Interesting development.
This guy clearly is at the top of the marketing/branding game. Nike and Disney are absolute leaders in that field. Disney runs a tight ship (I have first-hand experience in dealing with some of their film-side labor, business affairs and gov't affairs folks over the years, and drive by their lot twice a day), and is a branding/marketing powerhouse.
I did recall some controversy from when he left Disney:
Disney's Andy Mooney quitting as consumer products chairman - latimes
Nike is also a supreme example of branding success.
That said, one can certainly find unlikable characteristics about Disney, Nike or any other large US-based corporation (Nike and offshore sweatshop regulation comes to mind), but it's crazy to tag Mooney with aspects of their operations that stray from his branding/products bailiwick (although I'd guess that running DCP would also include production decisions leading to lots of stuff "Made in China.")
The net net is that he has had substantial success with the development and marketing of consumer products in brand-sensitive environments.
Sounds a lot like Fender.
Plus, he plays, and appreciates the product.
The real questions are:
How screwed up are Fender's finances and contractual arrangements with vendors and distribution/retail outlets? Fender is privately held, and for all we know, they are doing great from an investor perspective, and TB folks are disgruntled by a Guitar Center situation that may not be a problem for Fender's current finances or future prospects…and I'm not gonna burn time now in Googling to find out more on this issue.
How much time and latitude will he have to turn things around? (On this one, TPG and Servco drive the train, but it looks like Servco has been in for the long haul, rather than looking to pull the usual hedge fund flipping game…suggesting either that Fender is doing fine for its investors, or is a relative disaster that needs to be nursed into saleable shape…again, I don't know)
And, perhaps most interestingly, how do you balance the inherent longevity of Fender's core products with the corporate imperative to grow, grow, grow?
One thing that's fascinating about Fender is that you have core product lines that are routinely tarted up in minor ways in order to generate new sales, or differentiated for price point, but the heart of the Fender line (Telecaster, Stratocaster, P-bass, J-bass) has been in constant production for 50-60 years! Show me a car, a washing machine, a toaster or anything else with that kind of production or use longevity…So you have these landmark products, that can last forever if properly maintained, and a serious market for vintage instruments, from collectors and from real players, but you also have the pressure to grow the business…and to cut production costs, lower price points for greater market penetration, etc. etc.
I sure as heck don't know the answer to that one, and the "right" answer may vary depending on whether you are a Fender player, a fanboy, or an investor.
But I'm happy to see a serious executive, with a product orientation rather than solely a bean counter, and one who plays and understands the product, to boot, in charge. Let's wish him luck.
But, of course, let's also keep those killer photoshop spoofs coming!
