Do companies ever make basses worse on purpose?

[Spector_Ray]

It's cheaper for the manufacturer to shield it than for us to buy the instrument and get it chieled ourselves. I would rather pay a little more money for my instrument so I dont have to worry about getting it shieled later. I think Fender should at least offer shielding as an option or somehting.

But it's even cheaper for them NOT to shield it and let the end user do it if he/she wants to. The lower cost basses are more than likely going to be entry level basses and the average new bassist who goes into a music store with Mom and Dad aren't going to worry about shielding.

 

[Peter Squire]

Age old saying - ya get what ya pay for.

 

[gottawalk]

Do you think manufacturers ever make a worse bass than they could for the same price?

By this I mean to not interfere with higher end products they make lower end ones ugly or put worse preamps in.

Yes.

If by that you mean that they make less expensive versions of their upscale basses, then, yup, they do. Try looking at the specs between Warwick's regular line and the "Rock" basses.

 

[bovinehost]

Do you think that bass shields itself?

You're saying they don't?

Next thing you know, the tooth fairy is going to take a hit.

 

[Beav]

Sorry. I can't read. lol fixed.

-Mark

lol

 

[TheSuzie]

OK, but how much would it really cost per bass to properly shield the things when they are being made? $1-3 The materials are inexpensive, especially if purchased in bulk, and an experienced laborer could quickly install the shielding.

Aside from that point, I agree.

$3 X 100,000 basses = $300,000....Woo-Ho! Boss, I just saved the company $300k. Can I have that raise and extra week of vacation I've been asking for?

This is the same reason why, for many years, the wheels on Renault automobles had only three lug nuts.

Peace,
S

 

[The Mule]

$3 X 100,000 basses = $300,000....Woo-Ho! Boss, I just saved the company $300k. Can I have that raise and extra week of vacation I've been asking for?

This is the same reason why, for many years, the wheels on Renault automobles had only three lug nuts.

Peace,
S

No customer would mind to pay $10 extra for the shielding, making that a "Woo-Ho! Boss, I just earned another $700k for the company."

 

[DivXovore]

No customer would mind to pay $10 extra for the shielding, making that a "Woo-Ho! Boss, I just earned another $700k for the company."

Being a cheapie junkie as i am, i would not mind to pay $10-20$ (or Euro) for nice, copper shielded cavities from factory, instead of being forced to extract pups and electronics in order to do it myself (or a luthier).

Anyway, there is a difference between make good sounding, gigable cheap instruments and make bad sounding, unplayable cheap instruments. We all have seen basses of both kinds in any given price range, often with very similar prices, so the question turns to why some keep making crappy instruments for the light-pocketed players if it is obvious that better instruments CAN be made with the same producing cost, and reporting the same amount of profits (if not more due to known quality between players) to the company.

 

[guy n. cognito]

No customer would mind to pay $10 extra for the shielding, making that a "Woo-Ho! Boss, I just earned another $700k for the company."

Do you honestly believe that some beginner is going to buy a Squier or a MIM Fender simply because of shielding? Do you honestly believe that some beginner actually knows what shielding is? Hell, I know professional bassists that couldn't give a crap about shielding.

Shielding a low-end bass wouldn't sell more basses, but it would make the basses sold more expensive to manufacturer.

 

[agreatheight]

Of course they do - branding requires definable strata among product levels. If you can not easily tell the less expensive product from the more expensive product the design guys did not do their job from a marketing stand point.

Don't believe me? Go to the supermarket and look at cheap products vs. expensive products. Cereal aisle is great for this. Look at the packaging for cheap-a$$ cereal and then look at the premium brands. Manufacturers want a definitive line between products. You want your cheap goods to be in line with other cheap goods, or they will be over looked within the tarteged demographic.

Now crack open a musicians friend catalog. You are seeing something similar (in the marketing plan), however, with musical instruments you are certainly seeing a bit more nuance. But you should be able to easily tell the low end from the high end regardless. Generally speaking, I certainly can.

 

[eots]

Do you think manufacturers ever make a worse bass than they could for the same price?

By this I mean to not interfere with higher end products they make lower end ones ugly or put worse preamps in.

The obvious answer is the Fender relics series. Look at them... Worn paint, chips, oxidation. Why not buy new and get one with all the paint on it ??? and save money to boot...

 

[KJung]

Of course they do - branding requires definable strata among product levels. If you can not easily tell the less expensive product from the more expensive product the design guys did not do their job from a marketing stand point.

Don't believe me? Go to the supermarket and look at cheap products vs. expensive products. Cereal aisle is great for this. Look at the packaging for cheap-a$$ cereal and then look at the premium brands. Manufacturers want a definitive line between products. You want your cheap goods to be in line with other cheap goods, or they will be over looked within the tarteged demographic.

Now crack open a musicians friend catalog. You are seeing something similar (in the marketing plan), however, with musical instruments you are certainly seeing a bit more nuance. But you should be able to easily tell the low end from the high end regardless. Generally speaking, I certainly can.

+1 to the above. Dealing with these sort of issues in my day gig makes this topic interesting to me.

