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.
Mesa/Gibson corporate BS over free speech
- Thread starter Nuage420
- Start date
Things leaking is one thing, if what Fluff says is true they lied to people about the firing of Randall but he knew better and called them out on it. That's not a leak and them being unprepared. That's them lying and then lashing out when they're called out on it.
I didn't get through the entire video but it seemed like Fluff posted some info the company didn't want exposed the way he exposed it. They asked him to take it down and he complied promptly. However another publication took a screenshot of his post and shared it with a broader audience.
Fluff was free to do as he pleased. However his relationship with Gibson was one where they compensated him for promotion of the brand and what he did at best had no effect, but likely had some negative effect. I'd think that both parties are free to resume a relationship at a future point if a reconciliation can be reached.
Fluff was free to do as he pleased. However his relationship with Gibson was one where they compensated him for promotion of the brand and what he did at best had no effect, but likely had some negative effect. I'd think that both parties are free to resume a relationship at a future point if a reconciliation can be reached.
@monsterthompson I think Fluff is gonna be just fine without them and he stated he's simply not going to do any more videos on their products. I don't blame him and I appreciate him putting his self respect as a priority.
My original post was more about how Gibsons handling of that is going to influence others content in regards to their products.
But, you can take Fluff out of the equation and there's also a lot of disappointment to hear that they fired Randall, and lied about it.
My original post was more about how Gibsons handling of that is going to influence others content in regards to their products.
But, you can take Fluff out of the equation and there's also a lot of disappointment to hear that they fired Randall, and lied about it.
For the same reason Fender destroyed SWR and Genz Benz, for a write off and boost profits for their shareholders. All corporations do it. It gets rid of their competition who make better products than they do. If they keep the Mesa brand, they'll probably move manufacturing overseas.
Please tell us more!Lots of "private companies" are essentially more government, for example Raytheon and Lockheed Martin/Skunkworks who hold occult technology like zero point energy
Well, I don't know...but I hope the ethos of Mesa remains including U.S build.
Gibson doesn't own a brand that would compete with MB.
Gibson stringed instruments are still made in the U.S.
Mesa Boogie is not going anywhere, including overseas.
Smith sold controlling ownership interest. Common reasons for this are undercapitalization, debt, industry fatigue, or simple profit motive, etc.
Smith probably served in an advisory capacity post sale, as an employee. If this somehow went south (it takes 2 to tango), employment termination is defensible, logical, and common.
A surprising element in the saga is that Smith was allowed to stay in the first place. Apparently from the corporate standpoint, no good deed goes unpunished.
If an aggrieved party in a non disclosure agreement violates disclosure, they threaten their financial position, inviting consequence. If third parties support the aggrieved party's position publicly, they too invite consequence, especially if the position is false or incorrect.
So, the second surprising element is that Smith may have violated his NDA. If so, he only hurts himself, and likely the goodwill and legacy of his company.
Sad for all parties
Smith probably served in an advisory capacity post sale, as an employee. If this somehow went south (it takes 2 to tango), employment termination is defensible, logical, and common.
A surprising element in the saga is that Smith was allowed to stay in the first place. Apparently from the corporate standpoint, no good deed goes unpunished.
If an aggrieved party in a non disclosure agreement violates disclosure, they threaten their financial position, inviting consequence. If third parties support the aggrieved party's position publicly, they too invite consequence, especially if the position is false or incorrect.
So, the second surprising element is that Smith may have violated his NDA. If so, he only hurts himself, and likely the goodwill and legacy of his company.
Sad for all parties
Last edited:
I thought it was generally accepted that Fender put a lot into prolonging the life of SWR but the technology simply became outdated. Genz Benz they obviously bought to gain and use the technology, which I believe became the Rumble series. Neither is anything like Gibson and Mesa, as Mesa wasn't in competition with them.
As far as I can tell, it's what I said above:
Gibson bought Mesa.
Like usually happens, they booted the old CEO. Don't cry for him, Argentina, I'm sure he went off with a hefty golden parachute wrapped around his shoulders.
Sumgai who makes YouTuba videos boosting Mesa complained about the CEO getting booted.
Gibson yanked Sumgai's endorsement.
(Of course, Sumgai has undoubtedly signed many reams of paper in getting the endorsement, along the lines of "I shall not criticize the company publicly; I shall not reveal any inside info; etc.")
In other words, business as usual, not our circus, not our monkeys, MBAs being MBAs.
Exactly. This has nothing to do with the first amendment's "free speech" which is relative only to the making of laws by the federal government.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
This is only about government not infringing on its citizens.
It is not and has never been: "Say whatever you want whenever and wherever you want to anyone with zero repercussions."
eliminate competition while acquiring their IP.
Expand their portfolio (until they "absorb" the brand)
