Jump to content
Gibson Brands Forums
Rabs

What happened to the Firebird X stock

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Lord Summerisle said:

The video was doubtless made to document the destruction of the inventory, should evidence need to be provided to the IRS.

Destruction, as opposed to charitable donation, is not uncommon for "luxury brands." https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/why-luxury-brands-burn-their-own-goods/ar-BBMX3Pk

Selling them for pennies on the dollar devalues the brand and irritates the dealer network who are trying to sell Gibson guitars for big bucks as luxury items, while other authentic Gibson guitars are now being sold for peanuts.

The same is true of charitable donation. Those are examples of Gibson's high end product. The fact that they were basically unsaleable doesn't matter. New Gibsons showing up in hundreds of youth organizations' band camps still "devalues" the luxury product. Had these been lower range Epiphones, perhaps the company would have donated them.

It seems very wrong to us as musicians, but, well, business is business.

And I doubt they're pleased their documented evidence showed up on Youtube.

 

Well according to this they were all faulty

9s2EJ5R.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Businesses indeed do routinely destroy unsold inventory, especially perceived 'luxury' brands as noted in the above posts. However, those same businesses are usually scrupulously careful not to video it or release/leak said video because it often turns into a PR disaster. There was a recent case here in the UK of a fashion brand called Burberry who admitted to destroying unsold stock in order to keep the 'value' of the brand high but it turned into a PR nightmare for them when people found out. Gibson need to be careful that the same doesn't happen here because people will see the video without appreciating any of the underlying reasons and think it's a pretty low move for a company to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Rabs said:

Well according to this they were all faulty

9s2EJ5R.png

 

Fair enough, then. The video evidence does two things: documents the write-off for the IRS, and also protects the company in case of any liability claims from people who subsequently claim to have been injured by these "unsafe parts." (Can't be one of those guitars, we didn't sell from that batch, we drove over them with a bulldozer - look). That explains why these things were destroyed in their entirety, and not stripped of parts prior to their destruction.

I understand why the video was made. In Gibson's position I'd be absolutely furious with the former employee who leaked it. This isn't whistle-blowing. A private company is free to destroy its own property, if it so chooses.

Edited by Lord Summerisle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well I'll probably come off as some kinda jerk but I could care less what they do with them.  yes. I do agree that donating them would have been nice. but they should donate LP studios. not those X's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Rabs said:

Well according to this they were all faulty

9s2EJ5R.png

 

Ok now I understand....more.

More....or less........:-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That statement sounds like BS to me. How could any part of that guitar be “unsafe” in a way that is not salvageable? I can’t think of a single possibility

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dub-T-123 said:

That statement sounds like BS to me. How could any part of that guitar be “unsafe” in a way that is not salvageable? I can’t think of a single possibility

 

It does appear that way. 

'Unsafe components' sounds deliberately vague & could mean anything. Even a loose knob is a choking hazard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why couldn't they just hire someone to take the electrics out and turn them into a normal guitar?  The waste in this world in unbelievable. Especially food, while people go hungry. It makes you ashamed to be human. But profit rules in the boardroom. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Lord Summerisle said:

Selling them for pennies on the dollar devalues the brand and irritates the dealer network who are trying to sell Gibson guitars for big bucks as luxury items, while other authentic Gibson guitars are now being sold for peanuts.

The same is true of charitable donation. Those are examples of Gibson's high end product. The fact that they were basically unsaleable doesn't matter. New Gibsons showing up in hundreds of youth organizations' band camps still "devalues" the luxury product. Had these been lower range Epiphones, perhaps the company would have donated them.

 

Sure, but the 2017 range included such products as the M2 and Firebird Zero. Those were not branded Epiphone. What devalues the brand more?

i stand corrected if this was actually done by Gibson to smarten up the accounts, desperation I guess. Hope they didn't fire up the steam shovel back in 61 when they ditched the unpopular Les Paul shape and went to the SG [scared]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 'Scales said:

Sure, but the 2017 range included such products as the M2 and Firebird Zero. Those were not branded Epiphone. What devalues the brand more?

i stand corrected if this was actually done by Gibson to smarten up the accounts, desperation I guess. Hope they didn't fire up the steam shovel back in 61 when they ditched the unpopular Les Paul shape and went to the SG [scared]

 

Strange choices, I agree. But then I didn't say I agreed with the "luxury" manufacturers' decisions to destroy product rather than sell it cheaply.

The difference is, I think, that the cheap-o Firebird Zero was always marketed, from day one, as an inexpensive guitar. The Firebird Xs were very far from that.