I think Roger Sadowsky is the master at product tiering in the high end music gear business. He's one of the few that seems to realize that there are more things than pure product features that define the high and low end. A key is distribution channels, and his strategy is just perfect. You can only get the NYC models directly from the NY shop, while his Metro line is distributed through higher end retailers. His retailer pricing requirement is no discounts, so you don't ever find his Metro's on 'discount', 'sale', etc., and that type of pricing translates to a quality, special image IMO, and keep retailers from eroding the brand image by giving deep discounts.

He then prices his NYC's significantly higher than the Metro's, but not crazy higher like the Lakland USA vs. Skyline, etc. He also sources the Metro's from Japan (I think), which has a much higher quality reputation than instruments sourced from China, Korea, etc. And, the NYC's have certain features that make them, at least for the discriminating purchaser, worth the extra money (lighter weight/routing, more custom options, different neck construction with graphite, standard VTC). Finally, he has beautifully managed the supply and demand equation, pricing the NYC so that there is high enough demand that he (as far as I can see) sells virtually every instrument made within a few weeks, but you still only wait around 6 months for a custom instrument).

Beautiful. Roger.... if you bother to read this, your business has it going on IMO... and I happen to very much like your basses.

K

 

[phxlbrmpf]

I always wonder why big companies never include shielding as a standard feature in their passive models.:scowl:

My Squier P-Bass Special's electronics are shielded and dead quiet.
It looks as if it's taken less than a minute to do but it's still effective.

 

[Fuzzbass]

If you don't like the fact that lower-end imports have poorer quality and/or fewer features, then it's simple: pay more for a better instrument. The low-end imports are for people who can't afford better... or don't require better (that's not uncommon, actually).

 

[mattvon]

...the prototypical Jackson player wants a superstrat with high-gain humbuckers, a tiny neck, and airbrushed graphics of a Amazonian women wearing little more than a loincloth weilding a battleaxe and riding a Ligar.

I don't want to drift off-topic, but that's one of the funniest things I've read in a long time!

 

[Spector_Ray]

Being a cheapie junkie as i am, i would not mind to pay $10-20$ (or Euro) for nice, copper shielded cavities from factory, instead of being forced to extract pups and electronics in order to do it myself (or a luthier).

For that price, I doubt it would be copper shielding since it's so labor intensive. Shielding paint works just as well and I would fork over the bucks for that. A 1/2 pint is about $29 at Stew-Mac so unless you have a bunch of unshielded bodies lying around, it's not worth buying for one bass.

 

[de la mocha]

Personally, I think fender CAN offer shielding and better bridges on their MIM line without effecting costs! I think with the profit they make they can upgrade the mim line with these two features without jacking up the price.

That's my opinion!

 

[lonote]

Manufacturers are now offering more bang for the buck than ever before. They have to in order to be competitive in the marketplace. There are lots of gig worthy instruments on the market for $300 or less. Are they the equivalent of American made instruments? Of course not, but they are well made. If you were a beginner 30 years ago, you had your choice of cheap, crappy imports...and I mean CRAPPY, or you had substantially more expensive American made "starter" instruments like Fender Musicmaster basses. Now, when you walk into a store and look at the inexpensive "starter" there are inexpensive Peavey, Squier, Washburn, Ibanez, etc. that look nice, sound decent and play well. Do manufacturers intentionally make bad instruments? Of course not...it would be suicide if they did!

 

[Tristan]

interesting replies...

with regard to pickups, does it really cost much more to make a really nice passive pickup? in terms of materials is there really a lot of difference?

 

[WillPlay4Food]

I think EBMM's SUB line is a good example of keeping costs down while keeping relative quality high. The SUBs are made in the same plant as every other EBMM instrument so they've managed to use their skilled labor but reduce costs by doing the following:

Only a handful of textured finish choices, all solid, no trans keeps painting costs down. Since the colors aren't see through, less expensive poplar can be used in place of ash.

No contouring means less time on CNC machines and less time sanding, IMO (I'm only guessing as I've never been to their shop).

Less expensive bridge (no fancy 'Ernie Ball Music Man' stamped on the bridge) but still solid. Less expensive tuners as well.

Passive models save on active preamp costs as well as rear routing for battery compartment. Active SUBs don't save as much in this department, but only a 2band preamp is available as an active option.

Since the neck is painted, the wood underneath doesn't need to be carefully selected for appearance. This saves money. Same goes with headstock.

Doesn't come with a hardshell case.

You can see there were many places where construction savings occurred but the final product is still a solid instrument. In case you can't tell I'm still impressed at the build quality of my $475 US made 5 string instrument.

I know my SUB would never hold its own against a StingRay5 but that's not why I bought it. I wanted a solid 5 string at a low price I could use to decide whether I like 5 strings. Also, I'm feeling the bite of the modding bug so this bass would provide a solid foundation (great neck, excellent fretwork, solid body) should I decide to go ahead and add a 2nd pickup and active pre.

Last but not least, it was made in my home country. I'm not isolationist, and I would looooooovvvveeee to own a Jerzy Drozd but I would also like to keep as many jobs as possible from moving away simply to save a few bucks.