Gibson's PR Damage Control

[mindwell]

Nobody in that huge legal team can write intelligible prose.

 

[Mike Whitfield]

Typical example of an attempt at spin doctoring.

There is very little actual information presented in that release.

They’re just restating what was said in the Agnesi video. Except this time they’re softening the tone since the earlier “Sopranos” schtick didn’t fly too well.

They’re also deliberately conflating Chinese counterfeiting of Gibson instruments with the alleged trademark violations they’re going after Dean for. Which means they’re not out solely to protect the Gibson name. They’re also attempting to gain control over anything that even remotely resembles anything Gibson has done in their long history. So it’s not the purely defensive move they’re trying to convince everyone it is. It’s still very much a corporate strategic offensive they’re pursuing.

The statement from the current brass pretty much sums up their intentions. Which are no different than what was stated in their original misguided announcement.



Translation:

It’s time for the people we claim are infringing on our alleged legal trademarks to come forward and accept the settlement terms we’ll offer them. Because we have every intention of dragging them into prolonged and costly legal wrangling if they don’t. We seek your “collaboration.” Which, as far as we’re concerned, means: Why not see it - and do it - our way? (Or else.)

And just to be clear, Gibson’s lawsuit against Dean is seeking: treble damages (three times the normal monetary penalty a court would hand down for such a violation because Gibson maintains Dean willfully tried to deceive people into thinking Dean guitars were Gibsons - despite bring clearly and conspicuously branded with Dean’s distinctive logo on the headstock), plus all the profits from every guitar Dean ever sold that Gibson says is violating their trademark, plus all Gibson’s legal expenses related to the lawsuit.

Sure sounds like they’re playing hardball to me.

Well said.

Karma would be Yamaha buying Martin and then using their much deeper pockets to go after Gibson for violating Martin's trade dress with their crappy counterfeit guitars.

 

[gfen]

Do you think they used that label on any of their Strat copies?

Yes, I own one. My first guitar circa 1987 or so. Still have it in a closet, even. Do you think I can turn it in for a bounty?!?

 

[BurningSkies]

Yes, I own one. My first guitar circa 1987 or so. Still have it in a closet, even. Do you think I can turn it in for a bounty?!?

You should at least report it through their system.

 

[Mike Whitfield]

Sorry for your sensitivity. For the record I'm a chubby white guy who abhors political correctness and knee jerk reductionist thinking. There was no "versus" about except that it was absolutely true that Fender had about 25 percent women, asians, latinos blacks from 25-60 on the floor and Gibson had almost entirely 50 year old white men with bank manager's hair and suits.

It has every bearing on the describing the scene as I saw it. Gibson, at that time, was a boring, stodgy, monocultural, unfriendly place. Fender was more vibrant, friendly, varied and welcoming. It reinforces the point of my post about the glaring differences in the culture of the companies but not necessarily the people or the product.

Mugre

I think it's pretty much a perfect stereotype. Fender (in between suing people) is actually trying to figure out how to sell guitars to more types of people. Gibson (in between suing people) is trying to figure out how to keep other people from selling more guitars.

Only a Gibson is good enough - to sue your ass for daring to build something that resembles our instruments.

 

[Mike Whitfield]

Yes, I own one. My first guitar circa 1987 or so. Still have it in a closet, even. Do you think I can turn it in for a bounty?!?

I'd say lease it to Dean as an exhibit.

 

[design]

Did you not see the Agnesi video of him warning every guitar maker that Gibson is going to sue them?

Thanks for posting the video again. I had only managed to find excerpts online, when I went looking the first time.

Wow. Such a bad Sopranos vibe! Oh, and reading from a prompter while espousing “authenticity”. Haha. SO MANY things wrong from a PR point of view.

 

[Mike Whitfield]

Thanks for posting the video again. I had only managed to find excerpts online, when I went looking the first time.

Wow. Such a bad Sopranos vibe! Oh, and reading from a prompter while espousing “authenticity”. Haha. SO MANY things wrong from a PR point of view.

Including the official Gibson upper management dress code, homeless douchebags in cheesy leather jackets. See, we have leather jackets and greasy hair and bum beards to show that we're cool.

