typically lowers the expectations of qualiy for most things and therefore doesn't register the same level of complaints. Plus, a bigger ticket non-essential like a guitar or home electronics item has a high level of buyer's remorse that skews the data.

Personally, I love Gibson. I hope they stay in business forever. I don't have access to their books, so I don't know if they have gone wrong or not. I don't have any of their instruments because I haven't found the right mix of available cash and instrument that does what I want for that cash. I'm embarassed for them that they make the decision to sponsor people like the Jonas Brothers because I think it cheapens their brand way more than any quality or product line decisions ever could.

Hugs and Kisses,
joe

 

[some_dude]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

No, they're not "selling guitars like mad-men", not at nearly $3,000 for LP's. Epiphone is selling far more guitars, and providing the bulk of the profits. It could be argued that Gibson is no longer sustainable without Epiphone's cash flow. A main complaint here is that Gibson has turned it's back on the average working man. That upsets us. They definitely "went wrong" with that.

Do you suppose that Fender makes more money off their MIA line? Or their MIM line? Rumour is that the last price increase was done to push customers away from their MIA guitars and towards the MIM guitars as they're more profitable.

As for Gibson turning their back on the working man, I don't see that. What I do see is that they heavily market Custom Shop guitars. But I also see that they provide a line of affordable guitars with the Epiphone headstock on them, and slightly more premium yet still affordable guitars with the Gibson headstock on them (SGs, LP Studios). Anyway, I've been down this road before.

How do these get out the door, and more importantly, what's going on in the factory that keeps causing them? It's not that hard, it's part of running a business. And if the "excuse" is that Gibson can sell guitars regardless, than it's proof of how bloated & arrogant they've become.

Most things I've read point the finger at the CEO. His leadership is sketchy, authoritarian, and inconsistent. Then again, he's one of the three that rescued Gibson from Norlin in the mid 80s and brought them up to the standard that they are today. This is why I don't understand the argument that they've abandoned the working man... Norlin guitars are generally considered to be junk. 90s Les Pauls are more highly valued than 70s or 80s Les Pauls, and turn of the century Les Pauls are more highly valued than 90s Les Pauls, with a peak in QC being sometime in the 2004-2006 time range.

Yes, they're in business to make money. They could sell more guitars by raisinng quality & lowering prices; they could dominate the non-Fender market. They'd make a lower profit percentage, but much more in total profit dollars, which is what really matters...cash flow. I'm a Controller; believe me, I could cut some waste & inefiiciencies there if they can't figure it out.

Isn't Gibson (to inlude Epiphone) already the number 2 guitar manufacturer in the world after Fender? I'm pretty sure they already do dominate the non-Fender market.

Apparently the didn't have enough vaild ideas for the "guitar of the week." They've wasted money on developing & retooling goofy models that don't sell. Most companies like to make a 5% profit after expenses. The labor & materials for these weird guitars comes out of that 5% profit. What a misuse of funds that is!

What do you figure it actually costs Gibson to actually make those stupid guitars of the week? How much free publicity/advertising is it getting them in the form of internet threads generated to comment on them?

As far as new models, how about more twin and triple P-90 guitars, and more with an HB/P-90?

Big +1. Particularly the HB/P-90. I think that'd really catch on if was developed as a Standard style guitar rather than the BFG or Robot.

And give a switch to link these PU's in series. They need new PU models to catch up with Duncan & Dimarzio. What players want isn't bizarre body shapes & flashy new colors; they want more & better tones, and that's where Gibson puts little effort. Do away with vari-tone switches and HHH models; Use P-90's and P-94's instead. Make some HSH & HSS P-90 models, starting with a "Super SG", which should have been done 25 years ago. Put the Jimmy Page system in a bunch of guitars. Artie's coil swap mod should be standard on most HH guitars. It's really pretty easy to come up with valid models that the public will want...instead they pissed away tens of thousands of dollars making Reverse V's? Gibson could be so much more.

Well, the new Standard does come with strap locks, locking Grovers, a locking input jack, Tone Pro locking bridge and tailpiece, chambered body, longer tennon, more ergonomically shaped neck, Plek'd neck.

