Well, yes and no. Obviously the US-built stuff is our flagship, and it's what the loyalists know to be a true Spector bass. But you're thinking domestically–or at least more developed economies. There are parts of the world where a U.S.-made Spector would be absurdly out of bounds, but something with a lower build cost would allow current and future players in those regions to join the Spector family. While we want to sell more basses, to be able to make more basses (and eat, and keep the lights on, etc.), we also want to make sure that the brand is robust. If we only focus on entry-level products, our brand will become synonymous with entry level, and we will lose what Stuart, Ned, PJ (and many others) have fought to build and preserve. I'm presenting a year-long marketing plan to the leadership next week, and the focus is on ramping up awareness and sales universally. There's a player for each of the Spector lines and none is more important than the others.
I asked the Product Manager about this, and the response was that we are listening to customer desires right now, but are focused on streamlining the R&D/product cycle for the next year or two. I know that sounds like a corporate/political answer, but my translation is that we are in the process of preserving what is great about the company, and looking for areas where we can refine the process of making basses for the world. We are looking from a 30,000ft view right now and color selection for any single line is not going to get much attention just yet.
