If you had control of Gibson what changes would you make?

[djroge1]

If you had the abilty to make changes at Gibson what would you do?

 

Let me list some assumptions so it hopefully doens't turn personal and also thoughts to get you thinking?

 

1. Henry is not there - so don't go there about getting rid of him.

2. You make the decision to be private or share holder owned

3. State what the goal or purpose of Gibson is - just to make money, produce quality product, combo of both of those?

4. Think about what is called "Triple Constraint" where you have to consider these 3 items

1. Time - how quickly will you produce instruments and other items

2. Quality - top knotch or other

3. Cost - will you cut corners on wood, materials, and other resources

When you cut in one area, it will affect at least one of the other 2.

 

Was this way too much to consider? If so just disregard all but number 1.

[charlie brown]

Make the Employees, the share holders...so, they have a real "stock" (and therefore, incentive)

in what the company does, and the new CEO is responsible to them, not just himself.

 

Then, get back to making the guitars, with the VOS spec's (but better paint jobs, on the SG's...LOL)

at a the normal line price point, and optimum quality. Let the a real "Custom Shop" do the one of a kind,

limited editions, prototypes and/or Artist endorsed models, instead of using a "custom shop" moniker, as

just a marketing tool, to charge more for guitars that should be made that way, in the first place.

That way, we ALL get what we want.

 

 

CB

[tulsaslim]

I'd make a Les Paul Studio with a slim/taper neck.

 

I'd have a maple-fretboard LP option on the Standard (offer a model with it).

 

I'd make a neck-through SG.

[LPguitarman]

Make the Employees' date=' the share holders...so, they have a real "stock" (and therefore, incentive)

in what the company does, and the new CEO is responsible to them, not just himself.

 

Then, get back to making the guitars, with the VOS spec's (but better paint jobs, on the SG's...LOL)

at a the normal line price point, and optimum quality. Let the a real "Custom Shop" do the one of a kind,

limited editions, prototypes and/or Artist endorsed models, instead of using a "custom shop" moniker, as

just a marketing tool, to charge more for guitars that should be made that way, in the first place.

That way, we ALL get what we want.

 

 

CB[/quote']

 

All of the above plus give the customer the option of neck profile and pick-up selection, however, if you don't take the "off the shelf" model, you will have to wait a little longer because it's essentially a special order (not from the Custom Shop). Possibly a slight upcharge for "special orders", but if you want something special, you should pay for it. There are too many combinations, so make the regular models and let the customers go from there.

[RichCI]

I'd sell the company to Fender since they seem to know how to run a guitar business (and own everything else anyway), cash in my shares and retire.

[djroge1]

Make the Employees' date=' the share holders...so, they have a real "stock" (and therefore, incentive)

in what the company does, and the new CEO is responsible to them, not just himself.

 

Then, get back to making the guitars, with the VOS spec's (but better paint jobs, on the SG's...LOL)

at a the normal line price point, and optimum quality. Let the a real "Custom Shop" do the one of a kind,

limited editions, prototypes and/or Artist endorsed models, instead of using a "custom shop" moniker, as

just a marketing tool, to charge more for guitars that should be made that way, in the first place.

That way, we ALL get what we want.

CB[/quote']

 

I like some of these ideas. I think you hit on a key point CB and that is leadership being accountable.

 

If I were the CEO of Gibson, I would write into my job description and work ethic that I am the one accountable for those directly under me as to if they succeed or fail. This would help ensure that I did every thing possible to make sure they do not fail.

[duane v]

If you had the ability to make changes at Gibson what would you do?

 

.

 

1. Get rid of the Lounge Forum[biggrin]

 

2. Allow customers to order one-off instruments with no minimums.

[djroge1]

I too like the idea of custom ordered instruments but when a company does that it will have other effects.

 

1. Time delays - It's hard to predict how many orders would be received for custom instruments.

So the custom shop would truly be a custom shop.

2. Quality How detailed would you allow the customer to choose? Would they choose what corners to cut? If so, how could that reflect on the quality of instruments if you allow a customer to cut say choice of wood to a lesser grade? Or would you only allow certain options? This is almost like the Carvin guitar building/buying process.

3. Cost Would you offer sub-par parts to really cut cost? Some customers want a good looking guitar at the expense of a good playing/sounding guitar. Think of the Epiphone line - they look pretty good but generally don't sound and play as nice as a Gibson (there are always exceptions).

[deepblue]

Id ask Tim to give me back the other half of our inventory! lol

[Mark]

Have a state of the art custom division in Nashville/Memphis/Chicago, so I can visit

 

Make all the Studios, Standards etc. in Korea or Mexico

 

Just like PRS and Fender. The bottom line is....The bottom line

[LPguitarman]

 

Make all the Studios' date=' Standards etc. in Korea or Mexico

 

[/quote']

 

I hope you're kidding. No way would I buy a foreign Les Paul.

