The story never ends......

[kebob]

They do. They're called Epiphones. I don't understand the confusion on this point.

 

Also' date=' don't forget these:

 

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Maestro+by+Gibson+-+6-String+Full-Size+Acoustic+Guitar+-+Black/7934658.p?id=1151657218189&skuId=7934658

 

I bet that's working out great for them.[/quote']

 

I stand corrected. Of course, Epiphone.

 

It's still different than what Martin, Taylor and Larrivee do, though. They have lower end models ($500-1,000 range) with their name on it. I have no experience in this area, but to me, it seems taking the name "Gibson" off of all your lower-end, most affordable (and thus, most purchased) instruments (except for the real pieces of garbage) creates a disconnect from your higher-end product. By doing this, you're essentially throwing the benefit of brand loyalty out the window.

 

Case in point is this very thread, where I failed to make the connection of Epiphone really being Gibson's little brother. I assume many others make that mistake. In the long run, I would expect that probably costs Gibson.

[DanvillRob]

I stand corrected. Of course' date=' Epiphone.

 

It's still different than what Martin, Taylor and Larrivee do, though. They have lower end models ($500-1,000 range) with their name on it. I have no experience in this area, but to me, it seems taking the name "Gibson" off of all your lower-end, most affordable (and thus, most purchased) instruments (except for the real pieces of garbage) creates a disconnect from your higher-end product. By doing this, you're essentially throwing the benefit of brand loyalty out the window.

 

Case in point is this very thread, where I failed to make the connection of Epiphone really being Gibson's little brother. I assume many others make that mistake. In the long run, I would expect that probably costs Gibson.

 

[/quote']

 

 

Sheez, Kebob...(why does that make me hungry?)

[kebob]

Sheez' date=' Kebob...(why does that make me hungry?)[/quote']

 

Ba-dum pa!

[jefleppard]

the party never ends....(an example of how different brands can get along)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_lghmU1peo

[rar]

... but to me' date=' it seems taking the name "Gibson" off of all your lower-end, most affordable (and thus, most purchased) instruments (except for the real pieces of garbage) creates a disconnect from your higher-end product.

[/quote']

 

That's right.

 

By doing this' date=' you're essentially throwing the benefit of brand loyalty out the window.

[/quote']

 

That also right. You not only can't exploit the fact that a user had a good experience with a low-end guitar to sell him/her a high-end guitar of the same brand, you can't use the high-end brand's caché to sell her/him the low-end guitar in the first place.

 

The upside is that the lower-end other-branded instruments don't water down the brand's caché. This is something of a problem for Martin, as a lot of players now make a distinction between "real" Martins and the low-end stuff (with the attendant arguments about where to draw the line). While selling guitars made out of synthetic wood-like substances at prices higher than reasonably high-quality, all solid wood imports is making Martin a lot of money, the day is coming when the majority of Martin guitars in the world will be pretty crummy instruments. Martin is gambling that, nonetheless, "Martin" on the headstock will still have the strong positive connotations it does today. If things don't work out, at least they'll have the satisfaction of knowing they tried the other approach (with the "Sigma"-brand), and that didn't work for them nearly as well as "Epiphone" does for Gibson.

 

Plus, Henry and pals paid $10M for the name "Gibson". That -- together with "Epiphone" and, arguably, some other IP -- is pretty much all they got for the money. Unsurprisingly, he takes the "don't water it down" argument very, very seriously. (As does Chris Martin! Chris is doing what he needs to do to keep his company afloat.)

 

-- Bob R

[blackie51]

Apparently Mandolin Bros. has decided to throw in the towel:

 

http://theunofficialmartinguitarforum.yuku.com/topic/99287

 

Tom

[Buc McMaster]

Apparently Mandolin Bros. has decided to throw in the towel

 

Gawd. This seems to be getting worse by the minute. As has been said before, hold on to your Gibson guitars, fans, for the future is looking dim.

[kebob]

That's right.

 

 

 

That also right. You not only can't exploit the fact that a user had a good experience with a low-end guitar to sell him/her a high-end guitar of the same brand' date=' you can't use the high-end brand's caché to sell her/him the low-end guitar in the first place.

 

The upside is that the lower-end other-branded instruments don't water down the brand's caché. This is something of a problem for Martin, as a lot of players now make a distinction between "real" Martins and the low-end stuff (with the attendant arguments about where to draw the line). While selling guitars made out of synthetic wood-like substances at prices higher than reasonably high-quality, all solid wood imports is making Martin a lot of money, the day is coming when the majority of Martin guitars in the world will be pretty crummy instruments. Martin is gambling that, nonetheless, "Martin" on the headstock will still have the strong positive connotations it does today. If things don't work out, at least they'll have the satisfaction of knowing they tried the other approach (with the "Sigma"-brand), and that didn't work for them nearly as well as "Epiphone" does for Gibson.

