Gibson's PR Damage Control

[gln1955]

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.

You seem to be knocking knee-jerk Gibson haters, but when someone writes an explanation of the situation that actually make sense and contributes, you have this response. Maybe you should also try to contribute something meaningful to the discussion.

 

[lowplaces]

1) Mark Agnesi IS Gibson in this case. JC repeated everything Agnesi said, albeit in MBA double-speak in that awful Press Release.
2) Gibson has a great heritage to be sure. It's a pity to see it being debased.
3) Gibson has made good guitars from time to time. The majority of their output has been awful since the 70s (early 90s and early 00s Gibsons are legitimately good though).
4a) Rickenbacker isn't major; they're Kiesel-sized (another company who don't offshore).
4b) Probably 90% of what Gibson sells is made offshore. Ironically, Epiphones are a lot better than Gibsons these days too.

It’s since been established that the Agnesi video went out with Gibson’s approval. Which makes it a corporate communique. As in: it’s official.

So it’s not a simple matter of one asshat being responsible for it, or going off on his own, as you seem to be saying.

Noted

I just don't find anything appalling about any of it. It doesn't affect my life at all.

After watching the video for the first time a few minutes ago, I can see how it would irritate some people though.

 

[Cliff Colton]

The lawsuit precedes Gibson's bankruptcy filing...
That's not how bankruptcy system works. The creditors have already been established and no new ones can be added at this point.

If there’s a pre-bankruptcy action pending, Dean better get down to the courthouse and ask for a stay. I own a Dean bass which I purchased in a state of confusion because I thought it was a Gibson. How am I supposed to be compensated? Are you saying Dean and Gibson get to go to court to argue over which one of them gets to keep my money, and I’m stuck with a non-iconic non-legendary bass that I can’t lawfully sell unless I disclose it’s a counterfeit Gibson by Dean?

That hardly seems fair. The only just solution here is for Dean to buy back all their counterfeits and deliver them to Gibson for destruction.

 

[Ronzo]

You just burned out my sarcasm meter from overload.

 

[Clark Dark]

If there’s a pre-bankruptcy action pending, Dean better get down to the courthouse and ask for a stay. I own a Dean bass which I purchased in a state of confusion because I thought it was a Gibson. How am I supposed to be compensated? Are you saying Dean and Gibson get to go to court to argue over which one of them gets to keep my money, and I’m stuck with a non-iconic non-legendary bass that I can’t lawfully sell unless I disclose it’s a counterfeit Gibson by Dean?

That hardly seems fair. The only just solution here is for Dean to buy back all their counterfeits and deliver them to Gibson for destruction.

Can I ask, which model Dean bass did you think was a Gibson?

 

[-Asdfgh-]

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 neglected 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.

Maybe Thomann could buy the brand and tweak it a bit - Hardly Gibson or something?

 

[jamro217]

Whaddoiknow, I was hoping IBM was still around building Indestructible Bass Machines.

 

[40Hz]

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.

Interesting comment.

Care to elaborate a bit on what this “pattern” you’ve observed is, and where you’re going with that?

 

[40Hz]

Whaddoiknow, I was hoping IBM was still around building Indestructible Bass Machines.

Nah. They got sued by Intergalactic Butter Melter (makers of a popular popcorn popper) for supposed trademark infringement.

Butter Melter trademarked ‘IBM’ back around 1945 but never used it. Indestructible Bass Machine started business in 1982. And it’s customers always affectionately referred to it as “IBM.”

Butter Melter never said anything about it until recently when their own business dropped off when people started opting for more modern and healthier snacks. So they figured suing Bass Machines would net them an easy buck (even though they knew their claim was without merit) because some litigation firm told them they had a “strong case.”

Last thing they expected was Bass Machines to dig in and fight to the death.

So it goes.

[Notice: the above is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to actual companies, their names, their inflated egos, or trade or service marks is unintentional and purely coincidental.]

