Gibson CEO rumours

DrBob

So is there any confirmation of the rumour ? 

guitars4you

Teetonetal said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Teetonetal said:

Gibson just make way too many guitars, with way too many options in a confusing naming structure.

Fender do it as well. Doesn't excuse it though

Not really, at least not to the same extent. Gibson is a total nightmare. So many changes from year to year.

2 big areas of confusion

1) this annual change to the product like - generally they will use the same model name but with a spec and features that can often be significantly different - So should you go for the 1, 2 or 3 year old spec - which is best - which do you prefer etc etc

2) The whole vintage replica Custom Shop market from Memphis and or Nashville - for instance you can have a 335 dot replica from one factory, then a few months later, what looks identical but with a different price point from a different factory - Makes it far harder, at a later date, as a used model to to determine if you have the 5k or 3K version etc - then trawling through google and various sites trying to determine which is which etc - I bet even me writing this is confusing 

designerseye88

In my opinion their is a reason why a company like Porsche is the most profitable car company in the world. Its keeps their design pretty consistent, looks after its owners (generally speaking) and offers only a handful or models with only occasional updates. I know they have nothing to do with guitars but i think the essence is to keep things simple. Like many have said their are so many models out there. It sad to see that Gibson has become a bit of a joke, for me the icing on the cake was seeing those fluorescent models. 

TTony

designerseye88 said:

Its keeps their design pretty consistent, looks after its owners (generally speaking) and offers only a handful or models with only occasional updates.

Good comparison.

The Boxster didn't undermine the 911 - different car, same genetics, different price point.

And have you ever tried getting a discount out of a Porsche dealer??

Skipped

humbucko said:

Start making the models that people actually like at proper price points (why is the upcoming 2018 SG Junior the same price as an SG Standard?), ditch the myriad of Studio, Faded, Tribute options and just have your cheap Les Paul as the same type as a traditional/standard, but make it in Japan or Korea. Basically what Fender do with Mexico.

I have just clicked on that link for the SG Junior.
A pop up window appeared in which Gary said "Hi. Can I help you with anything"

A friend of mine lives in a very cosmopolitan suburb. When I pull up outside her house, a car parked opposite  winds down the window, and a voice will say: "Hello mate, Can I help you with anything?"

Who are these people? And what are they offering me?

guitars4you

TTony said:

And have you ever tried getting a discount out of a Porsche dealer??

NO - never been into one (yet - he says hopefully !!!! )

Rabs

Hmmm...  Suspect on more than one level...

https://i.imgur.com/8TiYBNq.jpg

:P

guitars4you

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  I bet even @HarrySeven doesn't own a Firebird X - come to that, has any FB member ever played one

Skipped

That seems a bit harsh.

BTW I had a dream last night that a Major Hollywood Superstar/Theatre Director was abusing me.
He made me take off my underpants.
 And then I had to put them back on.
 Inside out.

It made me feel very uncomfortable.

Rabs

Well it was a little harsh maybe but im not accusing him of anything.. I leave that for people to assume   

But more seriously..  Its Henrys company.. He can do what he wants..  Even if they manage to survive next years re-financing they will have to seriously re-think their strategy...  Whats going on now obviously isn't working and if anything creating problems for the whole industry by flooding the market....  I don't know what it will be but something has to change.

Then theres the chance that he could always sell the company..  I kind of hope he just doesn't go with the highest bidder and keeps it American made but that's probably unlikely..  More likely is it will be bought by a super rich Chinese company..... Then, who knows what they will do.

EricTheWeary

TTony said:

designerseye88 said:

Its keeps their design pretty consistent, looks after its owners (generally speaking) and offers only a handful or models with only occasional updates.

Good comparison.

The Boxster didn't undermine the 911 - different car, same genetics, different price point.

And have you ever tried getting a discount out of a Porsche dealer??

I like the Porsche comparison, I’d been thinking about Harley Davidson although I’ve no idea how much profit they make. Massive brand names and a big market in T shirts and lifestyle items with enough used product on the market and a relatively small output of expensive new product. Take it one step further to something like Lambretta, someone owns that brand name and it’s very recognisable on the high street but they haven’t made any vehicles for years. 

Phil_aka_Pip

Rabs said:

More likely is it will be bought by a super rich Chinese company..... Then, who knows what they will do.

Whole new meaning for "Chibson"

HarrySeven

guitars4you said:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  I bet even @HarrySeven doesn't own a Firebird X - come to that, has any FB member ever played one

No...but I damn-well want one!

ICBM

Rabs said:

More likely is it will be bought by a super rich Chinese company..... Then, who knows what they will do.

It hasn't done Celestion any harm - other than to most of their UK workforce, unfortunately...

Cols

Over the pond, it's been pointed out that Henry J does own the company and would be disinclined to sack himself.

