Sterling by Musicmans on GC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[robkphoto]

not quite the same thing. but i bet if there was a Precision by Fender budget line there might be a little bit of confusion.

Well instead of there being a separate Fender brand there's just 24 different varieties of "Jazz Bass" and "Precision Bass" that to the casual observer all look the same only identifiably different by small idiosyncrasies and countries of origin that only are readily apparent to people that hang out on this site a lot. At least EBMM is renaming their brand to give some clear delineation.

 

[Marlat]

Aren't these isolated incidents with each company? Anyway, my comment was a bit tongue in cheek, but there does seem to be a pattern with this one company. I doubt there is anything intentional going on, but the pattern can't be denied and I find it interesting.

Ah sorry, yes, I didn't read your post properly. I think you are right, I think Sterling himself may have said he wants to challenge the stereotypes in bass manufacture and push things foward. When you take an approach like that, and market it to the masses, you are going to create debate. The great thing about TB is debate can occur and you get all points of view including from those with close knowledge to EBMM (as with many other manufacturers) and sometimes the manufacturers themselves (Carey N and Roger S spring to mind). I guess there are a lot of companies out there who push deisng boundaries (Ritter is a good example) whose market is a lot more well defined and "expect" radical designs. For EBMM to do it takes Sterling Balls (if you'll excuse the pun) and even though I am not a fan of the basses / designs, I am a fan of the overall vibe I get from EBMM.

 

[Johnny Mack]

fwiw to the discussion, i couldnt figure out what was going on until somebody brought out the "precision by fender" analogy. this is probably fairly common and can see why they did this. if you dont have all the knowledge on the subject and go into a guitar shop and see a "sterling by musicman" for $600, wouldnt you be interested? although i myself would ask questions as to why such a cheap price, not everyone is going to do that.

 

[chunkstyle]

for the record, i'm all for a budget line stingray. i can't wait to get my hands on one and give it a good shake down. and i'm all for renaming the budget line to give some clear delineation between it and the main line. however, i feel that naming the line "Sterling" is a bad idea. it's just as bad as naming a Fender budget line "Precision".

but this is a dead horse. can we talk about strings lining up with pole pieces now?

 

[T-Forty]

Maybe Gibson will drop Epiphone and start calling all their budget instruments "SG" or "Les Paul"

That would be a great marketing move!

 

[downneck]

pressuring one of my favorite bass builders (my main is an ebmm sterling4, btw) into what can only be a bad marketing decision for the EBMM company in order to line GC's pockets through customer confusion with a high-end bass model gives me yet another reason to never set foot in a guitar center again. this smacks of deceptive advertising and bait-and-switch nonsense, beyond being bad for EBMM.

 

[jaywa]

pressuring one of my favorite bass builders (my main is an ebmm sterling4, btw) into what can only be a bad marketing decision for the EBMM company in order to line GC's pockets through customer confusion with a high-end bass model gives me yet another reason to never set foot in a guitar center again. this smacks of deceptive advertising and bait-and-switch nonsense, beyond being bad for EBMM.

+1. I would expect Wal-Mart to pull this kind of stuff with its suppliers... but not GC.

I will be buying EBMM product(s) in the future. But I will most assuredly not be buying them from GC.

 

[Andy Brown]

Here we go indeed. I'm going to write this in case anybody at Ernie Ball is reading this. If anybody knows such a person, please forward this on.

My "day job" is in branding and brand marketing. I won't go into detail about what I do, but I will simply say that while there's lots and lots of people out there who claim to understand this space, I do this for a living at a high level. I have worked in top marketing capacities at a few different top tier Fortune 500 firms known to have effective marketing. I'm not bragging, I'm just laying my credentials on the table.

Rarely have I seen a decision as poor as this. Beyond confusion, Ernie Ball is going to effectively destroy a marque premium brand (Musicman Sterling Bass).

Now perhaps their plan is to discontinue the USA Sterling Bass. I doubt that's the plan though as its a great, reasonably popular bass that fills a need. My concern is, once the Sterling name gets associated with "budget" - I don't know how on earth they're going to collect $1500 - $1700 for a Sterling USA anymore.

Very very poor branding decision. Stunningly bad. Hard to believe. Ernie Ball - if you are reading this I strongly urge you to adjust this plan by more explicitly separating out the budget line (ie: call it something else for goodness sake).

This may hold true in a more general consumer market, but bass players (should) do their due diligence and know exactly what they are getting. In this case, I don't think branding their budget line the same as an existing high-end model will do much harm. It's just something the bass consuming public will get used to and those familiar with the manufacturer will get right away. I've never owned a Music Man bass, and it took me a few seconds to recognize this as a budget line play.

Music Man Sterling @ $1500
Sterling by Musicman Ray35 @ $699

 

[dystopiate]

Quickly scanned through, so I don't know if this has been covered yet or not, but...

The Sterling by MusicMan line is EBMM trying to put their hands in the market that bridges "entry level" (OLP) and "professional level" instruments. As a company they are taking a risk trying to have overseas models introduced into their line. It is important to their investment to have a recognizable brand name associated with that line. The fact of the matter is, this line is getting way more talk and attention by virtue of this "terrible marketing plan."

Most bridge market items bring in more money than their high-end counterparts. They probably understand that they will lose some of the pro-level instrument sales. They probably don't care because they believe that they will more than make up for them with the bridge-level sales. They also probably don't care if they have to stop production of the EBMM Sterling as long as there are more people buying MusicMan products.

Just a thought from the other side. I'm not a marketing guru in any way shape or form; I'm just trying to providing a logical argument for the choice that was made.