 

Plus, Henry and pals paid $10M for the name "Gibson". That -- together with "Epiphone" and, arguably, some other IP -- is pretty much all they got for the money. Unsurprisingly, he takes the "don't water it down" argument very, very seriously. (As does Chris Martin! Chris is doing what he needs to do to keep his company afloat.)

 

-- Bob R

 

[/quote']

That is interesting, Bob. I can see the flip side of the issue (watering down of the brand name). I think I agree more with Martin philsophy. It seems to me you first have to get them into a "Gibson" guitar before having the best opportunity to upsale them eventually into the higher end models. Martin is doing that, even at the risk of someday having their lower-end models overshadow their higher end models.

 

Look at the two companies today and it seems Martin's path is the more successful, especially when you factor in the decreasing traditional tonewoods. At some point, the shrinking supply of traditional tonewoods plays in Martin's favor because they have lower end alterative woods with the name "Martin" on it. Wheras Gibson would simply be squeezed out as the traditional tonewoods disappear.

 

Good discussion, Bob.

[jefleppard]

Gawd. This seems to be getting worse by the minute. As has been said before' date=' hold on to your Gibson guitars, fans, for the future is looking dim.

 

 

 

[/quote']

 

i think the axiom "the only thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history" applies here. gibson seems set up for another corporate takeover/ingestion ala 'the norlin era'.

[bkharmony]

I think Gibson has a great marketing strategy in making cheaper Epiphone versions of their classic guitars, and the "real" high-end ones being made by Gibson themselves. You get guitars with the same name (Hummingbird, J-200) into lots of hands, then those who can afford to move up already know the names. It gives them something to aspire to without tarnishing the Gibson name.

 

The fact Gibson hasn't executed this strategy well doesn't mean it isn't good. Tactics matter.

[rar]

Apparently Mandolin Bros. has decided to throw in the towel ...

 

Sad, but not shocking. MandoBros relies heavily on Web sales, and they weren't an Authorized Internet Dealer, which meant they couldn't advertise their stock on the Web. (Fuller's having apparently lost their Authorized Internet Dealer status bodes ill for them too!) Anyway, Stan wouldn't be the first major Gibson dealer to order a bunch of instruments, quit, use the Web to sell the order, and then re-up with Gibson when the time comes to order more. Or the second. Or the third. On the other hand, making a big deal about "the end of a long relationship" thing doesn't sound so good.

 

I get Gibson's general rationale for the policy of limiting Internet sales, and I'm somewhat sympathetic, but this is a good example of the kind of craziness that results from the way the policy has been implemented. (The eBay sales of Gibsons that arrive with a receipt from an authorized dealer is another.)

 

-- Bob R

[kebob]

I think Gibson has a great marketing strategy in making cheaper Epiphone versions of their classic guitars' date=' and the "real" high-end ones being made by Gibson themselves. You get guitars with the same name (Hummingbird, J-200) into lots of hands, then those who can afford to move up already know the names. It gives them something to aspire to without tarnishing the Gibson name.

 

The fact Gibson hasn't executed this strategy well doesn't mean it isn't good. Tactics matter.[/quote']

 

I'll respectfully disagree, bk, on your point. I can see how a lot of mid-level Epiphone guitar owners drift from Gibson to another brand when they're ready to take the plunge on a higher-end instrument, because to them, they had an Epiphone, not a Gibson. I don't think most make the connection -- some do, of course.

 

I do see your point and it's valid. Just differing opinions, brother. :)

[Murph]

I like the fact that there are no cheap Gibsons.

 

Epi's fill the void fine.

[Guth]

Buc,

 

I certainly agree with most of what you've posted here in this thread. Post #8 in particular hits upon a number of points I've made repeatedly here since joining in on this forum.

 

Count me amongst those who are willing to go to extreme efforts to find "that one", a truly great Gibson acoustic. I've certainly had to go to extremes to find the few that have appealed to me, and not all of the ones I've owned would I consider great. I tend to have a soft spot for Gibson acoustics (a Gibson romantic perhaps?) and some of the Gibbies that I've owned were purchased more for sentimental reasons than purely "sonic justification" (note that quality of tone is generally at the top of my list of priorities when it comes to a guitar purchase). On the other hand, I can certainly understand how someone without the same sentiments could walk into a store that carries Gibson acoustics (if they could still find one), experience a fair number of them that sound like they're strung up with rubber bands as opposed to actual steel strings and proceed to post their feelings accordingly. In the end, the effort I went through to find the Gibson I now call my own was worth it, but in this case I would consider myself the exception rather then the rule when it comes down to it.

 

It is interesting to think about the possibility of Gibson Acoustic somehow spinning off as a separate entity. That said, it's hard to imagine a "Gibson" acoustic that isn't really a Gibson by name (i.e. Heritage). Not sure if I'd still feel exactly the same about the guitars as I do now or not. I'd like to think I would, but only time would tell.

 

All the best,

Guth