Gibson marketing vs. others co.'s

[wineredrich]

Just an observation. Not looking to start an argument but...Gibson may be the only maker whose electric AND acoustic instruments BOTH have impeccable reputations for top shelf quality. Martin tried but never crossed over to electrics, same with Taylor, Larrivee, etc. Fender and Ibanez acoustics are what they are... Only Gibson has accomplished this. That having been said, however, I think the acoustic division needs a big marketing overhaul. A new website, online advertising of new instruments with prices, dropping the silly upcharge for left handed instruments (most other companies have already done this), print advertising, etc,etc.. These are incredible guitars, played by legends and made by amazing craftsmen/women and still they seem to be overshadowed by their equally incredible electric division. With all due respect and with limited market share knowledge; as someone new to Gibson acoustics (but a 30 year Les Paul player), I just feel a greater distance between the customer and the producer than with other brands. Perhaps it's just a matter of the product speaking for itself without a lot of hype. Maybe someone more experienced will kindly educate me. Rich

[Dotneck]

from what I understand a web site overhaul is in the works....

[ponty]

Just an observation. Not looking to start an argument but...Gibson may be the only maker whose electric AND acoustic instruments BOTH have impeccable reputations for top shelf quality. Martin tried but never crossed over to electrics, same with Taylor, Larrivee, etc. Fender and Ibanez acoustics are what they are... Only Gibson has accomplished this. That having been said, however, I think the acoustic division needs a big marketing overhaul. A new website, online advertising of new instruments with prices, dropping the silly upcharge for left handed instruments (most other companies have already done this), print advertising, etc,etc.. These are incredible guitars, played by legends and made by amazing craftsmen/women and still they seem to be overshadowed by their equally incredible electric division. With all due respect and with limited market share knowledge; as someone new to Gibson acoustics (but a 30 year Les Paul player), I just feel a greater distance between the customer and the producer than with other brands. Perhaps it's just a matter of the product speaking for itself without a lot of hype. Maybe someone more experienced will kindly educate me. Rich

 

This to me, is a good observation....well that is because I agree with it really.

The website is a window into your business,if people look and see the same old stuff, they are not going to look anymore!

[fortyearspickn]

I'd be curious what types of improvements you all would suggest to the website. I am very easy to please (so I've heard) and the website seems ok to me. Maybe I'm thinking of the accoustic section and the electric both together and you all feel the accoustic as a separate section is weaker. I agree there could be more 'marketing' done there in terms of products. Sell the sizzle... more in depth stuff about the wood, the aging process, differences in strings, even links to places you can by after market bridge pins!!! Like when your shopping for a new car and get all drooly about it coming with soft rubber summer tires that grip the road better. (Sigh.)

[wineredrich]

Yes!...You hit the nail on the head. I'd love to see a separation from the electrics with marketing which actually celebrates the acoustic line. Look at the CFMartin site...http://www.martinguitar.com/. It is a CELEBRATION of an amazing product! Many of you, like me, get these Musicians Friend/Guitar Center catalogues in the mail. Look at how many Martins and Taylors are listed....just a couple of Gibsons. Even Epiphone is much better represented. You can join a "Martin Owner's Club" and get some strings and picks and membership card etc in the mail. They also publish a company magazine "Sounding Board" which is distributed by mail. Heck, if you go to the factory, you are very likely to actually meet CF Martin IV in person and he'll actually sign a guitar for you!! I KNOW they are different companies with separate histories, business plans, etc...but I think Gibson could learn a thing or two from Martin and Taylor and others about CELEBRATING it's brand/line. Maybe there are just TOO many companies with TOO many differences in the Gibson "family" to set apart just one.

[milod]

I may be wrong on this, but I get the impression the Gibbie acoustic division is doing well with who and what they have going at this point in time.

 

The company is kinda odd in the way they transitioned from being a strictly acoustic maker into steps into the new electric amplification world and then into the variety of instruments we see nowadays.

 

It's kinda like the two brothers who, one is a quiet fine art painter and the other is a well-known actor. Both are fine artists, but... maintain rather different personas.

 

So I dunno, I see your point. OTOH, if they're selling their output... might one conclude that in this marketplace at least, if it ain't broke...

 

m

[wineredrich]

You touch on a good point, Milo. They're most likely selling their output and filling their orders. Business is as good as they need it to be. Could be the real answer to my original question. Maybe it's just me but like I said, I just feel an "aloofness" compared to other makers. I've been to several websites that say they cannot advertise prices on new Gibsons online due to dealer agreements with the company. That alone makes them less accessible than almost any other maker. Martin dealers will at least list a MAP (minimum advertised price). Still requires a call or email to the dealer for the actually selling price but at least it's a picture, model description and a price online.

[BigKahune]

.

