Your thoughts on Gibson's business practices?

[Seraphial]

Recently, there's been a lot of discussions on the net about Gibson's practices (not allowing photos of stock to be shown at dealer sites, appointments at NAMM, rumours about dealers having to have a certain amount of stock, even making LP Customs a CS guitar). Now a certain amount is rumour, and Gibson seems to be getting a bit of flak about this. If this is true, what do you think about it? Good? Bad? Indifferent?

 

[Scott_F]

Re: Your thoughts on Gibson's business practices?

I think they have limited which dealers are now alllowed to sell over the net and that sucks.

Musicman (I think that's their name) in the Pacific Northwest was their 2003 dealer of the year and now they can't. Dave's in WI was a big dealer, still is if you get their emial about their private guitar page.

I think they are morons, 800 lb gorilla I guess.

 

[Hellion]

Re: Your thoughts on Gibson's business practices?

Some of their practices, which have been relayed to me through the local shop, sound strange if not just plain stupid. I'm not sure what they're playing at but it certainly doesn't appear that their interest is in selling instruments.

 

[Xeromus]

Re: Your thoughts on Gibson's business practices?

I will never buy a Gibson, period. They seem to have forgotten it's the customer that keeps them in business.

 

[MikeRocker]

Re: Your thoughts on Gibson's business practices?

I will never buy a Gibson, period. They seem to have forgotten it's the customer that keeps them in business.

+1
Prices, business practices, everything gets an F-. I will not give my money to them.

 

[rspst14]

Re: Your thoughts on Gibson's business practices?

Gibson is rapidly running themselves into the ground. Their business practices have alienated even their die-hard customers, in fact, there's a thread over at the LP forum concerning this very topic. Surprisingly, the vast majority of people state that they no longer buy their Gibsons new. Quality control is another area of concern, especially when you have $3000 guitars showing up in the stores with poor fretwork, improperly cut nuts, screwed-up bindings, etc. Now don't get me wrong, when you find a really good LP, there isn't much out there that can beat it. But I think Gibson is mostly living off their name and their history at this point. The only Gibson I'd ever consider buying is an original '68 Les Paul black beauty. Otherwise, I'll pass. I much prefer the higher quality and lower prices of Hamer guitars.

Ryan

 

[Seraphial]

Re: Your thoughts on Gibson's business practices?

Does anyone disagree with their practices, but still want to get a new Gibby?

 

[seafoamer]

Re: Your thoughts on Gibson's business practices?

I haven't played a Gibson, that was manufactured post 1988, that sounded or felt good. So, concerning their buisness practices: I don't give a sh!t if they're giving them away, I don't want one.

Maybe their custom shop stuff is decent? I don't know. Haven't played them. I guess I might take a free Super 400 or the like.

 

[matt99camero]

Re: Your thoughts on Gibson's business practices?

I just recently bought a LP Jr. cause I've always wanted an LP Jr., not just any guitar with one P90 in it. I'm really happy with it, quality control wasn't an issue with the Jr. But what is the point of not letting internet sites put pics of them up but still put the discription.I don't totally agree with there practice but as soon as I saw the new Jr's I just had to have one. But I won't be buying another Gibson for a long time. The Jr. is not really the same breed as regular Les Pauls so if I was going for the regular double humbucker LP I've probably check out some one like Hamer first

 

[Tweed]

Re: Your thoughts on Gibson's business practices?

I'm very disappointed with Gibson's nonsense over the past year or two. The marketing changes are boogered, in my opinion. I've never had any interest in dealing with Guitar Center or Musician's Friend. Gibson clearly wants to steer buyers in that direction. Visit any number of guitar forums online (including this one), and you'll see many folks who either don't know or don't care what's going on. At the end of the day, most folks want what they want. Where it comes from is a secondary consideration at best. Plenty of people have no problem buying from a largely inexperienced sales staff, or ordering online or by phone from a warehouse where a guitar isn't even looked at before it ships. Time will tell if it Gibson's strategy works.

