Gibson CEO rumours

guitars4you

TTony said:

There is a recovery path available - if they can sell it to their debt holders.  Trouble is, it's a direct contradiction to the previous business plan that they presented when taking on that debt.  Previously it was all about growth, growth, growth, boosting turnover and cash flow so that they could service the debt.

hard to acquire additional market share if you are Gibson, as they are already the dominant player in the guitar trade, along with Fender - both are 2 different camps, so hard to steal from each others market place - just about every other brand would love to acquire the history, status and share of the market place that they already own

Hard to grow the actual business when there is an abundance of good used guitars out there, which are equally as good as what you can buy new - and very little, if any, growth from a new generation of youngsters 

When Fender went to the stock market, having acquired many additional brands, their bid was effectively rejected on the lack of any potential growth, other than acquisition and/or new exciting developments

Gibson's plan has to be based on accepting it is  a cottage industry and build around that - still allows for new products to be built within a range based on historic interest - but forget this volume box shifting approach which is based on a new range every January

Finally work hard to get the dealers back on your side with less dictatorial policies

Parker

The last time there were rumours of Gibson being for sale, allegedly Marshall were interested....that’s be great for Trump’s American brand....!

bingefeller

There's nothing about this on TGP so I'm going to take it with a pinch of salt.

johnl

From what I understand their distribution model is also a massive pain to deal with. I know a few local shops that won't stock Gibson any more (and have switched to Tokai) because Gibson's attitude is very much "you'll get what you're given when it turns up" which is relatively frustrating to deal with when a customer wants to know when you'll next have stock of a particular model. 

Hopefully eventually someone higher up will write a tell-all book about the inner workings of Gibson - I really want to know the story behind some of the bloody weird decisions they've made lately.

p90fool

I don't see any need for Gibsons to be made anywhere else but the US, they're perfectly capable of building Les Paul Jrs, Specials, SGs. Flying Vs and Explorers in the US, with a basic gloss finish and selling them for £800-900, they just bloody won't.

All of those guitars are cheaper and easier to build than a Les Paul Studio, and they're proper classics which look right without any annoying compromises. 

Being built in the States is a core philosophy, they have other brands to cover the rest. 

Phil_aka_Pip

@TTony isn't the "low end" of Gibson's range called "Epiphone"? They've already got cheapo versions of their iconic products ...

Parker

p90fool said:

Being built in the States is a core philosophy, they have other brands to cover the rest. 

I agree. That said, it depends (hypothetically of course), what the new owner would like Gibson to become. I could see an attempt for Gibson to bring itself in-line with the other two US guitar makers with a factory in Mexico or FE (Maybe get Epiphone to make some true Gibson models) to complement their ‘core’ models in the same way PRS and Fender do. The alternative is that Gibson needs to be prepared to become a smaller and slicker operation.

Fender do well to be all things to all men (and women!). Gibson are a different beast. Everyone, it seems, loves to hate Gibson at the moment - their business model doesn’t work for everyone. The reality is I haven’t played a bad guitar by them. My main guitar is from the reviled Norlin era. I’ve also had and played 60’s, 80’s, 90’s, 00’s to modern models (including the ‘dreaded’ 2015). Some have definitely been better than others, but they know how to make a great guitar! It’s just their dealership models and left-field approach to customer demands that is killing an otherwise brilliant iconic brand!

FarleyUK

On that point about Marshall buying Gibson.... I thought a lot of the people here were saying Marshall were also close to going bankrupt?

Another thing they could stop doing is releasing the STUPID high-cost artist series Gibsons, each year and in different colours (Slash, for example. He must have about 12 signature models by now).

TTony

Phil_aka_Pip said:

@TTony isn't the "low end" of Gibson's range called "Epiphone"? They've already got cheapo versions of their iconic products ...

It is - but "Epiphone" doesn't build on the "Gibson" brand, and it sits  alongside all the other cheap LP-alikes on the guitar shop walls.  Epi competes with Vintage, etc, etc.  It's not an aspirational brand for the younger buyer.

Bin it.  Or maybe use that as the GIbsonTech brand to trial new designs, new tech, etc.

Put the Gibson name on the headstock of the cheaper range.  That name, and the rights to the designs, are all that the company has that's of any value, so use it.  If the "Little Johnny" buyer had a choice between an Epi and a Gibson, at the same price point, which would he choose?  That gives Gibson an advantage over all the current competitors to Epi.

Parker said:

p90fool said:

Being built in the States is a core philosophy, they have other brands to cover the rest. 

I agree. That said, it depends (hypothetically of course), what the new owner would like Gibson to become. 

Building in the US is - of course - possible, but it won't be as profitable as building offshore.    The new Gibson will need a different philosophy (and strategy) - the existing one, with this and previous management teams, hasn't really worked.

Or just sell the brand to Mr P. Smith and see what he could do with it.

Phil_aka_Pip

@TTony agreed, I'd get Epiphone to make Gibbo lookalikes with a Gibbo headstock and the right name on it.

Bucket

Phil_aka_Pip said:

@TTony agreed, I'd get Epiphone to make Gibbo lookalikes with a Gibbo headstock and the right name on it.