Henry/Gibson are into maximizing profits. You might have noticed, they are currently, and for some time now, been selling the hell out of sigs, tributes, and reissues, both in their acoustic and electric divisions, and making good money doing it. There's some decent ideas here, but I don't see Henry/Gibson changing anything until such time that the sigs, tributes, and reissues aren't selling.

[Bookkeeper's Son]

.You might have noticed, they are currently, and for some time now, been selling the hell out of sigs, tributes, and reissues, both in their acoustic and electric divisions, and making good money doing it.

Wow! You have access to Gibson's sales figures and P & L statements??? Can we see them too?

[milod]

I have a hunch that there's a bit of a different marketing concept overall for the acoustic stuff.

 

As one might easily note from the difference of discourse in the acoustic forum compared to the various electric forums, there seems to be a "conservative" slant. It ain't politics. <grin> Even a socialist can be exceptionally "conservative" on such subjects as types and styles of guitars.

 

I noticed too, even in the old folkie days, there was also a different sorta separation in the "gibson" cult versus the "martin" cult. It's as if they were playing different musical concepts.

 

I think in a sense that's true yet today. But how does one tap into such a cult without losing it? I dunno, but I've a hunch if one still is selling at overall capacity, one need not try to fix something that ain't broke. "We" may see something quite different in the future if that ceases to be so.

 

But I've noticed that it seems Epi and Gibson acoustics and AE guitars seem to have a pretty smooth dollar transition that offers similarly styled guitars from $100 ... up. So...

 

m

[struma6]

Martin DID have a go at electrics back in the 70's. They made a real bread-board bolt-on that was very ugly...not "hey it's so ugly it's cool"...just ugly. Didn't last too long.

 

I'm from right by Nazareth (could get a Martin at "employee" discount anytime I want.) Touring the Martin factory is...like touring a factory where they make widgets....

 

Not a shot at Martin at all, just what I experienced. During the tour (I took a friend from the UK who wanted to go) the tour guide kept saying "and at the end of the tour you'll see where we build our famous ALL WOOD guitars!

 

For me, personally, I am not a fan of modern day Martin at all. What used to be a great place to work and learn and take pride is now...a factory. The current "CF Martin" in charge is the last in the Martin family line and is just pumping out as much as possible, without the Martin pride of years ago.

 

From everything I've seen concerning the Gibson Montana plant there's a big employee pride thing and a sense of the magic of building an instrument. I'm sure there's folks working there who hate it but it isn't the predominant vibe.

 

Again, I don't mean to bash your Martin, for a LOT of folks they are #1 and if you love them, that's great.

[rar]

... I've been to several websites that say they cannot advertise prices on new Gibsons online due to dealer agreements with the company. That alone makes them less accessible than almost any other maker. ...

 

I know nothing about the other divisions, but let me make a few comments about this subject based on what I know about the Acoustics division.

 

It's not aloofness that's responsible for restrictions on advertising stock and price, it's an attempt to discourage internet sales. Like many of us here, key folks at Gibson think buying an acoustic guitar without playing it first is kind of loopy.

 

A lot of stuff Gibson does doesn't make much sense unless you realize that (1) they can't build enough acoustics to meet current demand (at least not without making a major capital investment in building a new factory -- and, for obvious reasons you hear about on the news every day, that is not going to happen any time in the near future -- or outsourcing production) and (2) they're obviously not trying to maximize profits.

 

Demand in Japan alone is high enough that Japanese dealers would happily order every single guitar Bozeman can build, at the current asking price. Gibson artificially (from a free-market perspective) limits how many guitars Japanese (and European) dealers can order, in order to ensure availability in the U.S. If Gibson were trying to maximize profits on acoustics, they would raise prices to where worldwide demand equals their fixed production capacity, rather than imposing quotas (and almost certainly build a higher proportion of high-ROI models). The only reason you can buy a J-45 Standard for around $2K from a U.S. dealer is that Gibson is committed to serving that market segment -- "ordinary folks" in the U.S. -- (not exclusively, of course) rather than maximizing profits.

 

-- Bob R

[BigKahune]

.... It's not aloofness that's responsible for restrictions on advertising stock and price, it's an attempt to discourage internet sales. Like many of us here, key folks at Gibson think buying an acoustic guitar without playing it first is kind of loopy. ....

 

Interesting stuff Bob. Especially your take on international sales. Thanks.

 

As far as internet advertising/sales - I would agree with that to a point, because there's still plenty of places that advertise/sell Gibson acoustics on the internet. I guess I'm still upset about Fullers. B)

[E-minor7]

I check the Gibson site regularly and if I should suggest an idea, it would be to make clearer specification lists.

 

When researching Martins, I establish 2, 3 or more models on Google Chrome and switch between them like a bee changes flower. Very easily done and highly effective -

[BigKahune]

Wow! You have access to Gibson's sales figures and P & L statements??? Can we see them too?

 

Brilliant, you caught me - subjective. B) . . . . . . Gibson is very tight on sales figures.