On a separate, unrelated note, I do not understand why Gibson doesn't do what Fender has done, and make its guitars available across a variety of price points. There is more value in selling them as "Gibson Les Pauls" than preserving that moniker for US made instruments. People who wanted an American one would buy an American one, other people would buy a foreign made one for less money - just as is the case with US, Mexican, and Asian made Stats and Teles. But I digress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Lord Summerisle said:

On a separate, unrelated note, I do not understand why Gibson doesn't do what Fender has done, and make its guitars available across a variety of price points. There is more value in selling them as "Gibson Les Pauls" than preserving that moniker for US made instruments. People who wanted an American one would buy an American one, other people would buy a foreign made one for less money - just as is the case with US, Mexican, and Asian made Stats and Teles. But I digress.

Putting the Gibson name on a Gibson headstock on an Epiphone guitar might sell more of them but then "devalue" the Gibson brand. It would be like putting the Chevrolet logo on a Cadillac. Same company makes both but a Cadillac is known as a high end luxury brand and a Malibu more of an every day kind of car. Gibson wants their Gibson guitars and their Epiphone guitars to be a luxury brand and an affordable brand. Their plan is to have someone start on an Epiphone and move up to Gibson eventually.

The Fender American, MIM/Asia or whatever gets confusing when you have to look fairly closely to see what's what. With Squier on the headstock, you know what you're getting at a glance. I'm not knocking lower priced guitars and have certainly owned and played my share of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Summerisle said:

 

Strange choices, I agree. But then I didn't say I agreed with the "luxury" manufacturers' decisions to destroy product rather than sell it cheaply.

The difference is, I think, that the cheap-o Firebird Zero was always marketed, from day one, as an inexpensive guitar. The Firebird Xs were very far from that.

On a separate, unrelated note, I do not understand why Gibson doesn't do what Fender has done, and make its guitars available across a variety of price points. There is more value in selling them as "Gibson Les Pauls" than preserving that moniker for US made instruments. People who wanted an American one would buy an American one, other people would buy a foreign made one for less money - just as is the case with US, Mexican, and Asian made Stats and Teles. But I digress.

They day and hour Gibson makes any guitar outside the US, I will never buy another one again. Gibson on the headstock tells me that guitar is US made.  That's how I roll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MichaelT said:

Putting the Gibson name on a Gibson headstock on an Epiphone guitar might sell more of them but then "devalue" the Gibson brand. It would be like putting the Chevrolet logo on a Cadillac. Same company makes both but a Cadillac is known as a high end luxury brand and a Malibu more of an every day kind of car. Gibson wants their Gibson guitars and their Epiphone guitars to be a luxury brand and an affordable brand. Their plan is to have someone start on an Epiphone and move up to Gibson eventually.

The Fender American, MIM/Asia or whatever gets confusing when you have to look fairly closely to see what's what. With Squier on the headstock, you know what you're getting at a glance. I'm not knocking lower priced guitars and have certainly owned and played my share of them.

 

An interesting comparison. I own a Buick (a brand I expect won't be around Stateside much longer). Love it, great car. What is a Buick Lacrosse? Simple answer: it's a Chevy Impala with a facelift. GM is GM.

When GM learns to put panels together like Lexus or Mercedes, Cadillac might be a luxury brand rather than a rebadged Chevy wealthy old people use to go to church or the country club.

And all the whining about Gibson's quality control over the years suggests American workers often encounter the same (or more) problems as people in Qingdao operating the CNC machine. Or building to a price point, even a high price point, is much harder when you've factored in far higher production costs.

A brand is a brand. With GM, there is no inherent difference between the tiers, other than the marketing. Guitars aren't quite like that. I do expect a US-made Les Paul to be better than an Epiphone Les Paul. At the end of the day, discerning buyers look at a product, not the badge. For those to whom the badge matters, the fact that the product exists across a range and price points still grants confidence that they've bought at the right price point in the range. The guy who just dropped huge money on a Fender Custom Shop Strat doesn't feel cheated when he looks at the MIM Fender Strat hanging around the singer's neck, and sees the words "Fender" and "Stratocaster" on the headstock; he wanted a better guitar, he paid for a better guitar, odds are that he has a better guitar.

 

 

Edited by Lord Summerisle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord Summerisle said:

The guy who just dropped huge money on a Fender Custom Shop Strat doesn't feel cheated when he looks at the MIM Fender Strat hanging around the singer's neck, and sees the words "Fender" and "Stratocaster" on the headstock; he wanted a better guitar, he paid for a better guitar, odds are that he has a better guitar.

 

 

 

He doesn’t feel cheated because he got a good guitar build upon personal preferences for as much as he could afford.

