Fender - a new company model that would work

[buldog5151bass]

Fender has lost market share consistently.

I would take less selection if it meant higher quality, lower price, and more accessibility - wouldn't you?

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

Blegh...I'm sorry, but that "oldskool" attitude will alienate 3/4 of Fender's customers...

So you think that if you just put the Squier sticker on MIM fenders, folks wouldn't buy them?
And then what might they buy for $700?

 

[grrg63]

Fender has lost market share consistently.

What makes you think that?

 

[PortlandBass77]

I disagree. Fender needs to do more reissues, up the quality control, and be more open to new designs other than the P and J.

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

Why would Squier only sell "student" models when they have been successfully expanding their product range and customer base year after year?

And cutting into Fender line sales. Though many here hate to face it, Squier was indeed explicitly started as Fender's "Low cost, entry level student line". My guess is that an ambitious division VP pushed for this years ago and won - so now there's nearly ZERO difference between a low end fender and a high-end squeir, but Squiers likely make less money because of the name. Doesn't seem smart to me, from Fender's POV.

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

I disagree. Fender needs to do more reissues, up the quality control, and be more open to new designs other than the P and J.

One out of three isn't bad in baseball.

 

[tbz]

tbz - I think it is an appropriate comparison. I compare all the new models, along with the crazy options, to the chicken sandwiches, salads, etc. Fewer models, fewer price levels IS "Reduced overhead due to standardization on raw materials".

Five Guys offers a hamburger that is FAR superior to McDonalds, at a similar price. In the same way, Fender could produce a much better instrument, and be the industry standard, as they once were. If you want a salad, go to Warmoth.

Please explain how it is an appropriate comparison when the Five Guys example illustrates a savings on raw materials, but yours does not.

A slab of alder costs what a slab of alder costs, doesn't matter if the CNC machine turns it into a p-bass, a jazz or a mustang, same raw material cost, same raw materials.

If the product lines lost money they would drop them. Fender isn't shy about discontinuing models or products that aren't successful or profitable for them....

 

[awilkie84]

So you think that if you just put the Squier sticker on MIM fenders, folks wouldn't buy them?
And then what might they buy for $700?

As I've stated before, there's a HUGE stigma and buying priority towards having the "real deal" (aka anything with a Fender logo). By putting these in the unobtainable range for the majority of Fender's customers, you've now pushed them towards more "reputable" brands than Squier, like Ibanez. Bad move, if you want the company to survive.

 

[Korladis]

I don't know marketing, my question is, where does it all end ? The used market at all levels is T-totally saturated to the teeth, we all know virtually everybody on this board has 5 or 6 to a dozen or more basses in their arsenal. Can major manufacturers sustain a level of sales on items that basically don't wear out indefinitely ? There comes a point in prosperity where 'unsustainable" becomes a looming threat on the horizon. Isn't this the real issue for these big bloated corporations ?

I have three electric basses. I can't afford more.

The problem Fender is running up against is that the people they're marketing to can't afford to buy as many instruments as they're putting out. It's not their fault (well, they do practice outsourcing, but they're hardly alone in that, nor the worst offenders), it's the economy.

Fender has lost market share consistently.

I would take less selection if it meant higher quality, lower price, and more accessibility - wouldn't you?

Of course they've lost market share.

In the 60s, there was Fender, Gibson, Rickenbacker... Guild... Hofner... Mosrite... Hagstrom.... and really not many others.

Now there's Fender, Gibson, Rickenbacker, Ibanez, ESP/LTD, Lakland, MusicMan, Sadowsky, Warwick, Spector, Paul Reed Smith, Fodera, Peavey, BC Rich, Dean, Yamaha, G&L, Carvin... even the lowly SX... the list goes on and on.

There are simply more major manufacturers now than there used to be, at every level of the market, from the cheapest budget imports to the fanciest custom shop creations. There weren't really custom shops in the same way in the 60s, and at the other end, budget instruments now are way better than they were in the 60s. There is simply more competition.

 

[Moley13]

As I've stated before, there's a HUGE stigma and buying priority towards having the "real deal" (aka anything with a Fender logo). By putting these in the unobtainable range for the majority of Fender's customers, you've now pushed them towards more "reputable" brands than Squier, like Ibanez. Bad move, if you want the company to survive.

I couldn't agree more. The separation of cheaper products from your main game with a different brand name is a really interesting one.

On the positive side, you don't "tarnish" the reputation of your A-grade instruments with the questionable quality control/construction practices of cheaper instruments, but on the negative side, you are (quite artificially) forcing the idea that those are sub-par instruments (if you won't put your name to it, why should somebody buy it?).

So people go out and think "hey, I could get a MusicMan SUB or like, a $300 Ibanez. Those brands make awesome basses! I've seen them, they're really cool!". Hilariously, the quality gap between a $300 Ibanez and a $3000 Ibanez is obviously going to be (roughly!) the same as a Squire Affinity vs. top shelf Fender. I think most buyers know this in their hearts, too. The difference is, Fender have somewhat screwed themselves buy putting this impediment in people's minds: who wants to be inferior, and have INFERIOR proudly displayed on their headstock?

Returning to the "positive" side of re-branding, do you think anyone ever picks up a SUB stingray and goes "Man, Ernie Ball Music Man have really crap quality control". No, they think "This isn't as nice as the real stingray, but you get what you pay for!". So, do you think Fender were right to separate themselves? I certainly don't. Heck, people even complain about MIA Fender QC, so having Squiers out their with "Fender" written on them should be the least of their concerns!

While I do agree that Fender needs to streamline its offerings (discussed here) I don't think they should, as you put it, "@#$%% the Dimension, Coronado, etc." By eliminating these models they alienate customers who want something other than a Precision or a Jazz...some people want to be different.