 

But here's something concrete for you - I took a look at what models are currently listed on Gibson Acoustics - http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Acoustic-Instruments/Gibson-Acoustic.aspx - out of about 50 guitars listed, 20 of them are sigs. That's not counting "reissues" like the TV models.

[wineredrich]

All points well taken. However, there are some of us who really can't try out guitars before we buy them. We are called "left handed". We buy based on reputation and known quality. If we don't like what we buy, a reputable dealer will take it back as long as it's not a special order with our own name inlaid on the fretboard!

As far as the Martin based post is concerned. I have to respectfully disagree. I've taken the factory tour many times and the very first thing they show you is examples of the solid wood stocks that they use and the next thing you see is workers matching rosewood sheets for backs. The experimental and economical HPL type guitars are just glossed over quickly...at least every time I've been there. They are primarily made in Mexico, not Nazareth anyway. There are lots of Martin folks as well that swear that today's product is better than ever with the 70s being a kind of low point for them. Of course nothing is going to beat a pre-war D28 but that's another story.

I think the point I'm getting so far is that Gibson Acoustic is kind of a small operation and that more marketing and advertising would not be feasible because they are already not able to make enough guitars to keep up with world wide demand. Right?

[rar]

The current "CF Martin" in charge is the last in the Martin family line ...

 

Personally, I wouldn't bet against Chris hanging on long enough to pass the reins to Claire Frances somewhere around her 25th birthday.

 

-- Bob R

[Bookkeeper's Son]

Brilliant, you caught me - subjective. B) . . . . . . Gibson is very tight on sales figures.

I wasn't trying to "catch" or embarrass you, please believe me. Subjective is one thing, and that accounts for much of what is normally posted, like best guitar, best pickups, and the like. I try to stay out of that stuff, but pure conjecture is quite another thing. I appreciate your sense of honesty and humor.

[rar]

However, there are some of us who really can't try out guitars before we buy them. We are called "left handed".

 

Fair enough, and I'm sympathetic -- my wife plays lefty, and has had the opportunity of trying out only one of her Gibsons prior to buying. (There was a lefty Hummingbird TV with top hand-built by Ren just waiting for her at the factory when she went to the Homecoming this year. Gibson built it by accident, although I'm not sure she's 100% convinced that I didn't put in a secret custom order.) But at least you can see and feel and hear someone else play a righty version of the same model at a dealer before buying. My wife's done that prior to all her orders of leftys, and often changed her mind about what she did or didn't want as a result. Much better than buying off the internet based on reputation, IMHO.

 

I think the point I'm getting so far is that Gibson Acoustic is kind of a small operation and that more marketing and advertising would not be feasible because they are already not able to make enough guitars to keep up with world wide demand. Right?

 

Right. Before I knew much about it, I kind of thought of Gibson and Martin as being the same size. But Martin is much larger than Gibson Acoustic, and so is Taylor. Depending on how you figure it, Gibson Acoustic can wind up being closer in size to Collings than to Martin. That's the fundamental reason that you don't see more of them out there in shops. And the point about not being able to keep up with demand is right on. They don't have product sitting around in a warehouse -- guitars are built to dealer order and ship to a waiting dealer on they day they're completed. Again, more like Collings than like Martin.

 

-- Bob R

[rar]

Gibson is very tight on sales figures.

 

They're sensitive about the details, but it's no secret that production capacity in Bozeman is about 70 guitars per day and, as a general rule -- it's Gibson, so the only rule without exceptions is that there are exceptions to every rule --, all of them are sold before they're built.

 

-- Bob R

[Danner]

It seems to me that Gibson's strategy has been to make excellent guitars, keep the prices high, and product placement product placement, product placement.

[fortyearspickn]

It seems to me that Gibson's strategy has been to make excellent guitars, keep the prices high, and product placement product placement, product placement.

 

I think you're right. And it's an effective strategy that doesn't require as much 'marketing' as the others.

[Jerry K]

It seems to me that Gibson's strategy has been to make excellent guitars, keep the prices high, and product placement product placement, product placement.

 

The relatively plain models like J-45 are actually a terrific bargain. The nitro finish alone costs several times more than the totally automated poly finish process used at Taylor. I have it on good authority that Gibson Montana division averages their profits, so that the profit from some higher end models (ie sigs and highly ornamented instruments) in effect subsidizes models like the J-45.

[zombywoof]

I would think the only guitar maker out there that when you see the name on the headstock you think to yourself there is that brand and then all of the others is National.

 

It has been alot of years since Gibson's main worries were Epihone archtops or the lack of a doghouse bass line. Gibson, Martin and others have alot of competitors out there. What the old warhorses like Gibson have that guys like Bob Taylor and Dana Bourgeois cannot claim is a storied heritage and Gibson seems spend alot of time and money marketing and advertising

to remind us of that. I guess it works as even resurrected names like Kay which have absolutley no connection with the past company other than the logo do it.