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Nah. They got sued by Intergalactic Butter Melter (makers of a popular popcorn popper) for supposed trademark infringement.

Butter Melter trademarked ‘IBM’ back around 1945 but never used it. Indestructible Bass Machine started business in 1982. And it’s customers always affectionately referred to it as “IBM.”

Butter Melter never said anything about it until recently when their own business dropped off when people started opting for more modern and healthier snacks. So they figured suing Bass Machines would net them an easy buck (even though they knew their claim was without merit) because some litigation firm told them they had a “strong case.”

Last thing they expected was Bass Machines to dig in and fight to the death.

So it goes.

[Notice: the above is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to actual companies, their names, their inflated egos, or trade or service marks is unintentional and purely coincidental.]

Musical disinformation is a different thread, you know.

 

[40Hz]

Musical disinformation is a different thread, you know.

But if it’s placed within a specified disinformation thread, then it can’t really be considered disinformation now, can it?

I’m just trying to set the record wrong about International Bass Machines

 

[jamro217]

Nah. They got sued by Intergalactic Butter Melter (makers of a popular popcorn popper) for supposed trademark infringement.

Butter Melter trademarked ‘IBM’ back around 1945 but never used it. Indestructible Bass Machine started business in 1982. And it’s customers always affectionately referred to it as “IBM.”

Butter Melter never said anything about it until recently when their own business dropped off when people started opting for more modern and healthier snacks. So they figured suing Bass Machines would net them an easy buck (even though they knew their claim was without merit) because some litigation firm told them they had a “strong case.”

Last thing they expected was Bass Machines to dig in and fight to the death.

So it goes.

[Notice: the above is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to actual companies, their names, their inflated egos, or trade or service marks is unintentional and purely coincidental.]

Ohhh, so that's where the "plays like butter" line comes from.

 

[Ronzo]

Careful. Linda Richman will sue you!

(I’m getting farklempt...)

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Careful. Linda Richman will sue you!

(I’m getting farklempt...)

I thought it was verklempt and fart clamping was an entirely different hobby.

 

[Alkali Ike]

Being known as “The company that sues everyone” is not a good public image to have.

 

[Koshchei]

Being known as “The company that sues everyone” is not a good public image to have.

Especially when you make luxury goods that are sold as a function of consumer goodwill.

 

[Alkali Ike]

Especially when you make luxury goods that are sold as a function of consumer goodwill.

Exactly.

 

[Stevorebob]

Being known as “The company that sues everyone” is not a good public image to have.

It would seem so. However, Disney has been known to be aggressively litigious over the years to protect their trademarks, even sending cease-and-desist letters to schools to stop the use of Disney characters. Seems not to have harmed their public image. Just one example, but I suppose there is a way to aggressively protect your trademarks and still be cozy with your customers.

 

[nomaj]

It would seem so. However, Disney has been known to be aggressively litigious over the years to protect their trademarks, even sending cease-and-desist letters to schools to stop the use of Disney characters. Seems not to have harmed their public image. Just one example, but I suppose there is a way to aggressively protect your trademarks and still be cozy with your customers.

Good point. Of course, Disney has never started a trademark protection campaign with a company spokesperson in a leather jacket, glowering at the camera, telling other competitors "you've been warned." This 40 years after the point of contention.

Had Gibson led off by going strictly after counterfeiters producing fake Gibson guitars (and not a legitimate builder like Dean), and done so without using an almost comically inept spokesperson to create an air of derision toward them, then they could have prevented this ****storm.

 

[Picton]

Disney is not Gibson.

Disney can make its own rules and get away with it. Gibson THINKS it can make its own rules, and seems unlikely to get away with it. When Disney runs into problems, it can pivot and simply co-opt or invent a brand-new market. Gibson has shown none of that kind of flexibility or imagination.

Gibson's main problem is that it's not the top end of any market anymore. It's having trouble accepting that.