COME ON HENRY!!! Gibson gets D minus...

[NeoConMan]

As much as I love Gibson guitars' date=' I'm not sure I'll buy another one.[/quote']

I'm of a similar mind...

 

Oh, I'll buy more of them but not before making damned sure there's nothing wrong with them.

It's insane that a person can't simply check a guitar for mistreatment, and have the confidence that the factory

did their part and the dealer network followed suit.

I would buy a new Fender sight-unseen in a heartbeat.

One, it'll be right - and Two, it'll be easy to fix if it's not.

The American Fenders are GOOD guitars - especially at their price point.

Why would Gibson EVER feel compelled to compete with bolt necks and crappy finishes?

 

Another thing on the retail end, who gets all the special runs from Gibson?

Guitar Center.

 

Let's see....

Is there anything more important to Gibson than sales volume?

Appears the answer is no.

 

And Milo, I'm with you 100% but I think my point with the BBB (not really a fan myself) is that people BELIEVE it.

The example I gave of parents seeing a D minus rating and then telling their kid "We ain't buying a Gibson" is

certainly valid. We got JD Power giving quality "ratings" after doing all kinds of quality surveys on all kinds of

products based on nothing more than how happy somebody is with a product they just purchased.

 

Of course they're happy with it - they just bought the damned thing!

 

What about a year later?

A piece of junk has been produced, shipped, sold, returned, and sold again.

Sooner or later it falls out of the retail circle and is then traded in private hands, over and over.

That ONE guitar has now skunked how many people?

 

Because of that one guitar, how many people will say Gibson doesn't make 'em like they used to?

Sooner or later, somebody gets pissed and calls Gibson due to problems with the guitar.

Gibson tells them they're out of luck since they bought it used.

Think that guy will now spend the Big Bucks to buy a new Gibson?

No way in hell.

 

This dovetails with what I've been saying for years about Gibson diluting their brand with the Faded/Worn finish.

The legend was not built on cheap, ugly guitars.

Of course they play fine and sound great, but Gibson is killing the name by cheaping out.

NOBODY wins that game.

[dem00n]

I'm of a similar mind...

 

Oh' date=' I'll buy more of them but not before making damned sure there's nothing wrong with them.

It's insane that a person can't simply check a guitar for mistreatment, and have the confidence that the factory

did their part and the dealer network followed suit. Who gets all the special runs from Gibson?

Guitar Center.

 

Let's see....

Is there anything more important to Gibson than sales volume?

Appears the answer is no.

 

And Milo, I'm with you 100% but I think my point with the BBB (not really a fan myself) is that people BELIEVE it.

The example I gave of parents seeing a D minus rating and then telling their kid "We ain't buying a Gibson" is

certainly valid. We got JD Power giving quality "ratings" after doing all kinds of quality surveys on all kinds of

products based on nothing more than how happy somebody is with a product they just purchased.

 

Of course they're happy with it - they just bought the damned thing!

 

What about a year later?

A piece of junk has been produced, shipped, sold, returned, and sold again.

Sooner or later it falls out of the retail circle and is then traded in private hands, over and over.

That ONE guitar has now skunked how many people?

 

Because of that one guitar, how many people will say Gibson doesn't make 'em like they used to?

Sooner or later, somebody gets pissed and calls Gibson due to problems with the guitar.

Gibson tells them they're out of luck since they bought it used.

Think that guy will now spend the Big Bucks to buy a new Gibson?

No way in hell.

 

This dovetails with what I've been saying for years about Gibson diluting their brand with the Faded/Worn finish.

The legend was not built on cheap, ugly guitars.

Of course the play fine and sound great, but Gibson is killing the name by cheaping out.

NOBODY wins that game.

Acutal other gibson dealers get the special run gibsons.

Such as wildwood.

[NeoConMan]

I don't have a Wildwood in Phoenix.

[duane v]

All my new Gibson purchases over the last 14 months

 

2008 Satin Cherry LPJ = B+

2009 Faded Brown SG = B

2008 Melody Maker Single Cut = A+

2009 Joan Jett Melody Maker = A+

 

I've been a delighted Gibson Customer since 1974, and still just as delighted 36 years later[cool]

[milod]

ZZ....

