Gibson's PR Damage Control

[jamro217]

I find it amusing that Gibson hasn't gone after Heritage Guitars, considering that company is still doing what it was when it was named Gibson. Same factory, same machines, same employees, better products.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

The problem here is twofold: there's only a couple of musical instrument manufacturers who could afford to buy Gibson even if current management were to slash its market value in half. None of these companies have any interest in innovation. And the entire industry is not thriving, to say the least.

Second part of the problem is something that Fender, Rickenbacker and Gibson all experienced over and over again: innovation doesn't sell well, if at all. People want the same old stuff, possibly re-packaged one way or another.

The way things are going I think TB will be able to have a whip round and buy it soon and just make it make nothing but basses.

 

[ajkula66]

The way things are going I think TB will be able to have a whip round and buy it soon and just make it make nothing but basses.

Yeah, nothing but sheer undying love for all things Gibson on this forum so you might be onto something...

 

[-Asdfgh-]

If Gibson Brands Inc. holds the trademarks and is still under bankruptcy protection, I would think the creditors and the court would like to know how much those trademarks are worth. How will the trademarks be valued, or be determined invalid, unless they sue Dean et al?

Creditor: "Gibson owes me 1 million"
Bank: "When will it pay?"
Creditor: "No idea, but it says its trademarks are worth 10 million a year in licensing fees"
Bank: "How nice for it. When is it going to pay you"

Gibson: "We need a loan"
Bank: "Do you have assets for collateral"
Gibson: "We think our trademarks are worth 10 million a year in licensing fees"
Bank: "Here's a 1 million loan"
Gibson: "But we're going to test them in court as they might be worthless"
Bank: "We've changed our mind about that loan"

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Yeah, nothing but sheer undying love for all things Gibson on this forum so you might be onto something...

When we are in control we can make Gibson make nothing but Tbirds and Grabbers and Precisions.

 

[pcake]

Speak for yourself. I’ve played a Gibson bass as my main instrument since 1974 and currently own four Gibson basses as well as a few Gibson guitars. I’ve supported them through thick and thin and corrected what I considered errors or mischaracterizations about them on this forum so often I’ve become seen as an apologist of sorts.

By the same token, I’m also one of Gibson’s toughest critics when they do something I see as either unacceptable or inexcusable. And the reason I’m willing to take them to task despite liking many of their products is because I do care about Gibson quite a lot. I think they're capable of producing world class instruments and some of the best basses out there. And I doubt there’s anybody on TB who ever wanted to see Gibson succeed and prosper more than I do. So when their management does something I consider harmful to Gibson’s image or business, I speak up. And very loudly.

Which is why I’ll say I’m absolutely disgusted with the long term harm Gibson is doing to itself and the marketplace by taking the shortsighted and misguided course of legal action they’re currently pursuing. Because this is going to turn around and bite them very shortly if the IP litigation nightmare that holds sway in the computer technology and software world is anything to go by.

Gibson let the demon out of the bottle with that move. Even if Gibson folds it won’t matter. The IP legal trolls are already smelling new money and blood. I’m sure they’ve already contacted all the big players, and probably most of the smaller ones too. So it’s only a matter of time before it’s all going to come back home to roost for Gibson as well.

i know i've said it before, but i can't even begin to comprehend why gibson feels the need to inform consumers about their legal and business issues.

lays doesn't tell us about their lawsuits nor does fender. i've never seen a mcdonald's ad or press release that tells us who they're suing. quest nutrition has yet to inform their consumers if they're having business problems. lodge cast iron tells us about their history and quality, allclad tells us about their originator, who invented an important metal process. the company that makes my skin lotion also does not tell me about their business problems, even though they're a huge company that is no doubt involved in legal problems.

so why does gibson have to loop us into their trademark issues - if issues they even are - and after the responses are so negative, why does their statement again bring us into it? we're not part of that. we're musicians, not lawyers, not the board of directors.

tell us about gear.

 

[ajkula66]

When we are in control we can make Gibson make nothing but Tbirds and Grabbers and Precisions.

Sorry, even as a life-long Gibson player (more in the guitar area, though) I can't sign up for your plan...you'll need to expand it...

i know i've said it before, but i can't even begin to comprehend why gibson feels the need to inform consumers about their legal and business issues.

tell us about gear.

