Not looking good for Henry...

grungebob

You may all be surprised how little involvement a CEO can actually have. Not every little thing would have been run by him, it is really his call how much free reign he gave his staff so yes ultimately his own demise but he may not have been the one who came up with the bad decisions only the one to sign off on them from a far. 

stickyfiddle

grungebob said:

You may all be surprised how little involvement a CEO can actually have. Not every little thing would have been run by him, it is really his call how much free reign he gave his staff so yes ultimately his own demise but he may not have been the one who came up with the bad decisions only the one to sign off on them from a far. 

True, but by all accounts Henry is a micromanager who insists on signing off on everything, and I would bet that most of the crap in recent years were directly his decision. He’s the kinda guy who would have made it quite publicly known that the failed 2015 experiment was not his idea if that were the case.

TTony

grungebob said:

You may all be surprised how little involvement a CEO can actually have. 

The CEO bears the ultimate responsibility.  It's in the job spec.

If he didn't know what was going on in his company, then he'd have to be ignorant  and incompetent.

If he did know what was going on in his company, and chose to let it continue, then he's stupid and incompetent.

digitalscream said:

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, 

You can't do anything fundamental, but you can make some changes that will appear - to the easily duped - to have had that effect.  Some "financial engineering" - eg by changing credit terms, distributor agreements (payment terms), asset valuations, etc - can have a pretty quick apparent impact on the P&L and Balance Sheet without having any impact at all on the underlying business.

Actually, it does have an impact on the underlying business.  It makes everyone a bit more comfortable and complacent, thinking that the big man has "turned things around", which means that the fundamental problems get ignored for even longer. By the time it's really noticed, you find you've got a massive debt repayment due in a couple of months, and no-one wants to take your calls ...

Bigsby

NelsonP said:

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?

Well, you've got to take into account the Fender models were designed for cheap construction, with bolt on necks and everything mounted on the pick guard. When you're looking at high labour cost USA manufacturing, that makes a difference. Really, the MiM Fender and USA Gibson aren't comparable*, a closer comparison would be the Fender American, and the Gibson Les Paul Studio - £1400 and £1300, so not really out of whack, when you compare like with like. 

*Of course, they're comparable if you couldn't care less about the Made in USA stamp (and I couldn't), but that's not really the point. Gibsons are USA-made, and with labour intensive traditional designs, and that's what you're paying for. Perhaps the market doesn't value that as much as Henry does?

guitars4you

It is not surprising one bit and a comment I made on an earlier post that the bankers/venture capitalists etc won't want to run it themselves - Not their job, but they won't want Henry at the helm either

So who will they appoint - A 'professional' CEO with or without Guitar Knowledge or bringing someone within the trade like Fender did in the 80's with the likes of Dan Smith (albeit he was not CEO)

I recall a chat years ago with Paul Reed Smith and he pointed out he started of as a luthier and player and had to learn to become a businessman - Shows how fortunate the trade is to have a figure head like him - Like him or loathe him, he can wear both hats - Very few in our trade today can do this

jeztone2

A year after he bought Gibson, Appetite For Destruction was released. The Les Paul went from being unfashionable to hip. I think Henry got lucky. 

sixstringsupplies

I feel sorry for him on one hand and i don’t on the other.

 It’s well documented that he turned the company around - Gibson was in a lot of trouble before he came in. A couple of key decisions (custom shop, re-issues and signature models endorsed by Slash etc...) demonstrated innovation and turned the company round.

The problem is 30 years later, he has run out of ideas. 

mobile phones, computing, cars - these industries have all evolved massively over the last 50-60 years. Massively. 

So you would think that adding PCB’s and robo tuning system onto a Les Paul would be a natural evolution (ok not natural but you know what I’m getting at) for an electric guitar. Ultimately it’s an electronic product. You can imagine Henry sitting in his office and an engineer comes up to him one day about this amazing idea about robot tuners. You would think it’s a great idea?? 

Except, at the end of the day - the piano, cello, double bass etc haven’t changed either. It’s a musical instrument. It doesn’t need to change.

He took a big risk trying to diversify and spread into new product areas, and sadly for him it has backfired.

at the end of the day, I really hope someone swoops in and saves Gibson - it’s an iconic brand, making amazing Guitars (generally) and it would be very sad to see them go. 

musteatbrain

https://youtu.be/3ILtr_MEHVE
Not new, but this says it all for me

grungebob

TTony said:

grungebob said:

You may all be surprised how little involvement a CEO can actually have. 

The CEO bears the ultimate responsibility.  It's in the job spec.