Some people do want to be different, and I do think it's a valid marketing strategy to always have something a bit unique in each year's product lineup. It keeps the GASsy people who have dough to burn coming back for the next offering. However, on the Dimension specifically, I do think Fender should focus on what they do best (with some unique twists) rather than trying to compete with a hugely established competitor. Imagine if EBMM brought out a P clone. That'd get some laughs In the same way that anybody who wants a P bass (excluding boutique builders here) wants a Fender if possible, I think there is a minimal crowd who are keen for a Stingray without the EBMM logo on the headstock [I know there are a few out there, I've already trolled the Dimension thread, but there is a finite limit of these people - I don't think it's a long-game thang].

Just my $0.02. Interesting thread.

 

[GBassNorth]

OK, so I read the entire thread and much to my surprise there is one question that hasn't been asked yet...

What's the best hamburger for metal?

 

[blue4]

I'm still trying to figure out how making fewer models and options automatically translates to improved quality.

 

[tbz]

I'm still trying to figure out how making fewer models and options automatically translates to improved quality.

+1.

 

[GBassNorth]

I'm still trying to figure out how making fewer models and options automatically translates to improved quality.

If I read the thread correctly I think it works something like this...

If you limit your hamburger choices to just a few and have them cooked in Asia then shipped to the USA for assembly you can leverage your raw material buying power and end up reducing your overhead cost per unit while at the same time drastically increasing your quality (fewer pickles = less complexity = less opportunity for errors).

What this doesn't take into account is the potential lost customers who were getting chicken or fish from you but can now only buy burgers. The other thing it doesn't take into account is any relevancy with Fender's current situation.

Seriously, if it were my company I'd make two changes:
1) Identify what products make up 80% to 90% of the company profits, keep them and sell off or eliminate the rest.
2) Change the Squier name to Fender to eliminate the stigma associated with that brain dead marketing technique (besides no one can spell it correctly anyway). Spector has the right model, 3 tiers of products all with the same name on the headstock.

 

[Moley13]

If I read the thread correctly I think it works something like this...

If you limit your hamburger choices to just a few and have them cooked in Asia then shipped to the USA for assembly you can leverage your raw material buying power and end up reducing your overhead cost per unit while at the same time drastically increasing your quality (fewer pickles = less complexity = less opportunity for errors).

What this doesn't take into account is the potential lost customers who were getting chicken or fish from you but can now only buy burgers. The other thing it doesn't take into account is any relevancy with Fender's current situation.

Seriously, if it were my company I'd make two changes:
1) Identify what products make up 80% to 90% of the company profits, keep them and sell off or eliminate the rest.
2) Change the Squier name to Fender to eliminate the stigma associated with that brain dead marketing technique (besides no one can spell it correctly anyway). Spector has the right model, 3 tiers of products all with the same name on the headstock.

That's gotta be the most sensible post I've read all day.

OT: @GBassNorth did your DP mutate from a yellow SUV into something much cooler (and yellow), or are my eyes going blurry?

 

[GBassNorth]

That's gotta be the most sensible post I've read all day.

OT: @GBassNorth did your DP mutate from a yellow SUV into something much cooler (and yellow), or are my eyes going blurry?

LOL - in my profile I list outdoor stuff and cars as my hobbies, the Jeep was one that met both. Sold it about a year ago but needed something else yellow in is place - the Porsche fit the bill nicely.

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

As I've stated before, there's a HUGE stigma and buying priority towards having the "real deal" (aka anything with a Fender logo). By putting these in the unobtainable range for the majority of Fender's customers, you've now pushed them towards more "reputable" brands than Squier, like Ibanez. Bad move, if you want the company to survive.

So, Ibanez is more reputable than Squier? Most Ibby's are made the same place, with the same materials and techniques as Squiers... Of course, Joe consumer doesn't really know that...

You might be right - I don't think so, but who knows.

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

If I read the thread correctly I think it works something like this...

If you limit your hamburger choices to just a few and have them cooked in Asia then shipped to the USA for assembly you can leverage your raw material buying power and end up reducing your overhead cost per unit while at the same time drastically increasing your quality (fewer pickles = less complexity = less opportunity for errors).

What this doesn't take into account is the potential lost customers who were getting chicken or fish from you but can now only buy burgers. The other thing it doesn't take into account is any relevancy with Fender's current situation.

Seriously, if it were my company I'd make two changes:
1) Identify what products make up 80% to 90% of the company profits, keep them and sell off or eliminate the rest.
2) Change the Squier name to Fender to eliminate the stigma associated with that brain dead marketing technique (besides no one can spell it correctly anyway). Spector has the right model, 3 tiers of products all with the same name on the headstock.

I don't buy the fast food analogy; These are not consumable items we're talking about. Better analogy would be, sadly, cars.

 

[GBassNorth]

I don't buy the fast food analogy; These are not consumable items we're talking about. Better analogy would be, sadly, cars.

I didn't buy it either, that's why I put the little whistling guy at the end of the comment and said there's no relevancy. It was meant to be a play on a number of posts earlier in the thread that were touting the marketing models of 5 Guys and In-N-Out Burger over McDonalds and how that pertained to Fender.

 

[Moley13]

So, Ibanez is more reputable than Squier? Most Ibby's are made the same place, with the same materials and techniques as Squiers... Of course, Joe consumer doesn't really know that...

You might be right - I don't think so, but who knows.

I think the point was that some Ibbys (no apostrophe) are basically the same as Squiers (like you point out), but they also make some really top shelf stuff. Squier don't - a top shelf "squier" is called a Fender. Herein lies Fender's marketing problem - Squier means crap (that's not my opinion, that's a guess at Fender's and the average consumer's), where Ibanez means "you get what you pay for".