Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Fender Hires Guitar Center CEO
- Thread starter bassyRyan
- Start date
Isn't that a conflict of interests - being on the Fender Board at the same time a Big Honcho at GC?
And by extension - the bats and pirates?
Ahem!
Let's go a little further and add your favorite football and baseball logos too.
Hold me back! I wanna own the whole National League Commemorative Basses!
Ah, but it does matter to Fender what level of quality their products are. Remember the "top-quality" cars the car manufacturers were producing back in the 70s, like the Ford Pinto and the Chevy Vega? It wasn't long before American cars were perceived as junk and people gravitated to Japanese cars, which were higher-quality cars. It can be argued that the US car companies still havn't recovered from those days. If Fender starts producing junk, then customers will perceive Fender as a low-quality product, people will buy other brands and sales will suffer. There will always be a core of customers that will be loyal to a brand no matter what, like Gibson, but overall Fender will suffer if they are perceived as being a low-quality product. Perceptions, that's what the free market is all about, selling a product perceived as being of reasonable quality for a price perceived as being reasonable. For example, MF sells Fender MIM Precision Basses for $549.99. People see the MIM basses as being of reasonable quality (quality being defined as conforming to requirements) and $549.99 is a reasonable price to pay for this level of quality.
It would only be a conflict of interest if Fender and GC were somehow competing agianst one-another, but... one is a manufacturer and another is a dealer.
But I LOVED my Vega! I'd still be driving it if the engine didn't puke and the frame (wait - there wasn't a frame) didn't let the doors close all the way; I used bent coathangers to keep them shut.
*sigh*
Another reason for those who are "ABF" (anything but Fender). Me, I don't new gear anyway...
the good news here is that maybe GC will hire a human to run their evil empire. Not likely, but one never knows.
Another reason for those who are "ABF" (anything but Fender). Me, I don't new gear anyway...
the good news here is that maybe GC will hire a human to run their evil empire. Not likely, but one never knows.
OK - maybe 'conflict' was the wrong term.
Let's try something more along the lines of 'payola' - if you can furnish a better word, let me know.
Larry Thomas retired from GC in 2004.
He started with Fender in 2009, joining their Board of Directors.
There's a 5 year gap in between.
Yeah, it definitely seems like that, but it's not that much different than a store selling an item through a brand that it owns. Sears selling "Craftsman" tools comes to mind.
It's actually quite common.
Fender is a successful multinational corporation with an outstanding reputation that goes back over 60 years. Any new incoming CEO will do nothing to jeopardize that reputation, especially one who has been in the music business as long as Larry Thomas has. Fender will do just fine and if anything might do even better now.
You assume a great deal here. Having worked for a company that churns its executive staff about ever 5 years, what I've seen is that every CEO or President that comes on board wants to "Make his mark". It is almost certain that he was hired to make Fender more profitable, not to "build a better guitar" or "Create more US jobs". I would expect prices to go up on US instruments as well as a much more strict dealer network (Fender has a very very broad dealer base, which GC has never liked...)
Look at it this way: Is GC a better place to buy gear today than it was 20 years ago? It may well be more profitable and efficient, but for us, the gear consumer, is it a better place? I say *no*. Absolutely not. The homogeneity between stores is Walmartesque, they have restricted pricing by refusing to compete between stores, they have purposefully expanded the franchise wherever any successful music retailers are located, ultimately restricting choice to the working musician. If one looks at GC today and is not pleased, you can expect the same at Fender. This guy is *not* going to change his style just because he runs a cool company...
Ahh, two very well-known TB targets of derision definitively coming together in one thread- Fender Musical Instrument Corporation, and Guitar Center. I smell a closed thread coming...
I'm not sure the Fender gets too much static - I think its widely acknowledged that Fender instruments today (at least the US Std) are the best they ever have been - how can that be bad? Sure, not everyone (myself included) is happy about them off-shoring every job they can, but strictly as an instrument maker, they are doing very well. I do think it's fashionable with contrarians to insist they hate Fender just on principle - those people are silly and we all know it...
But here's the thing: Quality costs money. The key thing here is "cost money". A core job of execs at manufacturing companies is to drive cost out of products, and this guy is a champ at two things: Restricting competition (trade) and reducing costs. I expect that, over time, things will get worse at FMIC. This man's no dummy - but it doesn't mean he gives a frosty crank about musicians or music. At least he's not a crazy old coot like the guy running (and ruining) Gibson...
For the most part I dont think it matters.
Most employees have no clue who their CEO is and are never directly affected by him or her.
The main question to ask is will the quality of the product change due to things like cost effectiveness and focus groups?
Will they continue to market 10,000 signature models even when the only difference in some of them is the color of the pick guard?
Will GC get a price break and sell AM Standards at blow out prices?
We probably wont see any changes until after the first of the year, physical or calendar.
MM
Most employees have no clue who their CEO is and are never directly affected by him or her.
The main question to ask is will the quality of the product change due to things like cost effectiveness and focus groups?
Will they continue to market 10,000 signature models even when the only difference in some of them is the color of the pick guard?
Will GC get a price break and sell AM Standards at blow out prices?
We probably wont see any changes until after the first of the year, physical or calendar.
MM
- Aug 25, 2007
- 835
- 6
- Disclosures
- I manufacture for several companies including but not limited to: Bridge City Sound, Catalinbread, more.
Better yet, include the Fender clones in that market share, and I'd say it's something approaching 70%.
Every company should be in such a "rut".
My crystal ball is all fogged up at the mo - but wouldn't it be nice if Fender decided to sell online?
They could cut the GC middleman and then run the whole show themselves.
They could also jack the prices any way they arbitrarily see too. Not too long ago, Fender did just that - 'because they can' and they wanted the prices raised in spite of any QC or new model expenses.
...and even Bill Gate$ stepped down from where he was at one time.
They could cut the GC middleman and then run the whole show themselves.
They could also jack the prices any way they arbitrarily see too. Not too long ago, Fender did just that - 'because they can' and they wanted the prices raised in spite of any QC or new model expenses.
...and even Bill Gate$ stepped down from where he was at one time.
Now this is pure speculation on my part, but I would suspect that Fender is well aware of the deep tradition it's brand represents and the hesitation of buyers to accept any real innovation that moves the brand forward. So how do you, as an organization, get around that?
In recent years, FMIC has been busily acquiring brands that are innovators which then puts them in the position of participating in new tech without having to dilute or pollute its perceived place in the market. Yes, they have gobbled up other traditional brands like Gretsch and Guild, but at the same time, they picked up SWR and apparently Genz Benz (which I haven't verified) and probably some others I'm not aware of.
Personally, I think that's a very sound strategy to improve the bottom line without jeopardizing a secure position.
In recent years, FMIC has been busily acquiring brands that are innovators which then puts them in the position of participating in new tech without having to dilute or pollute its perceived place in the market. Yes, they have gobbled up other traditional brands like Gretsch and Guild, but at the same time, they picked up SWR and apparently Genz Benz (which I haven't verified) and probably some others I'm not aware of.
Personally, I think that's a very sound strategy to improve the bottom line without jeopardizing a secure position.