They've also stepped away from installing the high output 496/500 series humbuckers in everything, so some would argue that as a step in the right direction and a step towards Seymour/DiMarzio.

Kind of adventuresome for Gibson. No wonder they also released the Traditional.... probably wanted to make sure they had their ass covered on both ends.

I do agree that having the ablity to split the neck and bridge would be a cool option, particularily if it was in a production model that didn't cost an arm in a leg for a nickel and dime upgrade. Most of the other things are cool, but not neccissarily something I'd be interested in.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

OT:
Me thinks you are overestimating the quality of the Asian work force. It is pretty well documented that quality suffers tremendously from overseas sourcing. The only difference is that labor is so cheap they can throw more people at it, both in the factory and in customer service and repair after the fact. Most companies that outsource consider that cost part of the equation. Plus, seeing made in china or wherever typically lowers the expectations of qualiy for most things and therefore doesn't register the same level of complaints. Plus, a bigger ticket non-essential like a guitar or home electronics item has a high level of buyer's remorse that skews the data.

Personally, I love Gibson. I hope they stay in business forever. I don't have access to their books, so I don't know if they have gone wrong or not. I don't have any of their instruments because I haven't found the right mix of available cash and instrument that does what I want for that cash. I'm embarassed for them that they make the decision to sponsor people like the Jonas Brothers because I think it cheapens their brand way more than any quality or product line decisions ever could.

Hugs and Kisses,
joe

There are huge problems with Asian workers, in particular almost all never take initiative to improve anything without somebody ordering them to do so. But that's besides the point.

The difference we see, in what looks like Gibson accepting a higher return rate, is not in production. It is in QA.

The QA organization is the one that you tell how many returns you will accept. They'll look at the guitars and trash or send back to the workers that look like they might be returned - within the "allowance".

You never have a 0% return rate anyway even if you put QA on 0%. Stuff breaks in shipping, QA is only human.

The question is: do you directly send the output of the factory back when it shows flaws in QA or not? (some) American guitar makers let a large amount through.

 

[some_dude]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

OT:
Me thinks you are overestimating the quality of the Asian work force. It is pretty well documented that quality suffers tremendously from overseas sourcing. The only difference is that labor is so cheap they can throw more people at it, both in the factory and in customer service and repair after the fact. Most companies that outsource consider that cost part of the equation. Plus, seeing made in china or wherever typically lowers the expectations of qualiy for most things and therefore doesn't register the same level of complaints. Plus, a bigger ticket non-essential like a guitar or home electronics item has a high level of buyer's remorse that skews the data.

I agree with this.

All you need to do is pick up and play something like an Epiphone or a Hagstrom and you'll see an obvious quality difference. If an Epiphone has it's pickup ring screwed down too tight so that it's slightly distorted no one really says anything. If a Gibson has the same people loose their minds and rant about it for years on the internet.

Epiphone has lifted frets? Paint on the binding? Your switch died? Your pickups suck? Your bridge saddles made out of soft metal and wearing quickly? Well, it's an Epi... what'd you expect?

I think that PRS is the only manufacturer who's overseas budget model guitars I've picked up and considered very high quality. G&L Legacies were right up there too, though I remember their fretwork not being near as nice as a regular G&L.

 

[Benjy_26]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

That upsets us.

And who the heck are you? The Queen of England? :wave:

I bought a Gibson. It does have a tiny bit of bleed through on the binding. Would I change anything about this guitar? Not a chance. It's easily one of the best guitars I've played. If you don't like Gibson, keep buying imports. Your broad handed assumptions and generalizations are getting kind of old. That's what "we" think, anyway.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

As for Gibson turning their back on the working man, I don't see that. What I do see is that they heavily market Custom Shop guitars...Most things I've read point the finger at the CEO. His leadership is sketchy, authoritarian, and inconsistent. Then again, he's one of the three that rescued Gibson from Norlin in the mid 80s and brought them up to the standard that they are today...What do you figure it actually costs Gibson to actually make those stupid guitars of the week? How much free publicity/advertising is it getting them in the form of internet threads generated to comment on them?