[CajunBlues]

since epiphone is part of gibson... Give buyers the option of having upgraded electronics/pups in Korean/Chinese Epis...I would gladly pay an extra $200 for upgraded electronics....

 

Make Gibson hollow-bodies just even remotely affordable...

[FirstMeasure]

First, I'd adopt a long term money making scheme and try to steer away from the Quarterly Profit driven business plan.

 

Second, I'd try One new design per year, and that would NOT be aimed at making the guitar Easier to play or tune or whatever, but rather filling a missing space in the line. 7 string LP or Gibson version of the Wild Kat.

 

Third, as stated above, I'd give employees the option to buy into the company.

 

Fourth, the Custom Shop would become a real Custom Shop, catering to the High Roller that wants a tailor made Gibson. None of these mass produced Custom Shop items that are designed to make it easier on the Marketing Department.

 

Fifth, Revamp the Marketing Department. They will have to Market what R&D develops, not Develop what Marketing wants to sell.

 

Then Ergonomically Correct Keyboards and Mouses for all the secretaries!!

[sgman]

Superior products at a fair price would kind of be my motto. Having a valued customer would be the primary objective, thus keeping the customer coming back.

 

I think I'd trial a "buy a Les Paul and get one free" for a while to see how that went. If it started to lose money within the first month I'd scratch it but on the other hand, if it did well then I'd consider doing it on a more regular basis.

 

All employees as a bonus would receive an instrument of their choice as an incentive to maintain a high standard of work and service to the company after a period of 10 years.

 

My goal after 12 months would be to elevate Gibson to a standard and level that other companies would recognize as being the benchmark for greatness.

[cwness]

First and foremost get the Gibson guitars back in the Mom and Pops without

the outrageous min. inventory charge. I heard it's 200,000 now. I want to

deal with people I know and trust not another new hire.

 

CW

[charlie brown]

All of the above plus give the customer the option of neck profile and pick-up selection' date=' however, if you don't take the "off the shelf" model, you will have to wait a little longer because it's essentially a special order (not from the Custom Shop). Possibly a slight upcharge for "special orders", but if you want something special, you should pay for it. There are too many combinations, so make the regular models and let the customers go from there.[/quote']

 

Exactly...that's what they used to do, in the 50's, 60's, etc....before anyone thought of a "Custom Shop!"

As stated, leave the "Custom Shop" to do actual "Custom," or one of a kind orders, at a premium. They already

have offered, 50's or 60's style necks, and now the compound radius version, in the regular line. Keep that,

and, allow the addition of a bigsby, or maestro, at a slight up-charge, and/or time delay. But, that shouldn't

be a "Custom Shop" criteria, or priced that way, either...IMHO. Get back to way of doing business, that made

that company, in the first place. Stop trying to be Fender, or anyone else, and just be "Gibson!" That's what we

love, anyway. Right?! If we wanted PRS, or Fender's, or whatever...we get those. ;>)

 

CB

[duane v]

Exactly...that's what they used to do' date=' in the 50's, 60's, etc....before anyone thought of a "Custom Shop!"

As stated, leave the "Custom Shop" to do actual "Custom," or one of a kind orders, at a premium. They already

have offered, 50's or 60's style necks, and now the compound radius version, in the regular line. Keep that,

and, allow the addition of a bigsby, or maestro, at a slight up-charge, and/or time delay. But, that shouldn't

be a "Custom Shop" criteria, or priced that way, either...IMHO. Get back to way of doing business, that made

that company, in the first place. Stop trying to be Fender, or anyone else, and just be "Gibson!" That's what we

love, anyway. Right?! If we wanted PRS, or Fender's, or whatever...we get those. ;>)

 

CB[/quote']

 

Actually CB, Gibson was doing one-offs all the way up to 1983

[charlie brown]

Actually CB' date=' Gibson was doing one-offs all the way up to 1983[/quote']

 

Well, I wasn't sure, when they stopped, or assigned them, to the "Custom Shop." So,

that's good to know. I guess, I should have looked it up...LOL! ;>)

 

CB

[Silenced Fred]

If you had the abilty to make changes at Gibson what would you do?

 

Let me list some assumptions so it hopefully doens't turn personal and also thoughts to get you thinking?

 

1. Henry is not there - so don't go there about getting rid of him.

2. You make the decision to be private or share holder owned

3. State what the goal or purpose of Gibson is - just to make money' date=' produce quality product, combo of both of those?

4. Think about what is called "Triple Constraint" where you have to consider these 3 items

1. Time - how quickly will you produce instruments and other items

2. Quality - top knotch or other

3. Cost - will you cut corners on wood, materials, and other resources

When you cut in one area, it will affect at least one of the other 2.

 

Was this way too much to consider? If so just disregard all but number 1.[/quote']

 

I'm not sure about private or share holder owned, I think the input of the public is important, but to a point.