 

[jaywa]

I suppose they figure that if it matters enough to you, you have already done your due diligence and you know that you can't touch a "real" StingRay new for under four digits. But if you don't know that, then it probably won't make that much difference to you.

I understand the logic from a short-term perspective where the objective is to maximize units sold and/or increase share-of-market at a particular price point. It's the degrading of the brand long-term that concerns me, as well as the implication that some strong-arm retailer tactics may have influenced the decision.

 

[Dr. Cheese]

This may hold true in a more general consumer market, but bass players (should) do their due diligence and know exactly what they are getting. In this case, I don't think branding their budget line the same as an existing high-end model will do much harm. It's just something the bass consuming public will get used to and those familiar with the manufacturer will get right away. I've never owned a Music Man bass, and it took me a few seconds to recognize this as a budget line play.

Music Man Sterling @ $1500
Sterling by Musicman Ray35 @ $699

AJ, I think that is only partially true. Bassists like us who spend a lot of time on the net know the difference. The bassist who is no so plugged in, and they are the majority, may not get it at first.

I take it back, any experienced instrument buyer should be able to figure things out quickly.

 

[jaywa]

Bassists like us who spend a lot of time on the net know the difference. The bassist who is no so plugged in, and they are the majority, may not get it at first.

Exactly. Case in point, I was talking with another bassist from my church (who is a total hobby player) and I told him I was saving up to buy a StingRay but it was going to take me awhile. And he said, well there's one down at Guitar Center right now for $650. I immediately knew he was talking about their offshored model (since you can't even get a beat-to-heck used U.S. StingRay for that), but the distinction was totally lost on him.

 

[Andy Brown]

AJ, I think that is only partially true. Bassists like us who spend a lot of time on the net know the difference. The bassist who is no so plugged in, and they are the majority, may not get it at first.

I'm sure even not-so-plugged in bassists would do a little research before they buy. Even at GC, they'll be able to touch and feel both, the Music Man Stingray and the Stringray by Music Man in order to figure it out.

I would think that MIM and MIA Fender basses would be equally, if not more, confusing to people... because have the same exact brand! ... "Why is this Fender Jazz Bass $499 and this Fender Jazz Bass $1399? They look identical."

 

[king_biscuit]

I'm sure even not-so-plugged in bassists would do a little research before they buy. Even at GC, they'll be able to touch and feel both, the Music Man Stingray and the Stringray by Music Man in order to figure it out.

I would think that MIM and MIA Fender basses would be equally, if not more, confusing to people... because have the same exact brand! ... "Why is this Fender Jazz Bass $499 and this Fender Jazz Bass $1399? They look identical."

Regardless of how dumb the Fender naming scheme is or isn't, as much as EBMM and cheerleaders try to distance themselves from Fender, they should not use Fender as an excuse or example to defend this decision.

 

[jaywa]

I would think that MIM and MIA Fender basses would be equally, if not more, confusing to people... because have the same exact brand! ... "Why is this Fender Jazz Bass $499 and this Fender Jazz Bass $1399? They look identical."

Have to agree there... Fender still has the market cornered on making customers work extra hard to figure out what exactly they are (or are not) getting for their money. I still haven't figured out if the Made In U.S.A ones say as such somewhere on the bass, or if the Made In U.S.A. ones are the ones that don't have a sticker saying they are made somewhere else. Anymore I pretty much figure the most expensive version of any Fender model is the Made In U.S.A. version, but it shouldn't be that obscure to figure out.

 

[mynan]

Regardless of how dumb the Fender naming scheme is or isn't, as much as EBMM and cheerleaders try to distance themselves from Fender, they should not use Fender as an excuse or example to defend this decision.

I think it's more of an example than a comparison.

Anyway, IMO it's blown way out of proportion. That the name of a bass could cause this much stir kinda shows that a few of us regard our opinions a little higher than we probably should.

It is fun to watch though...

 

[Smallequestrian]

Regardless of how dumb the Fender naming scheme is or isn't, as much as EBMM and cheerleaders try to distance themselves from Fender, they should not use Fender as an excuse or example to defend this decision.

Speaking as an EBMM cheerleader , I think its a dumb name. Do I think its going to cause any significant brand confusion that will hurt sales? No. I think the existence of the line in general is much more likely to hurt the existing US business (although I don't think it will be a significant issue there either when compared to the prices of existing US made instruments).

A lot of the other cheerleaders expressed displeasure/confusion about it the name as well.

 

[SanDiegoHarry]

Rarely have I seen a decision as poor as this. Beyond confusion, Ernie Ball is going to effectively destroy a marque premium brand (Musicman Sterling Bass).

Now perhaps their plan is to discontinue the USA Sterling Bass. I doubt that's the plan though as its a great, reasonably popular bass that fills a need. My concern is, once the Sterling name gets associated with "budget" - I don't know how on earth they're going to collect $1500 - $1700 for a Sterling USA anymore.

Very very poor branding decision. Stunningly bad. Hard to believe. Ernie Ball - if you are reading this I strongly urge you to adjust this plan by more explicitly separating out the budget line (ie: call it something else for goodness sake).

Totally agree. I too have done the Marketroid gig, and this seems foolish to me... But what the heck do I know. One thing I *do* know is that I won't buy one of these Faux Sterlings.

 

[simongpaez]

I totally understand your point since Squier made Fender USA go out of business.

perfect example.

or MIM Fender Jazz VS Custom Shope Fender Jazz

 

[mgb71]

I agree with mynan. I play a Sterling and a Stingray because they are awesome basses - they could call them "turd" basses for all I care. I'd hope that anyone paying over $500 for a bass is going to buy it for its musical quality and not for its name.