Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums

In the news...


rct

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

No offense Rabs, but 40 million is one month's debt service for Gibson. Them t00ners aren't even on the long list of their problems.

 

rct

Well I just think that's where their whole thinking just went totally skewed on what they release each year... I reckon it showed just how out of tune they are with their customer base.. And it hasn't changed that much since.. And the fact they now do two lines of each guitar just to justify the auto tuners must have had an impact... How many stores have the room to show both?

 

Its just I think when things went totally wonky for them.. And they are still doing it?

 

Well that and all the electronics companies they have bought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I just think that's where their whole thinking just went totally skewed on what they release each year... I reckon it showed just how out of tune they are with their customer base.. And it hasn't changed that much since.. And the fact they now to two lines of each guitar just to justify the auto tuners must have had an impact... How many stores have the room to show both?

 

Its just I think when things went totally wonky for them.. And they are still doing it?

 

Well that and all the electronics companies they have bought.

 

I agree with you in general. Selling ordinary great Les Pauls wasn't going to get them close to their debt problems, so they went out on quite a few limbs to try to bury it with enough revenue to not have to think about it for a few years. So sure, the tuners were a turning point, but I think their problems were very well entrenched before then. Years.

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its funny actually....

 

A good friend of mine bought a LP Faded Studio a few years back that has auto tuners.. At first he said he liked it.. I spoke to him a few days ago and all hes saying now is how much of a pain in the arse they are and its not stable etc etc and hes now going to remove them (well I will probably do it for him anyway).... They should never have done a whole line of it but released it on a few models for the early adopters, perfect the system (cos that was always going to take time) and then once they had it perfect then go for it big style..

 

They way they did it by releasing the WHOLE line and trying to force it on people before it was even perfected was just stupid.. And then theres the crappy brass nuts... It was just a really badly executed idea..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll run the company and I would be like Oprah. You get a Les Paul and you get a Les Paul and you get a Les Paul too.

 

I would make 5 LP models, not 105.

 

On SG's I would consult Charlie Brown on the correct beveling.

 

BB Kings would not be 7 grand.

 

I would make a kidblast signature guitar and JM even if he played a Gibson and begged he would never get a sig model.

 

Yes, any colour you like so long as it's a burst [smile]

 

 

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just what I was talking about a 5k ugly LP that cost what to make? Anywhere close to 5k, not hardly.These guitars are not hand crafted by cherubs.

Well as a business it wouldn’t make sense to charge close to what it cost to make.

 

I think we might be surprised what it costs to make a custom shop LP. I’m not sure you realize how much the materials alone cost, then imagine what it costs to pay skilled laborers to do all of the hand work. Gibson is paying for taxes, insurance, utilities, tools, etc. Inevitably some of the guitars will come out flawed, some materials won’t be usable, there are losses involved.

 

I could easily see it costing 2K+ to build that guitar in America but maybe I’m off. I do woodwork in America and I can tell you it isn’t cheap, if you want a nice little bathroom vanity with a finish on it I need like almost $3K for it to be worth my time. That’s a lot less complicated than a high end guitar

 

The problem that I see with that particular LP is not the price but the really stupid design. I don’t know anybody that would spend nearly $5K on that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was reading another article about Gibson's debt issues. It seemed to me like the more Gibson branched out into other markets that that's where the trouble stemmed. The article touched on this a little.

 

This was a quote from that article:

"Gibson’s problems are thought to have arisen mainly through their electronics operations, which have seen a sales slump in recent years."

 

Doesn't look like there are many positive outcomes for HJ no matter how this thing gets sliced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In no particular order:

You have a CEO who decides that a guitar company really isn't a guitar company anymore, they're really a one stop shopping entertainment company.

They buy a bunch of mid-fi electronics companies which fail to set the world on fire.

The CEO decides that guitar players really want electrical doohickeys tuning their guitars and the ideal instrument would be some sort of cross between a synthesizer and a guitar.

When that kind of flops the thing to do is to have two guitar line ups, forcing the dealers to double their inventory.

Smaller dealerships are forced out in favor of giant chains.

To increase guitar sales the best way to do it is to increase the cost of the instrument. That adds value in the eyes of the consumer.

To improve the profit margin they switch to PCB boards instead of traditional point to point wiring.

Add coil tapping to nearly everything even if nobody asked for it. Also add DIP switches to the PCB boards even though nobody asked for it.

To improve the profit margin they eliminate their traditional nibs but then have to reverse course the following year.

