Gibson to simplify product lineup

Cols

https://www.musicradar.com/news/summer-namm-2018-gibson-to-return-with-simplified-guitar-line-up-says-henry-juszkiewicz

 “We have [made] a lot of effort to simplify product offerings. We feel, in the past, there have been too many new models and names and it was very confusing to the consumer, and so we’ve simplified that, we’ve really simplified and gone back to historical naming precedents”

Good move for a change. Having to maintain all of the current models means more line changes on the production floor, which costs time and money.  Simplifying the product range simultaneously reduces costs and allows them to focus on core products.

jpttaylor

That penny has finally dropped for Gibson - sadly, the creditors have already claimed it.

stonevibe

Since they have already 'leaked' the 2019 lineup, this is no surprise really.

Keefy

This issue made the front of July's Guitarist mag, haven't read it yet though.

Whitecat

UKELELES!!! Finally! We’ve all been asking for this, right??

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1JN3AL

Cols

(Checks calendar).   Nope, definitely not 1st April...

BBBlues

Keefy said:

This issue made the front of July's Guitarist mag, haven't read it yet though.

Guitarist? Sheesh, must be big news then.

Neil

I guess simplifying the lineup will suit traditionalists (of which I am one) but surely having a large range with many different options gives people more choice?

Look at Fender. How many Strats do they have in their line up?

stickyfiddle

When they say historical names, which ones do they mean?

Standard 
Custom
Elegant
Supreme
Deluxe
Classic
Traditional
Studio
Tribute
Faded
Special
Junior

I'd really like to see them make a Standard (exactly what you picture), Custom (gold & ebony boards, black & white finishes), Studio (no binding, no bling, no pickup covers), Special (2x P90s) and Juniors (single P90) - and apply that equally to LPs and SGs. Maybe offer limited runs of Deluxes (ie a Standard with mini-hums) and Faded finishes in small numbers in a couple of different finishes each year.

Drop the Trad and Classic (because the Standard should cover all those bases without gimmicks), then offer a modern one "Modern" or "Player's Series" or something, with a thinner neck, maybe hotter pickups and/or coil taps and or locking tuners and/or a cutaway neck joints. 

And keep a single Melody Maker model available so you can claim to have a single USA-made guitar for $500 or whatever. Rotate that between LP singlecut, LP DC and SG shapes each year.

Let Memphis keep doing whatever it wants - those guys are making the best stuff anyway, and apart from the itchy-brain-making aquamarine ES-335s, everything they've done in recent years has been great. 

And hire someone from PRS who knows how they get their QC so good, then empower him to change *all* the internal processes necessary to ensure that every time someone pickups up a Gibson in a shop it's in *really* good shape, shiny frets, well cut nuts and all.  

And frankly, on anything that isn't a CS Historic reissue, use fricking CNC on the neck joints, and do something to make headstocks stronger. Keeping the back-angle the same and adding carbon or maple inserts under the headstock veneer would be my choice. I can't imagine that would add significant cost if the factory process was being run well - it just needs a couple of extra routes during the CNC process and a little more time at the veneer-glueing-on stage. 

But what do I know, I'm just an analyst..!

pintspiller

I always thought that too much choice either confuses people or makes them completists

soma1975

What I'd like to see. 

Studio or other budget option. 

Standard (traditional style with PAF-types and 50s wiring)
Standard Modern (all fancy modern adornments and improved cutaway and switching options etc etc)
Historics
Custom Shop

Also if they change the epiphone headstock to the gibson one they'd sell a shit ton more. 

ChuckManual

stickyfiddle said:

Let Memphis keep doing whatever it wants - those guys are making the best stuff anyway, and apart from the itchy-brain-making aquamarine ES-335s, everything they've done in recent years has been great. 

They're selling the Memphis factory.

https://reverb.com/uk/news/gibson-set-to-sell-memphis-guitar-factory

stickyfiddle

ChuckManual said:

stickyfiddle said:

Let Memphis keep doing whatever it wants - those guys are making the best stuff anyway, and apart from the itchy-brain-making aquamarine ES-335s, everything they've done in recent years has been great. 

They're selling the Memphis factory.

https://reverb.com/uk/news/gibson-set-to-sell-memphis-guitar-factory

I understand they're selling the property because they're only using a third of the floor space and it's not great business to be sitting on millions of dollars of real estate you aren't using. Last I heard they're planning on moving to a new facility still in Memphis. 

bodhi

They should just make another Slash signature model.  Or two.  Or three.

That'll do the trick nicely.

impmann

TBH, if they stopped trying to make cheap end guitars in the US (Studios etc) they could then start marketing the brand as a premium one.

Get rid of everything inexpensive and move that to Epiphone (waits for the howls about the headstock shape - don't like it, save your pennies and buy a premium level Gibson. You can't have your cake and eat it...