However...what bothers me much more than any of that is the PRS lawsuit. At their whim, Gibson can now toss a court decision in the face of anyone they percieve as a threat to the empire. Smaller builders who may be flying under the radar (and there are many), must now look over their shoulder for that falling axe (no pun intended). Corporate fascism at it's worst. It's also sadly ironic that while Gibson is busy trying to destroy their competition thru the courts, Valley Arts Guitars, which is owned by Gibson, continues to build guitars that have Strat and Tele-shaped bodies.

I have a number of Gibsons, and nothing else out there that I've played sounds like them...Heritage, Hamer, PRS, whatever. I'll probably have more, but they won't be new ones. There are so many nice used ones out there to choose from, anyway. Sad state of affairs at Gibson.

 

[Tweed]

Re: Your thoughts on Gibson's business practices?

If some buys with a certain company and say they forget the the name of the color they wanted all they will do is good look in Musician's Friend and find the color and then order it from the other guys.

Works for me.








If I'm buying wallpaper:smack:

 

[Edgecrusher]

Re: Your thoughts on Gibson's business practices?

Their business practices bewilder me...I cant see the logic or the point other than "we are gibson we are gods"... The only reason I want another gibby is cause I want one just like i played in high school... btw anyone know where i could find a celebrity series S/G...

 

[celticafro]

Re: Your thoughts on Gibson's business practices?

Gibson is terribly stupid IMHO. I refuse to cough up 3000 bucks for a guitar that, frankly, sucks my d!ck. They jack the price and people take it because why? Because people want to buy a GIBSON! "OOOO, LOOK AT ME, I OWN A GIBSON!!! I'M A REAL MAN NOW, OOOO!!!"

People who seriously pay that much for the only really good Gibson line are paying for the NAME, and people who pay that much for a name are completely insane. Go buy a Heritage, instead. You'll get a better instrument and better sound.

 

[Skarekrough]

Re: Your thoughts on Gibson's business practices?

. It's also sadly ironic that while Gibson is busy trying to destroy their competition thru the courts, Valley Arts Guitars, which is owned by Gibson, continues to build guitars that have Strat and Tele-shaped bodies.

To be fair, Valley Arts probably licenses the design from Fender. Fender caught alot of flak in th 80's when they went after Fernandes for making Strat clones. People called them all the things they're calling Gibson now.

If a flaw is to be found it's that PRS did not license from Gibson to make the Singlecuts. Gibson does license; they do so to Hamer and Heritage. Fender also licenses to alot of companies and since I've never heard a complaint about the cost of licensing I'm assuming it's probably a pretty reasonable price.

Gibson's funny....they've made a huge name for themselves and it almost seems like they've decided to cash in on alot of it all at once. I don't "get" what they're doing or what they're in the process of doing. However, if there ever was a company that was going to take it to the next level, Gibson seems the most likely to do it.

The QC sucks, the business practices are unfair, they're not letting dealers put pics online, they're pricing out of the reach of the average consumer...

All valid complaints...and all very much in the mind of the average buyer.

But why are folks still buying them? Is the market so flooded with second hand ones that they're looking to go backwards and just be a botique-type shop (the Historics) and do a line of cheapies (a la Squier)?

It boggles the mind. There's so much they can do...

But I think they need to get to it sooner rather than later. Alot of folks are going Used rather than New simply because of their business practices. And even more are going to other companies altogether.

 

[celticafro]

Re: Your thoughts on Gibson's business practices?

But why are folks still buying them?

There are lots of little reasons why, but again, as I stated earlier, I think the biggest one is that people want the name. People do the same thing with Fender. To a lesser extent PRS and Hamer, simply because they haven't been around QUITE as long. There's a huge history behind the Gibson name, and everyone wants to be a part of it.

My 8 cents...