They get caught with imported grey market ebony and are forced to use a synthetic finger board material.

Make fret boards out of two thin sheets of rosewood until someone notices it.

Start to replace rosewood with torrified Grenadillo and see if that goes over okay.

New models are introduced and quickly vanish due to lack of sales.

Instead of having a few variants of a model range they introduce hundreds of options and colors along with various tiers of replications of guitars that they made when they only had a few variants of a model range.

The replications, no matter how lowly the model, are absurdly overpriced to stimulate desirability.

To improve the profit margin they offer gig bags in place of a hard shell case for models under $2000 (subject to change).

To stimulate sales they lower guitar prices for a model year's introduction and then rapidly raise them.

To bolster acoustic guitar sales they offer them in garish neon paint jobs and tack on electronic tuners and the like.

Their major retailer has been teetering on the bank of financial ruin for at least a decade.

Quality control means checking some boxes on a piece of paper and sticking that in the case. In some cases it may not even be possible to adjust the truss rod.

The bills are coming due.

 

Have I missed anything?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Combine an overall slump in guitar sales with a poor business model, and then to salvage the company, a poor attempt at diversification, and this is what you get. Henry had some large stones to try to resurrect Gibson, but he p!ssed off a lot of people along the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have such mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I think we owe Henry a great deal for bringing Gibson back. I realize that statement is bound to incite many different opinions. It's just mine. At the same time, I saw him buy brand after brand and ultimately shut them down. I pictured Henry building a diorama with names of murdered companies on tombstones. I don't even want to think about it. I have received well written explanations via email as to the acquisitions and subsequent shutdowns of two companies from a prominent forum member who I can guarantee knows the truth, having been a Gibson employee for 30 years or so. Watching someone strangle a kitten and then hearing their justification for doing so doesn't negate the horror of seeing it happen. Just so there's no mistake, I feel sad that Garrison couldn't hang on. And I'm even more sad that OMI ceased to be. If I had money I'd buy the Dobro name and move it back to southern CA where it belongs. If we made 10 guitars a week, so be it.

 

I've never met Henry and know very little about him. I can't criticize him with any degree of credibility. My statements in the previous paragraph were just my opinions formed by my perception of some things that have happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have such mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I think we owe Henry a great deal for bringing Gibson back. I realize that statement is bound to incite many different opinions. It's just mine. At the same time, I saw him buy brand after brand and ultimately shut them down. I pictured Henry building a diorama with names of murdered companies on tombstones. I don't even want to think about it. I have received well written explanations via email as to the acquisitions and subsequent shutdowns of two companies from a prominent forum member who I can guarantee knows the truth, having been a Gibson employee for 30 years or so. Watching someone strangle a kitten and then hearing their justification for doing so doesn't negate the horror of seeing it happen. Just so there's no mistake, I feel sad that Garrison couldn't hang on. And I'm even more sad that OMI ceased to be. If I had money I'd buy the Dobro name and move it back to southern CA where it belongs. If we made 10 guitars a week, so be it.

 

I've never met Henry and know very little about him. I can't criticize him with any degree of credibility. My statements in the previous paragraph were just my opinions formed by my perception of some things that have happened.

Thanks for that.. Its good to hear from someone who is actually involved in all of this.

 

I don't think anyone will deny that Henry brought Gibson back... The 80s and early 90s Gibsons seem to be held in very high regard by many... Its just sad it all went the corporate way.. Building guitars doesn't lend itself to that model and any owner of a guitar company should know that. The whole increase profits and expand year on year is a crazy and very risky way to do business and to be successful at it, youd better have the right plan.

 

Like say take Rickenbacker.. Form what I know they make only a certain amount a year, those are always pretty much pre-sold, everyone gets paid and the move on to the next year.. That method also allows them to slightly increase or decrease the amount they make each year depending on what ever the current state of the market is... Seems like a very sustainable way of doing things... But the big corporate way, they have to increase profits every year or something is wrong is just a bonkers thing to expect from the guitar market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At a tour of the Martin plant last year the guide said that for the first time in a long time they were NOT the number one in sales volume in the acoustic market, Gibson was.

I'm sure that includes Epiphone sales as well.

I've tried to like the Gibson acoustics but just don't. Many of them are handsome instruments, I will say that much.

Their Five Star Dealerships may do an exhaustive set up, I would not know.

 

Positive things?

The electrics that I currently have are the best guitars I've ever owned.

