I totally see what you're saying, and I agree that this is lifestyle, but when specifically referring to something as a "lifestyle brand", the difference, as you stated at the end, is the barrier-to-entry price-point.
Nike, Adidas, Under Armour don't sell items in the $2000 price range. They sell seasonal and fashion turnover items mostly in the sub-$200 category. Which is exactly where you want to be as a lifestyle brand, including contributions to communities, funding, etc.
Gibson has sold the same ~$1500+ (CAD) items for the past 70 years. That's not a lifestyle brand. That's more akin to an auto manufacturing business model. Yes, you can buy Gibson t-shirts and hats and stuff like Nike and Under Armour, but clothes lines aren't the crux of their business. They also bought other high-price, low-turnover pro-audio companies to diversify their portfolio with effectively the SAME style of items they already had in their quiver.
To be clear, I'm not at all disagreeing with you that this very specific thread is a based on a lifestyle, I'm simply saying that Gibson, as a brand, is not a lifestyle brand as it pertains to the current marketing environment. It's a relatively high-cost/low-turnover model, quite the opposite of the lifestyle brand model.