 

The problem with cutting production - and production people - is that often the ones cut are the more skilled but not necessarily the cheapest or fastest.

 

It also cuts morale.

 

Here's the bottom line from how I was taught management 101 that seems seldom considered today:

 

The real reward and "satisfier" for workers is the job itself.

 

The biggest "dis-satisfier" is a feeling that the employee doesn't really count and is being micromanaged and disrespected as an individual or worker.

 

Note that "money" isn't mentioned in that. Under normal economic circumstances it's fairly easy to operate in a way that keeps most employees happy and production of "whatever" at an expected level of quality. Under current sorts of tight economic circumstances it is far more difficult and morale of retained employees tends to suffer greatly. That, perhaps as much or more than other factors such as fewer workers for more work, results in lower quality of the firm's "whatevers."

 

Sad. Truly sad.

 

***** Neo

 

- You're also absolutely correct in terms of public relations. I just finished another email to another "history guy" on the subject. Public relations and customer relations also tend to suffer when a company seems to be devolving into an "every man for himself" survival mode. It's what happens when management considered "human resources" departments a place where they can cut costs and "make a record" to protect from lawsuits rather than improve productivity. Bad morale = poor products.

 

... OTOH... I'd disagree on some of the "faded" thing. <grin> I'd prefer a flat black 335 and that should be less expensive than a shiny one. But then I'm not that much into shiny. Ain't tactical. <chortle> Seriously, playability, sound and quality materials and construction are my interests far more than shine. And in ways, that's far more expensive than a batch of polishing. I liked fancy stuff as a kid up until I got around 50. Then comfort took over.

 

m

[dem00n]

All my new Gibson purchases over the last 14 months

 

2008 Satin Cherry LPJ = B+

2009 Faded Brown SG = B

2008 Melody Maker Single Cut = A+

2009 Joan Jett Melody Maker = A+

 

I've been a delighted Gibson Customer since 1974' date=' and still just as delighted 36 years later[cool']

This man even bought guitars in the norlin years!

NORLIN!

[Hydra26]

Lotta interesting insights in this thread. I don't have very much concrete to add, but I'll sound off my opinions because it tickles my fancy to do so at this particular moment.

 

When I started playing in the early 90's, I had no interest in Gibsons because they seemed like a stodgy kind of brand (I associated them with les pauls and 335's) and I think I was trying to distance myself from a background of playing a cello. In the early 00's I got a real grown up type job and was actually able to start affording better stuff. Also around this time, I started to really think about economics and learning at work how distribution and market channels worked.

 

I read ALL the time about how bad the quality is these days. I've bought about half of mine sight unseen and the worst issues I've suffered are some of the buffing compound was left on the nut and the end of the fretboard on my 339 and the paint wears off my Dove pickguard incredibly easily. I tend to avoid used because a) I'm trying to pitch in to the economy in my own way and I like having a warranty.

 

Now I'm not saying there aren't qualtiy misses. Everyone has them. But I think there's merit to the notion that your'e gonna see more of the turds in a big box store like GC. Actually, the one really obvious quality miss I've ever seen with my own 2 eyes was an explorer in there with some terribly mismatched wood, awful looking fret ends and action that was about twice as high as it should have been at the nut. I also think that a big box store like that is less liekly to send the product back to get the issue addressed as someone WILL buy it. Being a big chain, they do have some very good people, but that's not universal across the franchise, some locations have some very unmotivated, unhelpful, incompetent folks (like in my area). So not only might they be disinclined to go through the work of sending something back, they may not even know they need to.

 

The annual price hikes are a little ridiculous, and pretty annoying. Even more annoying is the growing army of scammers out there that sell off used product at 90-150% of new product street price claiming "mint" condition or "collector's item." Neither is really true and neither will carry a factory warranty.

 

I dunno, I get what you're all saying, but from a business standpoint, not only CAN quality standards decline, but they pretty much always WILL as long as it impacts the bottom line. Materials costs go up, labor costs go up, transportation costs go up. Something's gonna give for a company to hold onto it's profit margin. Unfortunately, big businesses don't seem to be based on straight profit but rather growth, so if you don't make 10% MORE profit than you made last year there's gonna be an empty seat tomorrow. Sux and it might be overly pessimistic but it's the way the world looks from what I've seen. So it becomes a matter of how much can you shave off the cost of your product? At what point will your customer base no longer tolerate it? Les Paul Traditional, anyone? Betcha those newer standards were a lot cheaper to ship with all the weight carved out of them, but I also betcha they were way too much of a departure from the gold standard for a significant portion of their customer base for them to notice.