Against that, Gibson does have an eyewatering amount of debt with no obvious means of repayment.  It could be that Gibson's creditors have made Henry J stepping back from direct control of the company a precondition of extending credit any further.

Which brings us back to how Gibson could increase income to the level where it could be profitable again.  There's four basic ways of doing this:

1.  Increasing the size of your slice of the pie (market share).  As Gibson is one of the big two, there's limited opportunity to increase market share.
2.  Increasing the size of the pie (overall market size).  The size of the guitar market is actually growing... but this is driven by the acoustic market rather than electric.  My perception of Gibson is that they keep their acoustic line stable and high-end; perhaps there's an opportunity here?
3.  Finding more pies to eat (diversify into new product types).
Limited appeal; the Gibson brand is too intrinsically linked with guitars.  Branching out would be like Harley Davidson trying to enter the electric car market.

4.  Increasing the profit margin on each guitar sold.
Two ways to do this.  One is to jack the prices up, which runs the risk of reducing sales.  The second is to reduce production costs; the best way to approach this without hitting quality would be to ruthlessly rationalise the portfolio; having to maintain all of the current models means more line changes on the production floor, which costs time and money.

Best way forward?  Simplify the product range, simultaneously reducing costs and allowing the company to focus on core products.

Rabs

The thing with Gibson is that their biggest asset, their history, is also their biggest issue.

When they do nothing but make the standard models that they are known for they get called boring and uninnovative. Whenever they then try and do something that pushes the limits a bit and goes outside their norm, everyone then says that its all crap and not a "real" Gibson and they should stick to doing what they do best.

Its a tough position to be in.

What should they actually do (I think)... Listen to what the market actually wants rather than trying to keep trying to sell us stuff we dont want. Stop forcing shops to buy an extortionate amount of stock just for the privlage of being able to sell Gibsons. Get more consistent with the QC... Stop making Ltd Edition models that cost three times as much as a standard just for a different wood on the top (like the Walnut and Redwood Standards).. Charge a bit extra, fine..  But thousands just for a walnut top.. please...

I guess that equates to stop being a corporate machine pumping guitars out and not caring..  Get someone in charge who does actually care and understands what guitar players want.

WezV

Nah, the history is a blessing many would kill for.

they fail at innovation because they miss what the market wants.  They get a hard time for doing laughably silly things.

they get pulled up on the replica stuff because others do it better and they end up advertising on accurate plastic.  

i am doing a fanned fret Firebird at the moment.  The modern and traditional blend together brilliantly.  It’s the kind of thing Gibson custom shop should be doing in small runs

Rabs

WezV said:

Nah, the history is a blessing many would kill for.

they fail at innovation because they miss what the market wants.  They get a hard time for doing laughably silly things.

they get pulled up on the replica stuff because others do it better and they end up advertising on accurate plastic.  

i am doing a fanned fret Firebird at the moment.  The modern and traditional blend together brilliantly.  It’s the kind of thing Gibson custom shop should be doing in small runs

Well I think some of the stuff they have done recently was pretty cool..  its the way that they did it that was silly..  Namely the 2015 line..  They made all of those huge changes all at once across the whole line.. That was really silly..

But even though I don't really want it myself cos I just think it looks ugly, the robot tuners I don't think are a bad idea for some people who play in loads of alternate tunings..  The adjustable nut while not really an original idea I thought was a good addition (after they changed it to titanium).. The sculpted neck heal on the HP models is pretty cool and more recently the new volute thing on some of the custom models..  I think they should put that on every guitar..

Its just the way they have done it has been so odd..  With someone that has a more coherent vision in charge they could do well with that stuff.

Bridgehouse

For me, Gibson's problem is all about image.

No matter what they do, they will get criticised for it. The mismanagement and issues have meant the guitar community (i.e. The people who actually buy their stuff) have become critical, cynical and disillusioned by Gibson the business.

I think some of their new stuff is good - and they do produce some fabulous guitars. But the problem is the way their own market actually perceives them now. 

Over on a popular U.K. based bass forum there is a discussion about the 2018 Gibson bass releases - and the thread is entitled "my eyes, my eyes! (Gibson crime)" 

And herein is the problem - to get back to where they were, they really have a lot of work to do. Fender's range is just as diverse - they also do some weird stuff as well. There's the whole Mexican/Japanese/US overlap, the odd choices of the professional series and the "experimental" designs. But you don't get anything like the same level of criticism. Oh, and Fender are in some serious debt too..

WezV

I had a 2015 junior and it was a well made guitar that played well and sounded great.  The innovation was good (I have followed tronical since long before Gibson purchased them) but i totally agree it should not have been on the whole range.

the messed up with the wider necks.  I was fine with it but accept it’s too much for many.

the adjustable nuts were brilliant, but again they messed up with a simple choice.  The brass was flawed.  The titanium worked much better.

 The idea was sound, the execution was flawed.  You can say the same about laminated bodies and necks, and volutes in the 70’s