They are doing both. There's enough gear here to make one's head spinning:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

This is their (as in KKR's) idea of playing offense. Whether it bears fruit or not remains to be seen.

 

[jamro217]

It's a wonder they're still in business at all after Henry J got through with them. Maybe they're still mired in debt, bad publicity (CITES didn't help any), and slow product development. Given enough time hopefully they'll rebound. Executives come and go, but the brand may last.

 

[mikewalker]

...There's enough gear here to make one's head spinning:

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed] ....

Wow, they spent so much on lawyers that now they cannot afford a PROOF-READER??

If their guitars are built as sloppily as their AD COPY, I guess I'll be buying Ibanez from now on...

 

[40Hz]

so why does gibson have to loop us into their trademark issues - if issues they even are - and after the responses are so negative, why does their statement again bring us into it? we're not part of that. we're musicians, not lawyers, not the board of directors.

I think it’s because they’re following in the previous management’s mindset of telling the customer what Gibson believes their customers really should want.

So now (instead of autotuners) they keep trying to get their customers to sign on to their new corporate vision of buying “lifestyle” and “authentic experience” when all the customers want to do is buy a guitar and be on their way.

It’s almost like they’ve invited everyone to a Superbowl party they’re hosting, but insist the guests play Monopoly while they’re there instead of watching the football game they came to see.

 

[40Hz]

If their guitars are built as sloppily as their AD COPY, I guess I'll be buying Ibanez from now on..

There may be some wisdom in that.

My SO owns a late 70s/early 80s era Les Paul Custom she bought new back in the mists of time. It’s an absolutely beautiful looking and sounding instrument. So about a half year ago she thought about maybe rounding out her Gibson sound pallet by getting herself a nice ES series semihollow to go with it. But after trying out several Gibsons, she decided to get a D’Angelico Excel SS (see below for the insurance photo of it) instead. And she wound up with a far better built and sounding guitar - and saved herself about $2K - by doing so.

 

[BurningSkies]

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.

People are allowed to dislike something a company does without owning their product or planning on buying their product.

...And I currently own two Gibson made instruments...one is even a bass. Once that bass goes to a real tech and he fixes all the stuff they did wrong at the factory it won't be terrible either.

 

[Bander]

People are allowed to dislike something a company does without owning their product or planning on buying their product.

...And I currently own two Gibson made instruments...one is even a bass. Once that bass goes to a real tech and he fixes all the stuff they did wrong at the factory it won't be terrible either.

Yes, and everyone's vote counts as one. The common theme to so many hysterical Gibson critics, is they want others to adopt their view, and influence more votes - or to harm sales in this case. The objective, rational approach, is to simply allow folks to select the product they want, like in a free market, based on the criteria they see fit. Come on, admit it - this whole movement is about hurting Gibson sales as punishment.

 

[40Hz]

Yes, and everyone's vote counts as one. The common theme to so many hysterical Gibson critics, is they want others to adopt their view, and influence more votes - or to harm sales in this case. The objective, rational approach, is to simply allow folks to select the product they want, like in a free market, based on the criteria they see fit. Come on, admit it - this whole movement is about hurting Gibson sales as punishment.

Do you honestly think that making legal moves that will likely have the entire industry start lawyering up and suing and countersuing each other over endless claims of trademark, copyright, and patent infringement (regardless of merit) is only going have an effect on Gibson owners - not all of whom wish to be party to this nonsense?

This is something that will have an effect on the entire industry’s ecosystem. It’s plagued the fashion industry (coincidence?), the computer and software world, and even agriculture. Once it starts it usually triggers a legal arms race. Which results in less innovation and competition as well as placing significant barriers in the way of new businesses that wish to enter the marketplace. Because the pattern in other industries has been for big companies or “patent litigation firms” (i.e. patent trolls) to immediately sue newcomers if they have a real innovation claiming it infringes in something of theirs. Then they delay going to court as long as possible (and they can delay it for years) while in the meantime skyrocketing the defendant’s legal expenses with endless discovery filings which the defendant is required to respond to.