 

I guess I should consider myself lucky. Aside from the evident weakness and sensitivty of the finishes and platings (I seem to wear right through gold plated hardware, and I hate weather checking), I haven't had anything I would consider a quality issue or a bad instrument, even the ones I got sight unseen. Either I beat the odds, the quality issues aren't as widespread as all the press seems to make them, or I'm a moron who wouldn't know a well turned piece of lumber if he was hti over the ehad with it (y'all probably think the third one, but I like to think the second, haha).

 

Anyhow, just my opinions. I don't know as much as a lot of you here, but I'm stubborn enough to have an opinion anyway

[milod]

Demoon...

 

Hey, seriously, there were good Gibson guitars even in those years.

 

It seemed more than a little odd for some of 'em, but... the classic designs weren't all produced poorly.

 

Again, as Duane noted, he's gotten some pretty nice stuff. And note that even as a "mod" here, he's not claiming all are "A+" instruments. That doesn't mean that none are.

 

But as Neo said, one lemon can become a PR disaster, especially in today's instant communications world.

 

Face it, we normally think about and talk about stuff that ain't made us happy 'stedda that which has.

 

I wish this forum had a way for some overt and truly honest "public relations" to give folks here a feeling that as functional Gibson "loyalists," there are some answers to questions - or at least a company that cares.

 

Honestly, as I've said before, I'm so far from any Gibbie dealers I can't speak on the reality of recent guitars. But I can say that IMHO the Gibson designs are so classic that they're going to be standards for as far ahead in time as I can imagine. It would be a shame not to think those designs would still be crafted by Americans under a "Gibson" logo.

 

m

[NeoConMan]

All my new Gibson purchases over the last 14 months

I've been a delighted Gibson Customer since 1974' date=' and still just as delighted 36 years later[/quote']

You know what you're looking for.

You know what works for you and what won't.

You can buy a guitar without getting burned.

 

The whole point I'm trying to get across is the perception Gibson is already suffering from.

As a percentage, how many guitars squeak thru QC?

Who knows, but it's hurting them.

 

Real or imagined, the image they project isn't very flattering.

 

Of course they still make dreams come true.

Of course their ad slogan of years gone by "Only a Gibson is good enough" still holds water.

But what does the newbie (or his folks paying for something they know d!ck about) have for encouragement?

Gibson absolutely has to recognize this and turn it around.

The only way is make sure EVERY guitar out the door is ready to go to the dreamer who's been waiting

30 years to buy one, and he gets what he paid for.

 

But they keep moving down-market.

You can buy a cheaper Faded Les Paul after the salesman has convinced you it's "just as good" as the

gloss ones, and from a realistic point of view, well, it probably is.

Then your gloss-finished Gibson-owning buddies at school will bust your chops for buying the cheap/ugly one.

Then try to sell it on Ebay.

Gloss Envy is real and the perception is correct that you cheaped out when you bought your guitar....

Sad, but true.

 

And THAT is not what built the brand into the legend.

 

I'm just saying that Gibson needs to get off the gimmicks and get back to building a damned good guitar.

The market is there.

 

 

 

Here's a crazy idea...

Maybe split the lines a little differently.

Get over the idea that Gibson is the guitar of the future - that's failed every time they tried it.

Give the Dark Fire/Robot techno crap a line of its own and let the Game-Boys go over there.

 

Make the Custom Shop a true Custom Shop, instead of half the production line.

Does anybody really believe that all those guitars come from a real, true custom shop?

Go back to the one-offs, crazy guitars, exotic woods, signature lines, Reverse Vs, custom shop stuff.

- and charge accordingly.

 

Put all the Les Pauls, SGs, Explorers, Vs - all the solid-body electrics - the entire line back in one place.

Maybe call it something wild like Gibson USA.

And the Les Paul Custom needs to be back in the Les Paul line - it NEVER WAS a Custom Shop guitar.