And then the Epiphone name could be turned back over to making high-quality original guitars (USA-or-MIJ Coronet, Riviera, Crestwood etc) with a similar-but-different vibe to Gibson. Yum.

Plectrum

FarleyUK said:

On that point about Marshall buying Gibson.... I thought a lot of the people here were saying Marshall were also close to going bankrupt?

Marshall made a profit of over £2 million last year on a turnover of £27 million,  have no debts and have an £8 million "cash mountain". Only a fool would claim that they're close to bankruptcy.

Phil_aka_Pip

Bucket said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

@TTony agreed, I'd get Epiphone to make Gibbo lookalikes with a Gibbo headstock and the right name on it.

And then the Epiphone name could be turned back over to making high-quality original guitars (USA-or-MIJ Coronet, Riviera, Crestwood etc) with a similar-but-different vibe to Gibson. Yum.

And maybe the odd jazzbox like they used to make before Gibson took them over. That might be interesting.

crunchman

TTony said:

Phil_aka_Pip said:

@TTony isn't the "low end" of Gibson's range called "Epiphone"? They've already got cheapo versions of their iconic products ...

It is - but "Epiphone" doesn't build on the "Gibson" brand, and it sits  alongside all the other cheap LP-alikes on the guitar shop walls.  Epi competes with Vintage, etc, etc.  It's not an aspirational brand for the younger buyer.

Bin it.  Or maybe use that as the GIbsonTech brand to trial new designs, new tech, etc.

Put the Gibson name on the headstock of the cheaper range.  That name, and the rights to the designs, are all that the company has that's of any value, so use it.  If the "Little Johnny" buyer had a choice between an Epi and a Gibson, at the same price point, which would he choose?  That gives Gibson an advantage over all the current competitors to Epi.

Parker said:

p90fool said:

Being built in the States is a core philosophy, they have other brands to cover the rest. 

I agree. That said, it depends (hypothetically of course), what the new owner would like Gibson to become. 

Building in the US is - of course - possible, but it won't be as profitable as building offshore.    The new Gibson will need a different philosophy (and strategy) - the existing one, with this and previous management teams, hasn't really worked.

Or just sell the brand to Mr P. Smith and see what he could do with it.

Not sure about putting the Gibson name on the lower end stuff.  If you use the PRS example, their entry point with the SE ranges is around £700 these days but they are very well made.  There is something about being a premium brand, and knowledge that anything with the brand name on is high quality.  PRS have refused dilute the brand name with cheaper guitars and it seems to be working for them.

Leave Epiphone as the entry level brand in the same way as Fender do with Squier, although you could maybe replace some of the higher end Epiphones with some high quality offshore guitars to compete with things like the PRS SE.  I guess the Gibson version of Fender Mexico.

Have a basic no frill US factory range in the £1000 to £1500 range along similar lines to the PRS S2 series.  You could keep guitars like the LP Studio as part of that range,

Then have the full fat guitars starting from around £2500 where ought to be good profit margins.  You could have Custom Shop above that as well, but don't label the Memphis factory stuff as "Custom Shop" when it isn't a Custom Shop.  I'd probably make the Custom Shop much smaller and more exclusive, but put features like long tenons on the main factory range.

Edit: Above all, ditch the model year stupidity.

olafgarten

Their best bet would be to move lower end guitars to the Epiphone Factory, but with US parts and higher quality wood. Sort of like the S2 range, but priced around £1k

Then they need to make a US Standard Range for around than £1.5k and above that they can have higher end stuff priced at whatever insane price they want. 

ICBM

Plectrum said:

Marshall made a profit of over £2 million last year on a turnover of £27 million,  have no debts and have an £8 million "cash mountain". Only a fool would claim that they're close to bankruptcy. 

Marshall have done very well in the last couple of years by canning all their crap product ranges and shifting production of the core line to Vietnam. The future is looking good for them now in a way it hadn't for near enough 20 years.

But on those figures they are not even close to being a big enough player to buy Gibson, even as just the guitar company, let alone all the other acquisitions.

crunchman

olafgarten said:

Their best bet would be to move lower end guitars to the Epiphone Factory, but with US parts and higher quality wood. Sort of like the S2 range, but priced around £1k

Then they need to make a US Standard Range for around than £1.5k and above that they can have higher end stuff priced at whatever insane price they want. 

I'm not sure there would be a lot of profit in a nitro finished US Standard range at a £1.5k price point.  The Fender American Pro guitars seem to retail around £1400, and they aren't nitro finished, and they are a much simpler build.  Realistically you would have to be around the £2k point on those to make them worthwhile.

I think they would be better upping the spec slightly and putting a long tenon neck joint and pricing them around £2.5k.  It would still be cheaper than a new PRS.  It would also make a real distinction between a LP Studio and LP Standard.

Teetonetal

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

underdog

olafgarten said:

Their best bet would be to move lower end guitars to the Epiphone Factory, but with US parts and higher quality wood. Sort of like the S2 range, but priced around £1k

Then they need to make a US Standard Range for around than £1.5k and above that they can have higher end stuff priced at whatever insane price they want. 

From a customer point of view I'd hate to see them move their lower models offshore. The big success for me the past 5 years for Gibson has been the LPJ, tribute, satin models.

Phil_aka_Pip

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