 

Gibson needs to be Quality products, some of the guitars you see are just disgusting. The level of nonchalantness is ridiculus. I would like to see some more options on the higher end models, not so much one offs, but some choice in pickups for the historics and such. Also, hardware color, should be an option. Simple stuff like that would put more ownership into the product and allow for more customer satisfaction.

 

I would want quality to be the top priority, followed shortly by cost. I would rather make 20 top quality instruments than 100 decent ones. Epiphone I think could have the option for upgraded electronics. Make Epi the more "Production" line and focus for more higher quality on the USA ones.

[duane v]

Kalamazoo would use a pearl plate on the back of the headstock, and the Nashville plant used a custom shop water print logo to identify their one-offs.

[rocketman]

First off I think they need cash, which means an investor. But that investor would probably ask for Henry's head on a platter...Catch-22. But here are my thoughts (some are repeated by others):

 

1) Learn from companies like PRS and Taylor on quality control. The first step is to admit both PRS and Taylor are better at this than Gibson. Then go hire some of their people.

 

2) Improve customer service. Repair shops HATE working with Gibson, with good reason. Make it easier for stores to get their guitars too.

 

3) Make a better work place for the employees; they're at the bottom now so there's only one way to go, I guess that's "good" news.

 

4) Stop playing around with stuff they don't do well, like the Dark Fire and Hendrix models. Streamline and focus on what made Gibson great.

 

5) Make the Custom Shop a true custom shop. Allow special orders that are truly special in the custom shop.

 

6) Do some simple things to help connect with customers, like sending free newsletters to Gibson buyers. Taylor keeps me interested because they send me a ton of stuff. Sorry, but email doesn't work as well as paper.

[GibSinCity]

First off I think they need cash' date=' which means an investor. But that investor would probably ask for Henry's head on a platter...Catch-22. But here are my thoughts (some are repeated by others):

 

1) Learn from companies like PRS and Taylor on quality control. The first step is to admit both PRS and Taylor are better at this than Gibson. Then go hire some of their people.

 

2) Improve customer service. Repair shops HATE working with Gibson, with good reason. Make it easier for stores to get their guitars too.

 

3) Make a better work place for the employees; they're at the bottom now so there's only one way to go, I guess that's "good" news.

 

4) Stop playing around with stuff they don't do well, like the Dark Fire and Hendrix models. Streamline and focus on what made Gibson great.

 

5) Make the Custom Shop a true custom shop. Allow special orders that are truly special in the custom shop.

 

6) Do some simple things to help connect with customers, like sending free newsletters to Gibson buyers. Taylor keeps me interested because they send me a ton of stuff. Sorry, but email doesn't work as well as paper.

[/quote']

 

"Hire this man"

[Riffster]

First Measure,Cwness and Rocketman have it all covered.

 

The Custom Guitars at a lower price idea does not work at all in a business sense.

[jamman]

If you had the abilty to make changes at Gibson what would you do?

 

 

3. State what the goal or purpose of Gibson is - just to make money' date=' produce quality product, combo of both of those?

4. Think about what is called "Triple Constraint" where you have to consider these 3 items

1. Time - how quickly will you produce instruments and other items

2. Quality - top knotch or other

3. Cost - will you cut corners on wood, materials, and other resources

When you cut in one area, it will affect at least one of the other 2.

 

Was this way too much to consider? If so just disregard all but number 1.[/quote']

 

3 - the purpose of Gibson should be ,to make high quality Musical Instuments. And Better. Do this and the Money will come to you.

1 - time is relative. In that it takes time to build anything of quality. Take the time that is needed.

This goes together with doing right by all your workers. When they are happy, they will do their best for you. They will Want to work for you. ( this is the key to any business ).

2 - offer different levels of quality, as to not price out any one. You get what you pay for. But a base line of Excellent workmanship. even less expencive can be built well.

3- 1st. see # 2 if you cut corners, you cut your own throat.

[djroge1]

4) Stop playing around with stuff they don't do well' date=' like the Dark Fire and Hendrix models. Streamline and focus on what made Gibson great.

[/quote']

 

I agree at this point because they seem to have lost their way in the business world and in some respects the guitar making business. I would begin by stream lining a lot of what they are doing and concentrate on a few of the things they do best.

 

I would consider cutting back to 3 or 4 Les Paul models - for now until the quality is top knotch and consistant.

 

The lack of consistancy tells me that they have a problem with training probably with both the worker and the QC dept. But it also tells me that perhaps they are too focused on how much product is produced. This means they are producing them quicker but at the cost of quality - it all goes back to that "Triple Constraint."

 

If you speed up the process of making a guitar you begin to take a hit in quality. It's easy to try and justify it because you think the more you can produce the more you can sell. The truth is, people will wait for a LP of high quality. I was on a waiting list to get my Harley. If I could make changes I would turn the focus to high quality at a more resonable cost. Time would be the last consideration.

 

However, after the quality returns there is a need to focus on new models and ideas. I think with some of their products like the Robot they just misjudged their project managment approach. So I would ask them to review their previous processes and try a different approach.