It's simply a dressy LP with maybe better wood selected.

 

They might as well give up the Epiphone bullsh!t already, go ahead and call 'em all Gibsons.

Do as Fender does, sell 'em all side by side and let the customer figure out where the hell it was made.

You can look at a Strat in the store, and you gotta know your guitars to be able to tell at a glance if it was

made in California, Japan, Mexico, Korea, China, Indonesia - or fxcking Ethiopia for God's sake.

 

Gibson has been pushing the envelope for several years, and only recently consolidated the website to show all.

Just do it already....

 

The semi-hollow stuff could be its own line, including anything made of plywood with F-holes in it.

The super duper arch-topped models like the ByrdLand and Super 400 could be a step up from there.

 

The reissue line?

Okay, if Gibson was still selling just a few limited runs a year, I could believe it.

But now they make so many reissues the same thing applies.

Great guitars for sure, but are they custom made?

Just call 'em a fxcking Reissue and get over the Custom Shop thing already....

[mcmurray]

I won't be buying a new Gibson ever again. Had one on order since November and there's no sign of it even being close - and I made one of the first orders worldwide, paid full in cash. It's probably months away, and I don't think I'm patient enough to wait for it.

[NeoConMan]

I made one of the first orders worldwide' date=' paid full in cash. [/quote']

What did you order?

[mcmurray]

The Buckethead sig LP.

[duane v]

Well Neo the perception I'm surrounded by differs from yours.

 

I only speak from my experience, and I only purchase based on my feelings alone.

[NeoConMan]

All's well at Gibson?

 

No problems, issues or concerns?

 

 

Really...

 

 

 

Look, I'm not trying to re-invent the company - they're doing that fine without my help.

 

 

 

 

 

Just callin' 'em like I sees 'em.

And hoping it gets better for them.

[duane v]

Neo

 

I don't/wont wedge myself between Gibson Customers and Gibson Customer Service....

 

If I have an issue, that will be between me and Gibson..... Not me, Gibson and 30 of its active forum members.

[milod]

Duane...Okay, I think quite frankly that both you and Neo have some good points here.

 

My comments come down to a personal crusade for a return to higher standards of public relations/information on the part of just about everybody I work with as a journalist today compared to material I received 30 years ago.

 

Neo's point as I see it - and I think it's because he cares about both the brand and the guitars - is that customer/public relations from the company is in a difficult situation perhaps in large part because of today's trend of "big box" stores with often questionable employee knowledge or concern about ensuring a guitar that's been shipped to them is in condition for sale as a high end item. I could argue both sides on some of his marketing ideas. <grin>

 

Your point as I see it - and I think it's because you care about both the brand and the guitars - is that you've had quite a good experience with Gibson purchases and think that it's not cool to badmouth the marque on the brand's own forum.

 

Me? Again, I think Gibson is a great guitarmaker, the greatest modern marque in a number of ways, with the best possible standard brand quality and high quality import brand under current market conditions. If you can't afford a 335, for heaven's sake, get an Epi Dot - but play the one you wanna buy first if at all possible because every guitar has different pieces of wood and is a unique creation.

 

As a former PR guy as well as a standard journalist type, I think Gibson - and just about every other company and governmental agency I've had contact with the past 20 years - could do with better PR in a world that offers more opportunities for *****ing - justified or baloney - to be heard by more people.

 

Jocko's comments are meaningful too. You've gotta show a caring face and act in a caring way - and address customer concerns so they feel you care. From the business side... some of that ain't helped by bad press on other stuff. PR can't solve all the problems, but at least it can put a human face on them.

 

Argh.

 

m

[duane v]

Maybe they should take advice from RI on the east Coast as far as slackers. Didn't Rhode Island fire all the teachers and others involved with educating students? Thats what Gibson needs a huge shake down and rethink their entire mdl line. From these lame signature mdls; to the crappy QC; to the purchasing of eco wood (not the original sale; but after a look at their supply line it was discovered other woods purchased). Finally the staff from Caroline Galloway to others who are supposed to be in the Business of Customer Support yet they do not act as if the Customer does not matter nor is the customer important. From a business standpoint Gibson is in hot water with their suppliers also due to overdue bills. So from a low customer service rating' date=' bad press; and decreased purchases from the public. Maybe its time they turn their ears towards the most important people involved; the customer.