As one of the Fender customshop builders said, there goes some more time into details besides having the option to make it as custom as the customer want’s it to be.

That doesn’t mean that MIM strats are worse, the same builder was even quite surprised when he was presented with cheaper strats that got the Squier label on the headstock, and even told how these can be made more on pair with a bit of work on details.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LarryUK said:

Why couldn't they just hire someone to take the electrics out and turn them into a normal guitar?  The waste in this world in unbelievable. Especially food, while people go hungry. It makes you ashamed to be human. But profit rules in the boardroom. 

 Profit would have been the same if they had donated them away, doesn’t hurt a tax writeoff the slightest.

Only reason not to is shameful lazyness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the last draw...  After this video, I'm selling all my Gibson guitars and going to PRS!  Even worse, FENDER!  I'm so ashamed of Gibson for this... 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Summerisle said:

 

 I own a Buick

 

 

 I'm really sorry to here this. 

All kidding aside, you made some valid points I cannot argue with. I'm a firm believer you should get what you pay for. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, NighthawkChris said:

This is the last draw...  After this video, I'm selling all my Gibson guitars and going to PRS!  Even worse, FENDER!  I'm so ashamed of Gibson for this... 

I'm  looking for an SG mid to late 60's If you have one to sell let me know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Navy Vet. said:

I'm  looking for an SG mid to late 60's If you have one to sell let me know.

I hated it so much I ran over it with an excavator!  🙂

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NighthawkChris said:

I hated it so much I ran over it with an excavator!  🙂

Easy Cowboy, put that tractor back in the shed and a have a cold one.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Navy Vet. said:

Easy Cowboy, put that tractor back in the shed and a have a cold one.

+1

Chris, ignore the politics and play guitars. I'm sure PRS, Fender and rct do this all time, they're just better at keeping it under the radar. I wonder if they can file a lawsuit again that knot head for posting that. Better yet, a law suit against the guy that hired him. Or maybe a suit against....

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jørg Baermann said:

 Profit would have been the same if they had donated them away, doesn’t hurt a tax writeoff the slightest.

Only reason not to is shameful lazyness.

 

No.  Too much inventory is a problem that isn't solved by donation.  Donation is only good in limited amounts, you can't give stuff away to success, it just doesn't happen.  To make your balance sheets right you need to "dispose" of unsold inventory to get it down.  Balance, that's what they need.  Inventory on the way and inventory on the way out, in whatever proportion fits their business.  "Disposal" helps those that own the company balance the company and recoup as much of the cost per unit as possible, which isn't much.  There is no recouping cost per unit in donations.

rct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, rct said:

 

No.  Too much inventory is a problem that isn't solved by donation.  Donation is only good in limited amounts, you can't give stuff away to success, it just doesn't happen.  To make your balance sheets right you need to "dispose" of unsold inventory to get it down.  Balance, that's what they need.  Inventory on the way and inventory on the way out, in whatever proportion fits their business.  "Disposal" helps those that own the company balance the company and recoup as much of the cost per unit as possible, which isn't much.  There is no recouping cost per unit in donations.

rct

Well, healthy businesses do just that since it only is a matter of having less inventory for when the tax bill has to be made.

They could also have done it like Peavy is doing it with their US inventory.

And as others mentioned, what a waste of resources, especially when it comes to those that are restricted, looked like perfect rosewood boards on them ES models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, LarryUK said:

Why couldn't they just hire someone to take the electrics out and turn them into a normal guitar?  The waste in this world in unbelievable. Especially food, while people go hungry. It makes you ashamed to be human. But profit rules in the boardroom. 

 

We didn’t just hate the electronics. We hated everything about it. You could spend a fortune replacing all the electronics, hardware, refinishing, inlaying, and have yourself a polished turd. At that point people probably wouldn’t be willing to pay even what it cost to modify the guitar, let alone an amount which would help Gibson recoup anything 

 

The problem here was not that the guitars were destroyed, it’s that they were made in the first place. It was an idiotic idea. The consumers were smart enough to not buy

Edited by Dub-T-123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Dub-T-123 said:

 

We didn’t just hate the electronics. We hated everything about it. You could spend a fortune replacing all the electronics, hardware, refinishing, inlaying, and have yourself a polished turd. At that point people probably wouldn’t be willing to pay even what it cost to modify the guitar, let alone an amount which would help Gibson recoup anything 

 

The problem here was not that the guitars were destroyed, it’s that they were made in the first place. It was an idiotic idea. The consumers were smart enough to not buy

 

Some of those who actually own one or two are pretty happy with them, plays well but takes some time to learn using the electronics is what they claim.

There is a problem in destroying them like it was done too, at least they could have been taken apart for recycling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...