If he didn't know what was going on in his company, then he'd have to be ignorant  and incompetent.

If he did know what was going on in his company, and chose to let it continue, then he's stupid and incompetent.

Agreed. Perhaps I should I should have put the “can” in bold. 

Chalky

Well Henry doesn't have to worry about any competition from anyone on this thread  

stickyfiddle

musteatbrain said:

https://youtu.be/3ILtr_MEHVE
Not new, but this says it all for me

With his tie on, no less.

stickyfiddle

sixstringsupplies said:

I feel sorry for him on one hand and i don’t on the other.

 It’s well documented that he turned the company around - Gibson was in a lot of trouble before he came in. A couple of key decisions (custom shop, re-issues and signature models endorsed by Slash etc...) demonstrated innovation and turned the company round.

He did turn it around, but if you look at it, all he really did was re-start manufacturing of old models that were still popular among musicians, in the specifications that were popular with musicians. Then do a couple of signature models for the most obvious players - Jimmy Page, Joe Perry and Slash (again not a new thing... Les Paul, Barney Kessel, Trini Lopez, etc). 

The CS stuff was obvious a success, but I can't imagine it accounts for more than 10% of revenue.

2003amxl

  

hobbio

Everone's joking about Chappers taking over, but Lee Anderton could probably do it. 

guitars4you

All the talk about who may buy Gibson 
All the talk about who the financiers might bring into to run it as CEO

So we are all looking at options within the trade as to who it might - maybe PRS, maybe X Y or Z etc etc

Just remember that when Henry purchased Gibson it came out of the blue - The immediate talk in the trade was who is Henry - He was not an established person within the industry - So a similar name might come round and acquire the business

Bridgehouse

guitars4you said:

All the talk about who may buy Gibson 
All the talk about who the financiers might bring into to run it as CEO

So we are all looking at options within the trade as to who it might - maybe PRS, maybe X Y or Z etc etc

Just remember that when Henry purchased Gibson it came out of the blue - The immediate talk in the trade was who is Henry - He was not an established person within the industry - So a similar name might come round and acquire the business

True. Alan Sugar might invest and take over. Presumably he’d do similar to Amstrad and rename it after him - so Gobshite Les Paul it is then...

Phil_aka_Pip

guitars4you said:

All the talk about who may buy Gibson 
All the talk about who the financiers might bring into to run it as CEO

So we are all looking at options within the trade as to who it might - maybe PRS, maybe X Y or Z etc etc

Just remember that when Henry purchased Gibson it came out of the blue - The immediate talk in the trade was who is Henry - He was not an established person within the industry - So a similar name might come round and acquire the business

maybe, but such a person could easily make the same mistake as Henry, whereas someone from inside the industry might just stand a chance of restoring Gibson to its position of being a well-respected instrument maker rather than being a purveyor of lifestyle goods.

Bridgehouse

Phil_aka_Pip said:

guitars4you said:

All the talk about who may buy Gibson 
All the talk about who the financiers might bring into to run it as CEO

So we are all looking at options within the trade as to who it might - maybe PRS, maybe X Y or Z etc etc

Just remember that when Henry purchased Gibson it came out of the blue - The immediate talk in the trade was who is Henry - He was not an established person within the industry - So a similar name might come round and acquire the business

maybe, but such a person could easily make the same mistake as Henry, whereas someone from inside the industry might just stand a chance of restoring Gibson to its position of being a well-respected instrument maker rather than being a purveyor of lifestyle goods.

What “lifestyle” is enhanced by a broken headstock, a poor quality of fit and finish, a myriad of colours nobody wants, or a product that strives to deliver 1959 in a leather case?

Philly_Q

Bridgehouse said:

guitars4you said:

All the talk about who may buy Gibson 
All the talk about who the financiers might bring into to run it as CEO

So we are all looking at options within the trade as to who it might - maybe PRS, maybe X Y or Z etc etc

Just remember that when Henry purchased Gibson it came out of the blue - The immediate talk in the trade was who is Henry - He was not an established person within the industry - So a similar name might come round and acquire the business

True. Alan Sugar might invest and take over. Presumably he’d do similar to Amstrad and rename it after him - so Gobshite Les Paul it is then...

And he'd switch production to his own manufacturing facility - like those shitty-looking Spectrums he made when he took over Sinclair.

I wonder if the factory where they made Columbus LP copies is still going?

lewism

NelsonP said:

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?

Er, the maths here is a little out of whack. The top of the line Fender is 7 times the price of the Squier. If Gibson were to match that pricing structure the Les Paul Std should be £2100 rather than £2000!