 

[JoeWPgh]

Fender has survived in a sea of cheap and/or counterfeit knock offs. Why can't Gibson?

 

[Picton]

Fender has survived in a sea of cheap and/or counterfeit knock offs. Why can't Gibson?

They can. They're just telling themselves that if they fix this, it'll show the world what a swell company they are.

They're not correct.

 

[Bander]

Folks that have no intention of buying a Gibson, spend lots of time posting to the pleasure of others who have no intention of buying a Gibson. Meanwhile, Gibson buyers are spending about 5 minutes picking out a guitar, and not reading said posts.

 

[JW56789]

I worked there in the early 90's, on the line, and decided, actually, 'Only Good is Gibson Enough', but that was stretching it. . . . . .

Anyway, from MMR:

[This invalid link has been removed]

. . . . . which would seem to second the argument made about Gibson's legal foibles, to paraphrase that 'all these shapes are from the fifties and sixties (a few even older still), you've no record of attempts at trademark or copyright protection over all this time, it's a little late now', or something better expressed in legal-ese.

 

[Cliff Colton]

A lawsuit alleging that the public can’t tell the difference between a $3500 Gibson and a $200 Dean is great promotional publicity for Dean.

I propose millions for defense, not a penny for settlement.

 

[Jeff Scott]

Folks that have no intention of buying a Gibson, spend lots of time posting to the pleasure of others who have no intention of buying a Gibson. Meanwhile, Gibson buyers are spending about 5 minutes picking out a guitar, and not reading said posts.

If the unaware were to suddenly become aware of the legal bullying that Gibson is perpetrating, things might be very different.

 

[pht2356]

Thanks for posting the video again. I had only managed to find excerpts online, when I went looking the first time.

Wow. Such a bad Sopranos vibe! Oh, and reading from a prompter while espousing “authenticity”. Haha. SO MANY things wrong from a PR point of view.

Got to be the worst example of a company's mission statement that I have ever seen. How could that video ever make it past the pr dept or ad agency is a mystery .

 

[ajkula66]

If the unaware were to suddenly become aware of the legal bullying that Gibson is perpetrating, things might be very different.

All jokes aside, I doubt that the vast majority of people care one way or another.

If they did, we would be living in a very different world.

 

[Joybass]

Ok Gibson, we all believe you have nothing but the best intentions. Now start listening to your customers and start making better guitars at sensible prices.

 

[Wisebass]

Hi Picton

Oh good.

Another Gibson thread to keep up with.

Number 4! When my "bodycount" is right. (not counting number 2.5 which got closed)​

Number 1

Gibson “you have been warned”

Number 2

Gibson Sues Dean and Luna over Infringement

Number 3

Gibson strikes again!

Number 2 and a half

Gibson sues…

edit: bashing thread got closed!

Gibson is in damage control mode

Again? This has already been posted!

Just got this via Michael Molenda (former editor in chief at Guitar Player Magazine)


"Gibson Pivots From Confrontation To Collaboration

In The Process Of Re-building Over The Past Eight Months, Gibson Has Made Significant Progress And Now Takes On The Challenge Of Balancing Brand Protection With Music Industry Collaboration
(NASHVILLE, TN, Monday, July 1, 2019) Since emerging from bankruptcy less than a year ago, Gibson has made significant progress in the key areas that matter most to guitarists around the world. With a clear focus on quality , a new collection of Original and Modern guitars , and a more confident Dealer and Artist base , the new team at Gibson have proven they can listen to the market to create new solutions. But there is still more work to be done and the new team at Gibson remain on a mission.

While new management is building on the legacy, quality and craftsmanship that guitarists have come to love and expect from Gibson , they will also continue to manage and attempt to resolve the conflicts of the past .

Apart from inheriting an iconic brand, the team have also inherited a host of challenges that they realized would take time to achieve proper resolution. A clear challenge has been in the area of brand protection, where a legacy of legal issues exist with both legitimate companies in the industry infringing on iconic trademarks and with illegitimate entities attempting to counterfeit, ‘knock-off’ and pretend to be Gibson in the market.

