Not looking good for Henry...

dickieguitar

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-20/gibson-creditors-are-said-to-want-new-ceo-before-funding-rescue

Bridgehouse

Gibson clear up debt with new Henry..

dindude

Same or similar set up, different CEO is probably the best outcome I reckon

english_bob

I don't doubt he has a few quid stashed away, and he just turned 65. Between that and having pretty much reached the end of his road with Gibson, I'd say it was time for a gold watch, pipe and slippers.

Whitecat

mudslide73

Where do I apply? I'd love a crack at doing the McCarty years all over again.

Strat54

Bridgehouse said:

Gibson clear up debt with new Henry..

Man that sucks.....

57Deluxe

http://i65.tinypic.com/10eg6wy.jpg

NelsonP

From his biography:

"with two former Harvard classmates (David Berryman and Gary Zebrowski), acquired Phi Technologies of Oklahoma City. Within one month he turned the struggling technology firm into a highly profitable company."

"Juszkiewicz's aggressive management style again effected an immediate turnaround, and Gibson became profitable within a month's time. "

"he drove Gibson from the brink of closing to a company that has regained worldwide respect with annual average growth of 20 percent over the last decade. "

Sounds incredible doesn't it? Particularly in the light of Gibson's existing woes.

Fortheloveofguitar

Best thing that could happen is firing his arse out the door. He’s killed the brand on an ego trip 

octatonic

Positive move if true.

Lebarque

Strat54 said:

Bridgehouse said:

Gibson clear up debt with new Henry..

Man that sucks.....

I'm thinking about selling my vacuum cleaner. It's just sitting around collecting dust.

equalsql

mudslide73 said:

Where do I apply? I'd love a crack at doing the McCarty years all over again.

I'd vote for you @mudslide73 ;  

Phil_aka_Pip

mudslide73 said:

Where do I apply? I'd love a crack at doing the McCarty years all over again.

So, what would you do?

FWIW I would

1. capitalise on what's left of the company's reputation for classic guitar designs, sort out the QC, and make sure the respected designs are delivered with consistent quality at a tolerable price
2. reduce the number of variants of each design
3. offer such inventions as robo-tuning as options on stock designs
4. research the market's receptivity to new designs before committing resources to making them
5. concentrate on guitars and forget buying other companies just to make Gibson look bigger
   

stickyfiddle

octatonic said:

Positive move if true.

It literally can't be bad. All they need is to get someone who understands guitars in charge of product, someone who understands modern marketing in charge of marketing and someone who understands business in charge of not leveraging up the wazoo to buy too many nice brands that aren't profitable enough!

impmann

Its sad that Henry will be remembered by many as the man who ruined Gibson - whereas a few years ago, if he'd walked away he would have been the man that saved them.
I've said it before, but he did turn things around - and the quality went through the roof when he first took over (then again, some would argue that it was in the toilet prior to that). He made them profitable - but messed up in recent times... although I'm not convinced its just of his doing, as there will be a team of people that he is just the figure head of.

clarkefan

Henry, just a figurehead? Where did you get that idea?  He's the CEO?  

Sure there's a team, probably lots of teams, but stuff doesn't happen without his steer in that direction in the first place, and then his sign off.  

It's his vision of diversity and "innovation" that led Gibson by the nose to where it is now.

NelsonP

Phil_aka_Pip said:

mudslide73 said:

Where do I apply? I'd love a crack at doing the McCarty years all over again.

So, what would you do?

FWIW I would

1. capitalise on what's left of the company's reputation for classic guitar designs, sort out the QC, and make sure the respected designs are delivered with consistent quality at a tolerable price
2. reduce the number of variants of each design
3. offer such inventions as robo-tuning as options on stock designs
4. research the market's receptivity to new designs before committing resources to making them
5. concentrate on guitars and forget buying other companies just to make Gibson look bigger
   

6. Stop trying to sell Gibsons for 10x the price of the equivalent Epiphone

Squier Affinity £200
Squier classic vibe £480
Fender MIM £750
Fender American £1400

Epi Les Paul Studio £300
Epi Les Paul Std £500
Gibson Les Paul Studio £1300
Gibson Les Paul Std £2000

See how out of whack the Gibson's look?

dindude

If you believe the rumours on management turnover, Henry had a new team every week!

Phil_aka_Pip

@NelsonP ; that looks around 4x the price. compared to Fender's 3x. I think that's tolerable.

digitalscream

NelsonP said:

From his biography:

"with two former Harvard classmates (David Berryman and Gary Zebrowski), acquired Phi Technologies of Oklahoma City. Within one month he turned the struggling technology firm into a highly profitable company."

"Juszkiewicz's aggressive management style again effected an immediate turnaround, and Gibson became profitable within a month's time. "

"he drove Gibson from the brink of closing to a company that has regained worldwide respect with annual average growth of 20 percent over the last decade. "

Sounds incredible doesn't it? Particularly in the light of Gibson's existing woes.

Given that it's basically impossible to turn a company's finances round in that short a timeframe, all any of that tells me is that he got lucky with seasonal spending habits in the first month of his employment each time.