- Gibson's CEO helped them out of the Norlin mess over 20 years ago, but he's past his prime now & the company needs new ideas & fresh management that's creative and responsive. What worked back then won't work now. The guitar market & the world economy have completely changed. The top needs new blood.

- The guitar of the week costs a lot more than you'd think to design, test, retool, manufacture, inventory, and market. It ain't cheap. You'll take a loss on some of them, and from the beginning you could make a good guess as to which those would be losers. Getting people talking online about how out-of-gas some of the designs are does not sell guitars. It actually works against you with the public. They want good quality guitars at a reasonable price. You ignore them & offer this crap instead. If you don't have enough good ideas for a new model every week, then make it "Guitar of the Month." Talking about a company & talking about them favorably, are two different things. Instead of frivilously blowing money on stupid novelty guitars, spend it on quality control. That's what you want people talking about: how great & consistent all your guitars are, not how stupid some are, and how sloppy they're made for the price-range.

 

[tc]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I only pointed out Chad because he was the only dude in the magazine that's playing one. While guys like Santana and DiMeola may be killer guitar players, the average kid isn't listening to DiMeola or Santana and dreaming about owning their guitars.

I'll admit DiMeola isn't that well known to the average person, and I don't know if it's because I live in Latin America, but Santana is pretty much a household name everywhere I've gone.

 

[some_dude]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I'll admit DiMeola isn't that well known to the average person, and I don't know if it's because I live in Latin America, but Santana is pretty much a household name everywhere I've gone.

Santana is a household name here too.... however I don't know how many people could name a song of his other than Black Magic Woman or "that thing he did with Ricky Martin".

I do think that Santana's name adds alot of prestige to PRS's endorsee list; however, I don't think he's selling guitars like Zakk Wylde, Jimmy Page, or Angus Young.

 

[Luke Duke]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I used an inflation calculator and the $307.50 for a 59 burst and case translates $2242.25 in 2009.

FWIW

Luke

 

[Benjy_26]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I used an inflation calculator and the $307.50 for a 59 burst and case translates $2242.25 in 2009.

FWIW

Luke

You mean the kept prices the same!??!?!?!?!?!?


THOSE BASTARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:

:bandit:

 

[phil_104]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Santana is a household name here too.... however I don't know how many people could name a song of his other than Black Magic Woman or "that thing he did with Ricky Martin".

I do think that Santana's name adds alot of prestige to PRS's endorsee list; however, I don't think he's selling guitars like Zakk Wylde, Jimmy Page, or Angus Young.

I agree with you dude. I have been defending PRS in here pretty intensely, but truth is they also have a market ; their guitars ain't cheap, and they cater to people who feel guitars like gibson and fender are not ''boutique'' enough for em. Every company has their faults. I think no one can change the fact that both fender and gibson will have the strongest ''player exposure'' for a very long time as I don't think the image of Hendrix playing his strat, or of Jimi Page taking a bow to his Les Paul is about to fade.

 

[theboatcandream]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Epiphone has lifted frets? Paint on the binding? Your switch died? Your pickups suck? Your bridge saddles made out of soft metal and wearing quickly? Well, it's an Epi... what'd you expect?

Ha... I almost made a post about how Epiphone doesn't do it right. Super thick finishes, binding that can peel off, six piece bodies and veneers on the top and back to hide it, maple necks, and more. Some are dark sounding, some are bright with no body, and I've played some that are just dead sonically.

The Epiphone Elite/Elitist line was really cool though.

 

[That90'sGuy]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I disagree. Just look at any late 60s or 70s era Les Paul. Come to think of it, 80s Les Pauls aren't known for being stellar ether. Nor the 90s. Or turn of the century models.

Congratulations, you've just proven that at no point in Gibson's entire history have they ever been consistent.

And while I know that the 50s are regarded as the golden era of Les Paul building, I'm sure that if you inspected any 50s era Les Paul you'd find a laundry list of flaws similar to those that exist on any model of Les Paul from 1968 to 2009. There's a reason that they were modifying the build every year from 1952 to 1960... and it wasn't because the guitar was perfect the first time out.