 

[Tweed]

Re: Your thoughts on Gibson's business practices?

If a flaw is to be found it's that PRS did not license from Gibson to make the Singlecuts. Gibson does license; they do so to Hamer and Heritage. Fender also licenses to alot of companies and since I've never heard a complaint about the cost of licensing I'm assuming it's probably a pretty reasonable price.

That's interesting, and I'm glad you posted it. Do you know for a fact that this is the case? Not doubting you...more of a "trust but confirm" position I'm taking, I guess. Lotta stuff flying around about all of this. I'd like to be able to separate fact from fiction as much as possible.

 

[Tweed]

Re: Your thoughts on Gibson's business practices?

Gibson is terribly stupid IMHO. I refuse to cough up 3000 bucks for a guitar that, frankly, sucks my d!ck. They jack the price and people take it because why? Because people want to buy a GIBSON! "OOOO, LOOK AT ME, I OWN A GIBSON!!! I'M A REAL MAN NOW, OOOO!!!"

People who seriously pay that much for the only really good Gibson line are paying for the NAME, and people who pay that much for a name are completely insane. Go buy a Heritage, instead. You'll get a better instrument and better sound.

Innaresting...since I own a few Gibsons, (and chose them over other brands that I played), let me ask you...does that make me one of these pathetic dolts you speak of that can't see beyond the name on the headstock? I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

 

[Johtosotku]

Re: Your thoughts on Gibson's business practices?

I don't understand people complaining about Gibson prices. It's simply demand that affects the prices. If their guitars sell well priced at 2000$, why sell it for 1200$? As long as people buy their guitars with these prices, they'll cost as much.

I bought a brand new Gibson SG last summer from Guitar Center through a relative. Everything went smoothly, and I got a good guitar. Last month I ordered pickups through Musiciansfiend. Everything well again. I yet have no problem with either of them. I have never been to a shop where people knew as much about guitars as I would have wanted them to know. The stock supply in shops over here in Finland is really bad, and how can you know surely if a guitar is good if you only try it for few hours in a shop? You need to play it in a band for months! Therefore I think that the "try first" mentality is lacking, and that it's same to buy the guitar online. If there are real problems with the guitar, you can always return it for a refund.

I think that most of the complains about Gibson comes from the bitter types who very much would want one but can't afford one.

 

[Zerberus]

Re: Your thoughts on Gibson's business practices?

.....

However...what bothers me much more than any of that is the PRS lawsuit. At their whim, Gibson can now toss a court decision in the face of anyone they percieve as a threat to the empire. Smaller builders who may be flying under the radar (and there are many), must now look over their shoulder for that falling axe (no pun intended). Corporate fascism at it's worst.

I am sorry, but I think you need to do signoficantly more research on this topic, a search of the forum will bring up multiple threads. PRS violated a long-standing trademark that they knew about, and it was even offered to them BY GIBSON to pay licensinmg fees. Thes outright refused, and got sued for it. 100% right in my book, otherwise we may as well send the whole patent office to hell

It's also sadly ironic that while Gibson is busy trying to destroy their competition thru the courts, Valley Arts Guitars, which is owned by Gibson, continues to build guitars that have Strat and Tele-shaped bodies.

Here again. Valley Arts sold out to SAMICK years ago, a korean company and largest guitar manufacturer in the world. Samick ghostbuilds >75% of the korean Imports, regardless of brand (ex. Epiphone and Fender). Nobody would EVER sue Samick because they would essentially castrate /destroy their own korean import line (if they have one). AND Samick also pays the necessary licensing fees where applicable.

I´m not a fan of a lot of things Gibson does, but if you´re going to criticise them at least criticise issues that actually exist and do proper research first.

 

[gOgIver]

Re: Your thoughts on Gibson's business practices?

...Valley Arts sold out to SAMICK years ago...

...Gibson acquired Valley Arts in 2002

Valley Arts