Does this mean that GC's founding store is that one in Westlake? That might explain why that store has a *much* better selection of gear than other GC's I've been to...
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
Does this mean that GC's founding store is that one in Westlake? That might explain why that store has a *much* better selection of gear than other GC's I've been to...
To me, a musical instrument is a very personal thing... Not something to be mass produced for the lowest possible cost and highest possible profit margins... It's not toothpaste. Which is why I haven't bought a Fender in decades and probably won't. So to put a guy who use to be in charge of a big retail chain, in charge of a big guitar making company... doesn't exactly make me feel better about it.
No...I think Hollywood was the first store (not 100% sure, though). Westlake is just where the corporate offices are.
For people worrying about the GC/Fender relationship the new CEO stopped working for them in 2004 and Guitar Center was bought out in 2007 by Bain Capital who instituted the no-haggle policy among other things. I doubt Fender will restrict their dealer network, at least I hope not, because its the largest or 2nd largest manufacturer and seller of basses on the planet.*
He's an experienced CEO and musician. Hell he started out on the GC sales floor in the 70s before you people even had internet to gripe about the franchise!
*Ibanez surpassed Fender a few years ago, and then they Ibanez lost it back to Fender. I'm not sure who the largest is at present.
He's an experienced CEO and musician. Hell he started out on the GC sales floor in the 70s before you people even had internet to gripe about the franchise!
*Ibanez surpassed Fender a few years ago, and then they Ibanez lost it back to Fender. I'm not sure who the largest is at present.
Damn..before he left GC I wish he would have found out where my Gator ATA bass case is that they have been jerking me around on for 4 weeks..
Judging by how Fender lately has decided if they drop the level of quality but raise the level of $$ I thought it couldnt get any worse... Im not sure if this is good or not but I still refuse to play Fender again until I know there instruments are worth the money... and that may be a while...
I don't see any evidence that Fender "lately has decided [to] drop the level of quality ..."
+1
I think they offer great products at fair prices.
The prices did shoot up (early 2009?) but the market brought them back down.
??
Of the many negative things I have read about Fender, a drop in the level of quality is not one of them. To which instruments do you refer?
- Aug 5, 2005
- 7,243
- 92
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: J.C. Basses
You guys are funny... I won't go into my standard rant in defense of Guitar Center - I'm not a loyal customer or anything. I'm a supply chain manager in the beer industry. Its all about distribution and placement - and nobody provides that better than GC in the music industry.
The negative comments assume the Fender executive team, search consultants, and board are all idiots - they may very well be. That said, its very hard to fall into or be part of a conspiracy in a corporation like Fender - it can happen (anything can happen). Conflict of interest because he's on the board? Well, despite the time gap, it is not uncommon at all for a customer to be on a company's board - in fact its rather common.
Lastly, you really have to look at what Fender is (and is becoming) - in order:
1. A lifestyle company - think Harley Davidson. Musical purist will deride this, but face it, the dad-bands and young kids want a Fender.
2. Sales and distribution company - no distribution = no profits = no fender
3. Musical instrument maker
Yes, its about the instruments, but its more about other things.
I will leave you with what major brewing companies are:
1. Marketing company (to include sales & distribution)
2. Bottler - breweries are set up to produce lots of beer
3. Brewer - again, its all about the beer, but you have got to have 1 & 2.
Conclusion - Larry Thomas seems like a good choice.
The negative comments assume the Fender executive team, search consultants, and board are all idiots - they may very well be. That said, its very hard to fall into or be part of a conspiracy in a corporation like Fender - it can happen (anything can happen). Conflict of interest because he's on the board? Well, despite the time gap, it is not uncommon at all for a customer to be on a company's board - in fact its rather common.
Lastly, you really have to look at what Fender is (and is becoming) - in order:
1. A lifestyle company - think Harley Davidson. Musical purist will deride this, but face it, the dad-bands and young kids want a Fender.
2. Sales and distribution company - no distribution = no profits = no fender
3. Musical instrument maker
Yes, its about the instruments, but its more about other things.
I will leave you with what major brewing companies are:
1. Marketing company (to include sales & distribution)
2. Bottler - breweries are set up to produce lots of beer
3. Brewer - again, its all about the beer, but you have got to have 1 & 2.
Conclusion - Larry Thomas seems like a good choice.
MIMs have taken a turn for the better in recent years. The early 2000s were truly the dark ages in the Mexico factories. I think their allowances were measured in inches...
Yeah, the first one was in Hollywood. A little rat trap crammed full of gear, and the coolest place on earth for an adolescent rock star wanna be.
I spent so much time there when I was a kid I should have been on the payroll.
+2
I agree also, I think they are a good value.
Funny how that works, isn't it?
I remember all the whining about the price increase here when it happened. Probably mostly from persons who wouldn't buy a new Fender anyway.
At the time, many knowledgeable types posted to the effect of that if enough people DIDN'T buy new Fenders at the new price point the prices would come back down.
But; the moaning persisted, as if somehow Fenders were a commodity like food or fuel that people needed to buy to survive, and Fender can force people to pay whatever price point they choose.
Maybe this recent price fluctuation will be an enlightening event for those folks who just don't Get It.
The market controls price, much more so than the manufacturer.
Finding that "sweet spot" price point where demand stays strong, production stays consistent (not just QC; neither buried in backorders or laying off staff because of slow sales), AND the company turns a respectable profit is one of the accountabilities of a CEO to the owners/shareholders.
