The (seemingly) Unique Epi Business Model

[Guest]

 

..... Epiphone guitars today are a much better value and in many cases' date=' a much better guitar than Gibsons.[/i']

 

How are they a "much better value"? What do you base this upon? In what way are Epiphones "much better guitars" than Gibsons?

 

 

. But if you're looking for a great guitar that doesn't have the quality issues that Gibson has (not to mention the cost) then an Epiphone is the perfect choice.

 

What quality issues are you referring to? Do you know first hand of a continuing quality issue affecting Gibson guitars?

 

Do you own any Gibson guitars?

 

 

[Guest]

 

Oh No!!!......What are you trying to do?!?!? Build up the...

 

 

Oh yeah ! Now we're talking...

[Epiphany]

Well, then your going to also need one of these eventually...

 

[Billybob Dylan]

How are they a "much better value"? What do you base this upon?

I think that's pretty obvious, isn't it? If a particular Epiphone guitar gives you, let's say, 75% of the equivalent Gibson model at half the price, it's better value. It's not necessarily a better guitar - it's just a better value.

 

Compare a Dot to the cheapest ES335. Is the Gibson five times* better than the Dot?

 

 

 

*based on a Dot at $399 and GC's cheapest 335 at $1,999.

[Guest]

I think that's pretty obvious' date=' isn't it? If a particular Epiphone guitar gives you, let's say, 75% of the equivalent Gibson model at half the price, it's better value. It's not necessarily a better guitar - it's just a better value.

 

Compare a Dot to the cheapest ES335. Is the Gibson five times* better than the Dot?

 

 

 

*based on a Dot at $399 and GC's cheapest 335 at $1,999. [/quote']

 

But that only works if the 25% that I'm not getting is a 25% that I personally can live without so while it's perhaps a better value for some, it isn't necessarily a better value for all. For example, I much prefer nitro finishes as opposed to the plastic-y feel of poly finishes as used on Epiphones. The Epiphone is no bargain to me at any price if I don't like the feel. The Dot, to me doesn't even compare in feel to an ES-335 (I own an ES-335) and I prefer mahogany necks so at any price the Dot wouldn't even be a consideration...as a personal choice but...I admit that in terms of generalized value you do get a guitar that gets kinda close to the ES-335 in the Dot. Now you take that $400 Dot and put $250 worth of '57 Classics and another $75 worth of decent pots, caps and a switch and jack, $30 for a new nut, put $100 into improving the machine heads and other hardware and even getting pretty close at half the price you still haven't addressed my personal preferences of finish and neck material so even at half the price with vast improvements done to the guitar the value for me still isn't there because there's two major issue that aren't addressed, the finish and the neck material. Not important issues, you say? Well, they are to me and it's my subjective perspective that determines the value to me, not yours. Now, if someone is looking for an ES-335-type guitar and the neck material and finish isn't of huge importance to them the Epiphone Dot is most certainly a consideration with value but when one says it's unequivocally a better value that doesn't necessarily hold true for everyone....By the way, many times on this forum I've said that the Dot with $300 worth of upgrades is perhaps the best value in the Epiphone line so I'm not arguing that point, I'm just saying that what is a value for some isn't always a value for all. Believe it or not to some, cheaper isn't always better and close to isn't always close enough.

[MarxBros]

 

But the products that Epiphone is currently selling have absolutely no connection historically or otherwise to those original models or endorsers. In fact' date=' the current products Gibson sells also don't have any historical connection to the original Gibson company, be it Orville's company, CMI or even Norlin. Brand names are often a commodity sold like any other. Buying the name gives the right to sell a product with that name and there's no requirement to maintain the quality or image of the original. Witness the purchase of Maytag by Whirlpool and also take notice of how many esteemed and venerated names from the past are used today to sell products with no connection to the historical company..."Black And Decker".."Sunbeam"..."Emerson"...I've seen the Polaroid name on cheap televisions..The Jensen speakers that are sold today have no connection to the original Jensen speaker company..they even use the Tung Sol and Mullard brands to sell cheap copies of the original tubes. Someone buys the name and decides to use that brand recognition of the past to sell whatever they come up with.