 

OK I'm finished and great thread Neo.[/quote']

 

Excuse me for presenting this question.

 

But why would you accept a Moderating position at the Gibson Forums, if you had all this discontent for Gibson????

 

I know if I had even the slightest reservation about a companies product line or its ethics, I would never take a Mod position on its official forums and misrepresent myself[blink]

[NeoConMan]

Yeah...

I've declined every offer I ever got to join the Mod Squad on a few varied forums.

 

Seriously.

 

 

 

Don't wanna mix business with pleasure.

Make a job outta something I do away from the job, so to speak.

 

 

Guitarest may have an axe to grind - but it may be legitimate.

Maybe too much so for the open boards, eh?

 

(This is where it could get ugly - the truth can be a tough row to hoe....)

 

Okay Duane, I'll hold your beer in case this gets rough.

 

:D/

[mcmurray]

Excuse me for presenting this question.

 

But why would you accept a Moderating position at the Gibson Forums' date=' if you had all this discontent for Gibson????

 

I know if I had even the slightest reservation about a companies product line or its ethics, I would never take a Mod position on its official forums and misrepresent myself[blink]

 

 

 

You're not the only one who's confused.

[NeoConMan]

Damn.

 

Sorry Duane.

Guitarest, the floor is yours.

 

 

Okay, I'm outta here - don't spill the beer or break any furniture...

 

:D

[duane v]

That's not what I'm asking.....

 

What I'm asking is what made you involve yourself in a moderating role, if there was all this inner discontent towards Gibson???

 

I know if I was stripped of my Mod duties tomorrow, I would still purchase Gibson instruments, and be a positive contributing member of this forum.

[NeoConMan]

Stripped?

I dunno....

 

I don't wanna think about what you look like when you're stripped.

 

:-)

[Lowdown]

[freak show]

The only other forum I've ever visited is the Unofficial Martin Guitar Forum.

 

That's "another world".

 

On the one hand, it's not run by people who feel they need to defend Martin at all costs, but on the other hand, there's no need to do so: In fact, it's almost boring to read over and over again how much everyone loves his Martins.

 

The funny thing is: I can relate completely. My Martins are all fantastic guitars, and I don't think I've ever played a "lemon" in a store. Some do sound "better", but I've certainly never seen one with serious cosmetic flaws, unless it was marked a second. The Quality Control people at Martin are obviously doing something right.

 

Gibson?

 

Well, I'm not even going to start. Yes, the designs from the 50's/60's (Les Paul, SG, ES-335, Firebird, etc.) are some of the best that were ever created, but the question is: Are these designs being built properly today?

 

Spend some time in a few guitar stores, and the answer is obvious: No, there are huge variations in quality. Some are great, and some are just plain sloppy. That's not the fault of the stores. It's the fault of the people running Gibson. They are the ones who send the "lemons" to the stores.

[Hector Arcadius]

Just my 2 cents on this 4-page long thread. Although most aspects of the subject have been covered, I didn't see anyone *****in' about the absurb pricing and I will happily go first... Of course, all the guys complain about the quality control with a view on the prices set for the guitars, and almost everyone agrees that for those prices, all instruments leaving the factory should be flawless. However, as I have mentioned before, if I was living in a place with a truly developed second-hand market, I would almost never buy a new Gibby again...

 

 

The price is the agreement between the maker and the buyer that the product in question ''deserves'' the monetary exchange asked. Our money are our only votes. And I would, in the majority of the cases, vote ''No''.

 

On the contrary with Neo, I find the lower priced Gibbies (Fadeds/ worn finishes) to be of an exceptional value and of a logical (more or less) price. Thanks Gibson for offering at least these models in your line, so more of us can play and own a part of your musical legend. But for hobbyists,the rest of the line / prices are...

 

 

Without wanting to advertise anyone, just for comparison / example purposes, I will mention again the Carvin line. Truly ''Custom'' creations, that you can modify at your own specs, choose the finish / color, get an impecable instrument for less than $ 1,500, in less than 3 months... I would love to see Gibson to operate, even partially, like that... Is that so hard / impossible nowadays?