I don't know, it seems as if people took more pride in their work in the past. Some of the stuff I've seen in this era has been nothing short of atrocious. If 50's Les Pauls were like that, no wonder they didn't catch on right away and the Les Paul almost became extinct.

In short, when you buy a Gibson you're buying a handmade instrument, and as such no two Les Pauls will ever be identical. My 1969 Les Paul has way more finishing flaws than my 2008 Les Paul, but if you stop looking for flaws long enough to actually play the guitar you'll realize that the flaws do nothing to impact the sound of the guitar.

You can get a truly handmade guitar for cheaper than Gibson these days. Besides, every guitar is different period. I don't care if it's Gibson, PRS, Fender or Joe Blow's guitar - no two pieces of wood are going to sound exactly the same. Each guitar has its own character.

Some flaws do impact the guitar. Misaligned binding and poor fretwork can cause major playability issues. When you have dead spots on a neck and notes don't sustain because strings can't resonate properly - those are significant problems. Some finish bleeding on the binding won't exactly cause problems. I mentioned it earlier in the thread because for some folks that kind of finish flaw can make them regret an expensive purchase like that.

So what I'm seeing is that you accept mediocrity. You may spend your hard earned money on a guitar that has some noticeable flaws and that's your right, but I'm willing to bet most people who value their money will call you foolish. I sold every custom shop Gibson I invested my money into. Each one was a let down. It had issues that were beyond what I felt was acceptable for an instrument of its price range.

A good guitar is a good guitar, heck, I had a '76 RI Explorer that was a phenomenal guitar. It's the only seller's regret I've ever had in over 10 years of buying and selling. I don't hate Gibson, but I hate mediocrity. My Explorer was a fluke - it was perfect. I've never found another Gibson like it, but I have experienced plenty of playability issues that are a joke for the price they're charging.

I have been defending PRS in here pretty intensely, but truth is they also have a market ; their guitars ain't cheap, and they cater to people who feel guitars like gibson and fender are not ''boutique'' enough for em.

I don't necessarily agree with that. I like PRS because I wanted a really good humbucking guitar that was consistent. I bought two solid color guitars without any fancy inlays. I didn't look for a "boutique" guitar, it just happened to give me the playability I needed out of a guitar. Night after night, you get sick of constantly retuning guitars and fighting sustain because something isn't right. I could care less about 10 tops and birds and all that excessive garbage - just give me a guitar that plays like a dream that I don't have to baby every other second to get it to sound decent. I also play Fender guitars and I love them. They're different tones. My Fender is built almost as nice as my PRS, I played enough until I found one that spoke to me. My Fender is plenty "boutique" for me. And, unlike most Gibsons I've owned or played, it holds its tuning exceptionally well, even with decent trem use.

The problem is that people constantly stereotype PRS players as folks who have to waste excessive amounts of money on guitars and feel they're above everyone else. That's not what it's about. This isn't some ridiculous social society, it's a stupid guitar. You may defend PRS, but at the same time you're feeding the same BS and hysteria that's surrounded them for years.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

I used an inflation calculator and the $307.50 for a 59 burst and case translates $2242.25 in 2009. FWIW.

This has no relevence in most areas. Costs come down with mechanization, technology, & mass output. Look at what a VCR cost 25 years ago, around $1,000...put that in your calculator to get today's "price." The late model VCR's are 10 times better, and less than 10% of the price of the originals. How do you calculate that, professor? Or how DVD players and wide screen TV's have plunged in price over the years. What would an $800 Ford Model T made in the 1920's cost with today's dollars? Would that be a fair price? Your "FWIW" is not worth anything, except to confuse some people here. Thanks.

 

[benji657]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

haters...

 

[phil_104]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

The problem is that people constantly stereotype PRS players as folks who have to waste excessive amounts of money on guitars and feel they're above everyone else. That's not what it's about. This isn't some ridiculous social society, it's a stupid guitar. You may defend PRS, but at the same time you're feeding the same BS and hysteria that's surrounded them for years.