 

The original purchase of the Epiphone name by CMI was done with the intention to sell basses (which Epiphone had a strong reputation for where Gibson did not) and when Uncle Ted (McCarty) discovered he had also obtained a treasure trove of component parts to go along with a quickly expanding market which was limited by the company's commitment to protected sales territories of its dealers, a new business model was created...the lateral product line which had been used by auto makers but not so much in other consumer goods marketing At the point in time when this was done the idea of "discounting" was still not part of our culture or economy. I'm sure it's hard to conceive of a time when there weren't Wal*Marts and K Marts but once upon a time to get a deal or a discount you had to have a brother in law or uncle or cousin who could "get it for you wholesale". In the retail musical instrument business at this point the list prices still had some realistic meaning. If it listed for $300 it usually sold for $300. The "deals" came in the form of "customer service"( another long-forgotten concept these days)and personal attention as well as "add-ons" at the time of sale.

 

By the 60's retail had changed and everyone was expecting a bargain or a deal...and the idea of protected sales territories dissolved making Epiphone an expensive redundancy in now-Norlin's bottom line. The name had long been established and the rights were now Norlin's (after the sale of CMI et al in 1969) and Norlin was a corporate entity not real concerned with tradition or history so it first used the Epiphone brand on imported instruments which would have shamed Anastasios and Epaminondas but Norlin's only real concern was getting a product to market to compete with all of the other Japanese imports of the time and using the Epiphone brand name gave Norlin immediate brand recognition. They also used to Gibson brand name to sell a product whose integrity was compromised by the bottom line focus of those years. In retrospect I'm certain there was a sense of survival that required the cost-cutting and drop in the quality of components but it didn't do anything to enhance the Gibson product image. In 1986 Henry J and company, who to their credit, initially restored the quality level of Gibson and Epiphone products (though not without profit as a prime motivator) and gave new credibility to both brand lines.

 

We as human beings will tend to romanticize our personal choices of products so that if we choose a particular brand of something whether it's coffee or cars or guitars, it simply must be the best brand or product if[i'] we[/i] picked it as ours. Even though in reality most products at a price point or within a marketing niche are going to be more similar than different in terms of quality of components and manufacture. When one stands back and analyzes things from an objective view this becomes pretty apparent but that doesn't stop us from wanting to believe in our choices as superior. I have always tried to be self-critical of my choices so that I do truly get the best value for my spent money so while yeah, I own the Gibsons and the Fenders or the whatevers but I don't for one minute believe there's anything magical about the brand names or am I so intoxicated with the brand imagery or history that I'll pay more for one over another without there being something of substantive advantage . The particular product is what it is and one has to remove the emotional involvement from it to take stock of what is going on with the product. We also have to understand that to some degree our brand loyalties and perceptions are manipulated by the very brands and companies we have this affinity for. The same fierce affection we witness here for Epiphones is present on the Ibanez or Fender forums for those products as well.

 

From an entirely objective and analytical point of view and from my knowledge and experience I think the Epiphone products are a worthy values within their marketing scope. I don't think there's any fantastically exceptional values or over-achieving instruments to be had in the Epiphone line but I think they're a safe and steady bet for their price points and market demographic. I fully admit to having an affection and nostalgia about the brand but I'm certainly not going to allow that to affect any analysis of product quality or value. Anyway....

 

Good post. Reminds me of the debate I got in years back about the Epiphone "name" with Bob Skippy.

[eldorado2001]

I don't knock a guitar because it wasn't built by the right people, there are import branded products that rival the best American instruments I've ever seen/played. I have Gibsons, Fenders and Asian imports because I like the way they play and sound, and the craftsmanship is superb, and they were the highest quality I could afford at the time that I bought them. Of course there is low quality product being offered by major manufacturers, but it fits a particular price point (marketing strategy) and that's just the best some can afford. Most of the imported guitars today, even the $200 guitars, are superior to a lot of the stuff that came out of Japan in the 60s and 70s, and better than lots of domestic product of that era. If it doesn't play or sound right, then just don't buy it. If it is well built and sounds and plays great, then what difference does it really make who built it or where it comes from, or "marketing strategies", etc?