Over the past eight months, the team have successfully dealt with over 4,500 counterfeit and ‘knock-off’ guitars coming from overseas that were clearly designed to confuse the consumer into thinking they were buying a real Gibson . Since November (2018), there have been dozens of counterfeit website ‘take-downs,’ also designed to confuse the guitarist into thinking they were entering a legitimate, official website. On a weekly basis, Gibson receives multiple queries and concerns from guitarists mislead into purchasing what they thought was a genuine Gibson that turned out to be counterfeit. Unfortunately, this is a very real dynamic that brands, like Gibson and other iconic brands, need to deal with on a regular basis. The main area of brand protection on these types of issues is with trademark ownership, understanding, and assertion. Hence our recent attempts to communicate our position, which was predominantly focused on these rogue overseas players in the market. If left unchecked, these situations can lead to continued consumer confusion and can ultimately affect the integrity of an entire industry .

Recently, there has been a wide spectrum of both support and criticism with the approach that has been taken by Gibson in the market regarding brand protection. While there are clear lessons to be learned around tone and legal explanations, the past few weeks have provided a ‘real time’ opportunity for Gibson to start making the pivot from less legal leverage to more industry collaboration , with appropriate levels of awareness.

With regards to other guitar brands and companies in the marketplace, Gibson has filed specific lawsuits over the past several years with the intention of protecting its original trademark(s) rights and to avoid consumer confusion in the market . All of the recent attention on the few lawsuits in process stem from several years of legal action initiated well before the new leadership arrived in November of 2018 . With specific regards to the inherited and ongoing legal dynamic with Dean Guitars, the new Gibson team have made several attempts to communicate with them directly to avoid a prolonged legal battle . Gibson has genuine intentions of constructive resolution that could be beneficial to both sides.

This recent situation has led the team to re-evaluate their approach going forward with the intention of finding more constructive solutions to managing brand protection in the industry . Over the past few weeks Gibson has made significant progress in reducing counterfeit ‘attacks’ and they have entered into creative collaboration agreements with key boutique guitar makers and other related industry parties . A clear indication of their intentions going forward.

“I am proud of the progress we have made with our attention to quality, with the launch of the new collections, and with our renewed engagement to our Gibson authorized dealer base. At the same time, we acknowledge there are still legacy challenges to solve going forward, especially around brand protection and market solutions,” says James ‘JC’ Curleigh , the new President and CEO of Gibson . “It is time to make the modern-day shift from confrontation towards collaboration, whilst still protecting our brands, and we are committed to making this happen starting now”."

And I answered… on thread number 3!


But hey! What about a new thread (number 5)

The Gibson Image: "bancruptcy", "legacy challenges", "brand protection", "confrontation",

"managing the conflicts of the past" , lost "lawsuits" over "iconic trademarks" (= generic body shapes),

"genuine intentions" and other reasons why Gibson guitars are expensive.


Or what about thread number 6:

"Only a Gibson is bad enough". Confused Gibson client pays $5000 for cheap knock- off counterfeit guitar,

because he could not see the difference??????



Back on topic: Wanna control the damage you! caused?

Just build the best guitars! Stop to blame others for your faults!



may the bass be with you

Wise(b)ass

 

[Wisebass]

Hi jhol111964

Gibson buyers are spending about 5 minutes picking out a guitar

5 minutes is a long time! I hope they read the Gibson statement...

concerns from guitarists mislead into purchasing what they thought was a genuine Gibson that turned out to be counterfeit

Are Gibsons really that bad? Or are Gibson lifestyle clients that stupid?




may the bass be with you

Wise(b)ass

 

[-Asdfgh-]

I love my Gibson SG bass. If I were Gibson I would try to protect my interests too. I seem to be in the minority here. Hit me. Hit me.

Protecting IP is fine, but you don't typically get legal support after fifty years of not protecting it, hence the result of the case in the EU. Since the legal cases probably gave limited validity it looks more like a shakedown for cash from smaller businesses. That's not really cricket, although being in the USA they probably don't care. If they reissued Grabbers and the Victory series and left the legal stuff alone I'd be more supportive as I like those. Of course Fender might sue over the Victory....

If Gibson got Epiphone to license the T40 it would also work for me