It breaks most small companies that try to fight it. And in the end they either fold or wind up selling out to either the company suing them, or a large competitor who can afford to fight the suit in court. Interestingly enough, most times when a second major player enters the fray with the resources to fight the claim, the plaintiff drops the suit. Which they can do and hardly ever incur any negative consequences. It’s the modern form of carpetbagging. And it goes on all the time in certain other industries.

So if non-Gibson owners are concerned and vocal about what’s going on, they have every right to be and do so. Because it is going to impact the entire industry. Not just Gibson owners.

 

[pcake]

Yes, and everyone's vote counts as one. The common theme to so many hysterical Gibson critics, is they want others to adopt their view, and influence more votes - or to harm sales in this case. The objective, rational approach, is to simply allow folks to select the product they want, like in a free market, based on the criteria they see fit. Come on, admit it - this whole movement is about hurting Gibson sales as punishment.

i've had negative things to say in this and other threads, but i'm far from a gibson hater. my husband and i have actually long been fans of gibson, having owned a wonderful victory bass, a black beauty les paul, a J45 and a 1968 gibson 12 string. and there's a 1936 kalamazoo hanging on one of our walls.

i don't want to hurt gibson sales as punishment. i want gibson to stop putting their business affairs including their lawsuits in my face. tell me about the gear with details. i'm a bass player and a gear head - show me basses, tell me specs and details.

if i want to know about any company's business affairs, i can look at business sites and periodicals, and i sometimes do. but as a player, why did gibson need to drag our attention to their lawsuits and possible future lawsuits? henry was clueless, so i expected him to behave cluelessly. but i had hopes that the new CEO would steer the company in a direction that outwardly focused on what players want. instead, they keep bringing their lawsuits and that they'll fight to guard their brand in my face, your face and the faces of guitar and bass players who would have been happier not knowing about any of this.

and i agree with 40Hz's post above this one. i've seen it happen - we all have.

 

[40Hz]

The problem here is twofold: there's only a couple of musical instrument manufacturers who could afford to buy Gibson even if current management were to slash its market value in half. None of these companies have any interest in innovation. And the entire industry is not thriving, to say the least.

I think more to the point is why would another musical instrument company want to buy Gibson? They’re pursuing their own designs and agendas. What would owning Gibson bring to the table? Debt? A demoralized workforce? Non state of the art manufacturing facilities?

Any innovation Gibson was pursuing pretty much ended with the Norlin era. After that they basically went back and doubled down on their five cash cows: the LP, the ES-3xx series, the SG, the TBird, and the EB-3 while also neglecting to keep up with the times as far as modern manufacturing techniques and dealer and employee relationship practices goes.

So I don’t see anything Gibson has that another guitar company would be interested in acquiring. Not even the name - unless GC might be interested in rebranding their house guitars with it like they did their amps after acquiring the Acoustic brandname.

And FWIW I personally don’t think any company is in awe about the Gibson name or brand anywhere near as much as Gibson is.

 

[Bander]

You know, folks try to bring reason to the discussion, only to get replies that go on for many paragraphs. There's a pattern in that kind of exchange.

 

[pcake]

You know, folks try to bring reason to the discussion, only to get replies that go on for many paragraphs. There's a pattern in that kind of exchange.

i'm fine with a multi-paragraph post - and yes, i do read them. to me, it's part of the discussion process.

 

[BurningSkies]

Yes, and everyone's vote counts as one. The common theme to so many hysterical Gibson critics, is they want others to adopt their view, and influence more votes - or to harm sales in this case. The objective, rational approach, is to simply allow folks to select the product they want, like in a free market, based on the criteria they see fit. Come on, admit it - this whole movement is about hurting Gibson sales as punishment.

We're a community of bass players. Given the level of success of Gibson's bass offerings across a handful of decades, there's probably very little impact that can be driven by any of these conversations.

People are allowed to voice their opinions and discuss the situation even if it gives other people sad feels.

 

[BurningSkies]

i'm fine with a multi-paragraph post - and yes, i do read them. to me, it's part of the discussion process.

That's kind of what discussion is, isn't it?

I personally think that people writing paragraphs means that someone has put some time, effort, reasoning and nuance into their response.

Otherwise we could just all go and do this on Twitter.