This ability also requires an expansive knowledge of sales and marketing trends in your industry.
While all departments working together and also performing a sort of "checks and balances" action on each other is crucial, Sales and Marketing is undoubtedly the heart and soul of the majority of major companies.
A good sales/marketing team can sell ice cubes to Inuits as the old saying goes, but the finest R&D/production departments on the planet will die on the vine without a sales/marketing dept. to get their brainstorms/finished products to market.
IMO if Fender eliminated their production and R&D departments tomorrow, and chose to just market imported private labeled gear they could survive nicely (lets pray that doesnt happen; far too many companies, and even some entire industries have already gone that route); what would happen if they decided to fire their sales/marketing departments and just keep designing and producing gear? How long do you figure that would last?
All of which largely explains why the majority of CEOs come from a sales background.
I strongly suspect that Mr. Thomas does indeed Get It. Good Luck to him!
Here comes a long rant about the American MI business.
There is the art to making a fine musical instrument.
Then there is the business of making money making fine musical instruments.
This is the age-old dilemma, can you do both?
You all know about the boutique bass manufacturers, they make a decent living, because they charge $3-$5K per bass, but they can't make a lot of them, or sell very many. Their customer base is very small, but there is always a market for prestige gear.
Fender takes an opposite view and tries to have a more broad appeal for the masses (and many of you hate them for it). In trying to make money, Fender, and many other American businesses have pushed their manufacturing to lower cost environments. First Mexico, then Asia. The push to offshore manufacturing is all about lowering the cost of goods sold, and increasing the narrow margins you are currently getting on every guitar you sell to GC. The trick is to not compromise on certain things, so you need reputable partners, that make good stuff, that you don't get sued and don't loose your customers.
Sometimes, the push for profitability goes too far. Look at Toyota. Best in quality for what, 30 years, and then they start getting really big (the GM of Japanese car companies) and the pressure to continue to make money leads smart people to start cutting corners, and all of a sudden they are front-page news, and their reputation is shot and TM may never fully recover its market share gains.
Me, I like companies that are innovative, even if big. That's why I own Apple computers and gadgets, and aspire to own more Ernie Ball Musicman basses. EB has put out more innovative basses in the past 10 years than prob. any other bass company, and they have largely done it still making them in America (forget the SBMM line, its not theirs, its licensed). Being innovative means taking risks, something that many of you have mentioned Fender really hasn't been doing recently.
When you take risks, sometimes you fail, but if you trust your people, yourself, and your sense of where the business is going, you can be successful for a long time (see Steve Jobs).
So hiring Larry Thomas is quintesential Fender. Its a safe move. He won't screw things up, and he's a true MI guy, the brand is less likely to suffer from "mistakes", and I expect few radical departures from where Fender has been heading for the past several years. He might buy Lakland, or Sadowsky, as that's been GC's strategy of buying up its prime competition. In the meantime, I just hope nothing happens to Sterling Ball!
There is the art to making a fine musical instrument.
Then there is the business of making money making fine musical instruments.
This is the age-old dilemma, can you do both?
You all know about the boutique bass manufacturers, they make a decent living, because they charge $3-$5K per bass, but they can't make a lot of them, or sell very many. Their customer base is very small, but there is always a market for prestige gear.
Fender takes an opposite view and tries to have a more broad appeal for the masses (and many of you hate them for it). In trying to make money, Fender, and many other American businesses have pushed their manufacturing to lower cost environments. First Mexico, then Asia. The push to offshore manufacturing is all about lowering the cost of goods sold, and increasing the narrow margins you are currently getting on every guitar you sell to GC. The trick is to not compromise on certain things, so you need reputable partners, that make good stuff, that you don't get sued and don't loose your customers.
Sometimes, the push for profitability goes too far. Look at Toyota. Best in quality for what, 30 years, and then they start getting really big (the GM of Japanese car companies) and the pressure to continue to make money leads smart people to start cutting corners, and all of a sudden they are front-page news, and their reputation is shot and TM may never fully recover its market share gains.
Me, I like companies that are innovative, even if big. That's why I own Apple computers and gadgets, and aspire to own more Ernie Ball Musicman basses. EB has put out more innovative basses in the past 10 years than prob. any other bass company, and they have largely done it still making them in America (forget the SBMM line, its not theirs, its licensed). Being innovative means taking risks, something that many of you have mentioned Fender really hasn't been doing recently.
When you take risks, sometimes you fail, but if you trust your people, yourself, and your sense of where the business is going, you can be successful for a long time (see Steve Jobs).
So hiring Larry Thomas is quintesential Fender. Its a safe move. He won't screw things up, and he's a true MI guy, the brand is less likely to suffer from "mistakes", and I expect few radical departures from where Fender has been heading for the past several years. He might buy Lakland, or Sadowsky, as that's been GC's strategy of buying up its prime competition. In the meantime, I just hope nothing happens to Sterling Ball!
From reading the posts, it seems Fender suffers from not having a clear and consistant distinction between its MIA, MIM, and Squire lines. People curse and praise the MIMs and Squires as being inferior to the MIA or as good as the MIA but for a lot less money.
If he can sort out the quality control and make it clear what you get for your money at each price point he will do a lot for Fender and those who want to buy Fender.
If he can sort out the quality control and make it clear what you get for your money at each price point he will do a lot for Fender and those who want to buy Fender.