Then actually live up to the premium brand moniker. Stop building "model years" concentrate on a small core number of guitars in core/legacy colours. Accept that Gibson is a "legacy" brand and concentrate on building that legacy.

Improve the QC - stop trying to inspect quality in at the end of the process... change the processes to improve the quality. Its a simple thing to say, but believe me having done this myself, its NOT as easy to implement.

Make the Standard range the *entry* level. Custom above that. Then the Reissue range. Custom Shop becomes *EXACTLY* that - the place for one offs, artist builds and a market stall for the pinnacle of guitar building.

Cut back on daft artist models - there's too many, its confusing and frankly some of these are just tiny variations in *colour* over the basic models.

Then (later down the road) re-introduce one of their other dormant guitar brands to bring out new, innovative products - such as the Kramer brand. Use this brand for the off the wall stuff and develop it from there.

Finally... kill off the grotty Epiphones. We all know the ones - the cheap stuff for beginners that cheapen the brand. Reintroduce the Baldwin range for that and move production to Indonsesia or similar to get a better product for a cheaper price.

I have an invoice waiting for my consultancy fee... ;-)

Cols

Neil said:

I guess simplifying the lineup will suit traditionalists (of which I am one) but surely having a large range with many different options gives people more choice?

Look at Fender. How many Strats do they have in their line up?

It’s a matter of profit margin.

Gibson need to demonstrate to the administrators a plan for returning the company to profitability.  This can be done by increasing sales, or decreasing the cost of production.

Increasing sales is difficult, as the guitar market is relatively stagnant and, as one of the big two, Gibson have limited opportunities to increase market share.

Maintaining a large number of different models makes for costly production.  Apart from having to hold stocks of many different parts for all the models, changing production lines over to different models costs time and money.  

Although you may sell more guitars in the end by offering a dazzling range of products, it can result in lower overall profit.

stickyfiddle

@Cols - don't forget increasing prices. 

It's better business to sell 10 guitars that cost you 1k but you sell at 2k (100% markup, 10k total profit on a spend of 10k), than it is to sell 50 of the same guitars at 1.2k each (same 10k profit but on 500k spent). 

Your accounting-based cashflow obsessives would like option 2 because it might show revenue growth but that's bullshit when you have a market that isn't getting bigger and a company not making enough margin to service its debts.  

Haych

For what my opinion is worth (zip, and that's generous) Gibson should also reduce their output.  This would allow them to concentrate on quality control at every step of the production process, they'd be more inclined to get it right first time which would save cost on rejects and rework.  It would also reduce overheads as they wouldn't need the same size factory/warehouses and wouldn't have as much WIP etc, unfortunately they probably wouldn't need the same number of staff

Reducing output would also introduce some real exclusivity back into the brand.  The market is flooded with Gibson's of all price points to the point where the brand is devalued in the eyes of the consumer, without even mentioning the gaudy colours they've been pushing recently (is there a vomit emoji). 

Limiting output and increasing quality would allow them to command a better price and produce instruments in numbers for which there is a demand and which they could realistically sell quickly.

I'm no business consultant though so I could be talking out my ring.

ChuckManual

stickyfiddle said:

ChuckManual said:

stickyfiddle said:

Let Memphis keep doing whatever it wants - those guys are making the best stuff anyway, and apart from the itchy-brain-making aquamarine ES-335s, everything they've done in recent years has been great. 

They're selling the Memphis factory.

https://reverb.com/uk/news/gibson-set-to-sell-memphis-guitar-factory

I understand they're selling the property because they're only using a third of the floor space and it's not great business to be sitting on millions of dollars of real estate you aren't using. Last I heard they're planning on moving to a new facility still in Memphis. 

Plus; it's right in the city centre. I can't imagine the business rates are that low! 

I hadn't heard they were staying in the city. That can only be a good thing.

meltedbuzzbox

Haych said:

For what my opinion is worth (zip, and that's generous) Gibson should also reduce their output.  This would allow them to concentrate on quality control at every step of the production process, they'd be more inclined to get it right first time which would save cost on rejects and rework.  It would also reduce overheads as they wouldn't need the same size factory/warehouses and wouldn't have as much WIP etc, unfortunately they probably wouldn't need the same number of staff

Reducing output would also introduce some real exclusivity back into the brand.  The market is flooded with Gibson's of all price points to the point where the brand is devalued in the eyes of the consumer, without even mentioning the gaudy colours they've been pushing recently (is there a vomit emoji). 

Limiting output and increasing quality would allow them to command a better price and produce instruments in numbers for which there is a demand and which they could realistically sell quickly.

I'm no business consultant though so I could be talking out my ring.

I think they'd need to know how many units sold would generate a profit and cover all their overheads. With a lot of staff and a shit load of debt I bet they need to sell a lot of Les Paul's. 

Totally agree with your idea, I just think Gibson can't do that financially

adamm82

why can't they sell a junior that is correct I have money Gibson take my money if you can sell me what I actually want.  I just want a normal les paul junior doublecut.