what business did Norlin run before he bought Gibson ?

[gotomsdos]

Hi,folks out there.

I google, but do not find out what business Norlin run before he bought Gibson.

Anybody knows ?

[capmaster]

There is no more detailed information on the web, but I found out that an Ecuadorian brewery abbreviated E.C.L. bought CMI (Chicago Musical Instruments), a distributor which owned Gibson from 1944 to 1969. There is no more company bearing a name like E.C.L., and I couldn't find out what it could have meant. Assumably the E stands for Ecuadorian. They changed their name to Norlin Inc. and also established an organ department which finally failed to release any keyboard instrument. After Norlin having brought Gibson close to going bankrupt, short before a possible acquisition of the Gibson name rights by foreign investors the company was bought by its contemporary owners and management around hobby guitarist Henry Juskiewicz.

[STEVIL]

Wimpy?

[capmaster]

Wimpy?

No, I just don't like beer or any other alcohol. Sadly, some of the CEOs nowadays don't even like or estimate the products their company makes or sells. I think a guitar company should be run rather by a hobby guitarist than by a hobby drinker

[pippy]

The story starts in the mid-sixties when Maurice Berlin (President of CMI and the man who had appointed Ted McCarty as CEO in '48) stood aside to hand over the Presidency to his son, Arnold.

 

Arnold Berlin was a graduate from both Princeton and Harvard and, having attained his MBA, thought he knew everything about how to run any company (according to contemporary reports).

 

A fellow business student of his, Norton Stevens, had become President of the Ecuadorian Company Limited (ECL) a Panamanian Holding Company (so nothing remotely dodgy there, then...lol!).

As Maurice Berlin was becoming increasingly sidelined (he was given the token role of Chairman of the Board) Norton Stevens and 'Maurice' Berlin formed Norlin Industries - although it was obvious Maurice had no part in the new company. Gibson (as part of CMI) eventually became a fully controlled member of Norlin Industries in 1974 although by this time Gibson had already entered a period which has been described as;

"...an era characterized by corporate mismanagement and decreasing product quality." and "...the era of aggressive profit management (which) ultimately spelled the beginning of the end..."

 

There's more in a similar vein if you have the time to read the interviews section of Gil Hembree's excellent 'Gibson Guitars - Ted McCarty's Golden Era 1948-1966'.

 

P.

[milod]

I think our Bavarian forumite has it right.

 

Too many companies are run by people who are in the business of business and not of the goods and services sold by the company. That's pretty much what happened with Gibson and still is happening everywhere. In fact, I think it's one of the biggest problems in far too many businesses nowadays.

 

I think HenryJ has been given far too much crap by some members on the forum for some poorly done PR. He ain't a PR expert and I think sometimes that perhaps some of his PR folks aren't either.

 

At least he knows what a guitar is and the basics of how to play it - and why it's so doggone addictive.

 

He may not have had the stage time some of us have had before he bought the company, but whether some of us like it or not - he's one of us. Were he to show up in my neighborhood I'd be honored to have a drink or dinner with him.

 

m

[zigzag]

 

Too many companies are run by people who are in the business of business and not of the goods and services sold by the company. That's pretty much what happened with Gibson and still is happening everywhere. In fact, I think it's one of the biggest problems in far too many businesses nowadays.

 

 

Amen, brother. MBAs are the problem with American business.

[Twang Gang]

Amen, brother. MBAs are the problem with American business.

 

Have to agree with Milo and Ziggy. MBAs are like democrats - personally I don't have anything against them, there are just too damn many of them!!

[milod]

Actually I have nothing against the MBA per se - but the problem arises when he or she forgets the product and services side and simply lives in paperwork and playing with accounting factors. Even a CPA firm can't get away with that or they'd lose their own clients.

 

m

[zigzag]

I do. As if businesses don't have enough overhead from taxes, insurance, and competitive wages, MBAs are taught to use business models that incorporate expensive programs that add little to the bottom line, go heavy on bean counting (and other administrative costs), orient their focus away from product, sales, and service, and squeeze the value out of people who actually produce (then tell them they're lucky to have a job) in name of efficiency and profits.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlVDGmjz7eM

 

Not to mention that MBAs are taught voodoo accounting- how to juggle numbers, hide losses, and cook books, all while getting paid big bucks (for a couple of extra years of partying in college) to run the company into the ground. I got nothing but contempt for MBAs (if you couldn't tell).

[milod]

Ziggy...

 

Oh, I hear what you're saying, but I've known some MBAs who actually came home to run the family business who made everybody happy.

 

OTOH, I've known folks with "lesser" academic training to function exactly as you have noted - which is designed to ensure a certain executive level and above do quite well while the less-favored do not. And not infrequently the biz goes broke while the "certain executive level and above" laugh all the way to the bank with little apparent regard for either stockholders or employees - or the customers that had been served.

 

m