I expressed myself poorly. I was trying to bring forth the point that just like gibson's critics will say that they don't cater to the working musician, people will say the same about PRS, or any other company. Should have been clearer, not that well versed in english.

Anyways, I agree with you. I bought my prs going into a store set of getting a gibson. I got my guitar without knowing anything about it, or even what model it was honestly. Just picked it caus it felt good. Mine has no fancy top or birds, and it is a working musician's guitar in every regard.

 

[blueman335]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

You mean the kept prices the same!??!?!?!?!?!?

And at the same time, their costs as a percentage of the selling price, have fallen dramatically since the 1950's. They're making far more units and using CNC machines. Unit cost is way down. Nothing like the old days. Gibson's current pricing has nothing to do with what it costs them to make a guitar; it's about creating an upscale nitch in a booming economy, and getting yuppies to buy them for bragging rights. As large corporations continue to go bankrupt & lay off employees by the tens of thousands, and people lose their homes in record numbers, Gibson's pricing strategy will be revised to be more in line with their costs. 5 years ago we could all have a good laugh about Gibson's prices; today it's not funny anymore.

 

[Benjy_26]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

And at the same time, their costs as a percentage of the selling price, have fallen dramatically since the 1950's. They're making far more units and using CNC machines. Unit cost is way down. Nothing like the old days. Gibson's current pricing has nothing to do with what it costs them to make a guitar; it's about creating an upscale nitch in a booming economy, and getting yuppies to buy them for bragging rights. As large corporations continue to go bankrupt & lay off employees by the tens of thousands, and people lose their homes in record numbers, Gibson's pricing strategy will be revised to be more in line with their costs. 5 years ago we could all have a good laugh about Gibson's prices; today it's not funny anymore.

Hate all you want. People are still buying Gibsons.

Here's a thought: If you have so many great ideas on guitars and so much business skill, why not start your own company and, to paraphrase you, give us all working stiffs what we want?

 

[Zhangliqun]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

Bloo, if you're right, we'll see Gibson prices come down, but as of this year, they're still going up. Every time there is an economic downturn, everybody says Gibson is going to be humbled and the prices will drop, but they never do. Gibson does sell guitars all the time to the average working man, and in fact makes most of their money off these guitars -- Epiphones. The Gibson brand really isn't intended for the budget-minded and never was, not even in Orville's day. If you see a price drop, it will be on the Epiphones.

You're right, musical instruments are non-essential items, and with so many guitar makers out there, Gibsons are non-essential guitars. It would be one thing if somebody cornered the market on food and water and was gouging the starving thirsty masses, but someone selling a luxury item for whatever the market will bear just doesn't strike me as "greed".

Everyone's in it for a profit, but a big company buys in huge quantities & gets very low bulk pricing on their raw materials. It just doesn't cost that much make a guitar, especially on an assembly-line. Every step in the process is analyzed & quantified, and efficient as possible. I've been a Controller for 30 years, I know how cost & profits work. Now if a manufacturer wants to mark-up their product way beyond what their costs are, fine, but they automatically exclude 95% of their potential customers. That nitch worked when the economy was booming, it doesn't work now, especially for a non-essential consumer item like musical instruments. People aren't buying cars, and they need those. As with the housing market, prices got out of control, pumped up by record demand. Those days are officially over and Gibson will learn have to learn some humility. They have to win back the average working man if they are to survive. We the consumer, have subsidized rampant corporate greed and waste for decades; we can't afford to carry those bloated companies now; we're losing our jobs & houses. GM is on the verge of collapse, you think that Gibson isn't bleeding financially and in serious trouble too? The ridiculously high prices aren't cool any more.

 

[Zhangliqun]

Re: Where Gibson went wrong

The fact that we're complaining about the cost of a Gibson is just proof that we want a Gibson.

Boat has nailed it. It's like publicly finding fault with the babe from the local rich family we'd all secretly jump at the chance to ask out if we thought she'd ever have anything to do with us. If not for the secret attraction, the gripers would all find better things to do with their time.

(Lucky me, I'm playing the field with 4 of 'em -- 355, R9, LP Std, LP Special.)