There may be defects in fit and finish but there is nothing I'd rather own, they just feel and sound right.

They're all made by Gibson.

I have at least one more electric guitar purchase left in me.

That will also be a Gibson but it will be a used one with an ebony fret board, nibs and point to point wiring.

 

It is my understanding that Gibson were well aware that there were risks with the wood they were purchasing and it was passed over by other manufacturers because it was a shady deal.

Gibson chose to ignore the warnings and paid the price.

 

Of course these decisions were made by senior management, the guys on the shop floor don't have any input.

My take on the entire thing is that once the sinking ship that was the Norlin era was safely afloat they went along fine for a bit, decided that they were going to make an empire out of a guitar company and proceeded to run the ship over a coral reef in the process.

 

Do I want Gibson to go under? Of course not.

Are they going to undergo big changes, like it or not?

It certainly seems so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have such mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I think we owe Henry a great deal for bringing Gibson back. I realize that statement is bound to incite many different opinions. It's just mine. At the same time, I saw him buy brand after brand and ultimately shut them down. I pictured Henry building a diorama with names of murdered companies on tombstones. I don't even want to think about it. I have received well written explanations via email as to the acquisitions and subsequent shutdowns of two companies from a prominent forum member who I can guarantee knows the truth, having been a Gibson employee for 30 years or so. Watching someone strangle a kitten and then hearing their justification for doing so doesn't negate the horror of seeing it happen. Just so there's no mistake, I feel sad that Garrison couldn't hang on. And I'm even more sad that OMI ceased to be. If I had money I'd buy the Dobro name and move it back to southern CA where it belongs. If we made 10 guitars a week, so be it.

 

I've never met Henry and know very little about him. I can't criticize him with any degree of credibility. My statements in the previous paragraph were just my opinions formed by my perception of some things that have happened.

 

I agree. He did an awful lot to prevent an old guitar company from sliding down the drain, and we should all be somewhat grateful for that. Any issues I have with Gibson are not at all personal towards him, and I don't know how anyone can have such a grudge.

 

It is business. Business involves incurring debt, whether I as a customer like the reason they incurred that debt or not. In hindsight, he and his team are second guessing, questioning, doubting, and regretting some or all or lots of that debt, because the risk was high when they took it, and they knew it. It isn't working out, you can't debt yourself out of debt, and that seems to be their only recourse.

 

Whatever they do I hope they are able to salvage the Name and the intellectual property that makes Gibson Guitars. Unfortunately, when a business is where Gibson appears to be, and I say it that way because it is a privately held concern and any deep financial information is formed from very little factual data since they don't have to tell anyone much of anything, their factory and their inventory and their people are not assets to be bought at a profit for the current owners and an investment for the next owners. This is, on the surface, and we can only guess because we can't look at their sheets, a fire sale type of environment, and that never goes well for the seller.

 

I just hope they keep this forum, one of their finest products ever.

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At a tour of the Martin plant last year the guide said that for the first time in a long time they were NOT the number one in sales volume in the acoustic market, Gibson was.

 

That is interesting.

 

I've toured CFMartin, but that was a private dealy-o, and we had dinner and drinks with CFIV after. One rule we went in the building with: No Business. None. How guitars are made, great stories of drunken brawls with Martins, famous people that have been there, anything but Business.

 

When Mrs made sure I toured Heaven The Fender Factory, same rule: No Business. None. I clowned around with Yngwies next guitar, I got to fool around in the offices and pretend I was Leo, I crawled around under machines that Leo fixed because I wanted to see stuff he did, I sat on blanks and I made fun of the guy setting tele bridges because I was pretty sure they were wrong and the skinny E would be falling off and he laughed and agreed. But No Business.

 

Interesting that CFM even came close to acknowledging a seemingly trivial but really important bit of Business.

 

rct

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guide then said they didn't really care, they want to be the best in quality and then the tour moved onto the next bit of the process. Here's a buffing machine in action or whatever.

 

 

Gibson acoustic gets a lot of exposure on things like the Grammy Awards, The Voice, etc. and you know that generates a lot of sales for them.

Can't afford a Gibson? How about an Epiphone Hummingbird...

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's possible the tour guide was mistaken, he just threw it out there in conversation and we moved onto the next bit.

He would have been talking about the 2016 model year as that occurred Summer of 2017.

I was surprised to hear it but I always see quite a few used Epiphones at guitar stores so new units must move pretty briskly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...