What would YOU do to save Gibson?

[BusyFingers]

For Gibson, it's all about QC. This starts with the fundamental parts used to construct the guitar and goes through the entire building process.

For example, their plastic tuners are crap. I've seen them simply pop off the end not long after being sold new. They should go back to the all metal style from the 70's which go the distance of decades.

Then consider the wood they're using. For one thing, stop making dog tops for transparent finishes! For many of the Studio Les Pauls the last couple decades, they've lowered their standard to the point that you see ugly knot holes, or maybe even worm holes, in the finish. Save that junk for the solid color finishes.

Then they've been using that faux mahogany for a bunch of guitars they charge upwards of $1,200 for new(faded series, among other runs). While it kinda looks like mahogany, and is lightweight, it has all the tonal character of balsa wood. They're not fooling anyone with that stuff, and the end result is a guitar that looks the part but sounds like crap.

Finally, fit and finish related to the finish has been a disaster off and on over the last couple decades, too. Can you imagine paying $2,000 for a new Gibson with orange peel? Those guitars are what is known as a factory 2nd, or simply a redo in the paint shop. They should not make it to the rack of your local music shop with those ridiculous pricetags.

 

[shortscalesrule]

My approach would pretty much be "Become a completely different company". They're just too far out of touch with what the younger up and coming generation of musicians actually want. Look at the new modern flying V for craps sake...

I just can't understand why anyone in their right mind would jump at the thought of dropping coin on a Gibson these days. There are countless guitar companies out there now doing work at the same level of quality while offering newer and more innovative features to guitars for a fraction of the cost. They're staying afloat on reputation alone at this point.

That's coming from a Gibson owner as well. I have a Gibson LP standard that I bought about ten years ago. I have a cheaper bolt-on copy made by a company called Tradition that I bought shortly after the Gibson, and I'm not even exaggerating when I say it measures up to the Gibson in just about every way. The pickups were a little less warm, but all of the hardware is about the same or better, the tuners especially.

Nowadays, many younger musicians are looking for newer features. Locking tuners, humbuckers with coil splitting controls, etc.. When Gibson tries to offer something modern, they screw the pooch. Look at this joke...

Neon Modern Les Paul Axcess Custom

You have to be one of the world's biggest Gibson fanboys to buy something so simplistic for nearly 5 grand...

But it doubles as a nightlight!

 

[BusyFingers]

The "dog-top" standard was lowered in the 1970's, and it should have been stopped dead in its tracks, but it seems to linger here and there still.

 

[micguy]

Gibson needs someone with sufficient financial and organisational skills that can also marshall required information about what to sell. Being a guitar nut is not the required skill set and might lead to poor business choices.

Gibson needs financial people to help them through their maze, yes, but I disagree with you somewhat. The "guitar nut" should listen to his financial people, yes, but they should report to him - making decisions that bring value to your cutomers is the fundamental thing that, long term, will make a business healthy, and with financial people running the place, you won't get decisions that are aimed in that direction. The "guitar nut" is there because he understands his customers, and is passionate about providing value to them in terms of great products - some of your descision have to be aimed at that, or you won't survive very long. The financial people help him, but they shouldn't drive the ship. When Guitar Center let Bain capital run things, they made a deal with the devil that they probably won't get out of - they handed the decision kaking to business folks, not "guitar nuts". Yes, it may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but the road they're on is a one way trip to nowhere.

 

[40Hz]

Fender isn't exactly walking on sunshine these days, so that's not necessarily the best example. But Fender has been diversifying their portfolio for years, acquiring various brands within the same market, unlike Gibson who tried way too late to diversify by purchasing companies like TEAC. And speaking of diversity, Fender sells the most popular bass models on the planet - a segment Gibson doesn't come close to competing in, and Fender has an outstanding amp lineage as well, which can be seen in studios and on stages everywhere. My point is that Fender has a lot broader scope than Gibson, which primarily leans on the LP and SG models to stay afloat. I just don't think there is an apples to apples comparison between Gibson and Fender.



LoL outrage? I'm having a blast! No rage here. Nothin but love for ya, 40.

Gibson doesn’t come close to competing with Fender in the bass market because Gibson hasn’t ever seriously competed in the bass market, much to the chagrin of those who are interested in what Gibson might do if it did. Bass (except for two brief periods in the 70s and early 80s) was always seen as a sideline at best, and a distraction more often than not by Gibson. So despite some real breakthrough designs that were either abandoned or left to die on the vine in fairly short order, Gibson has mainly coasted on the EBs and TBirds, save for some short lived attempts to do more. And Gibson doesn’t do much by way of marketing of those either.

So from my perspective of watching Gibson starting from around 1970 or thereabouts, it’s not that the company lacks the ability or resources to make serious inroads into the bass market. Gibson simply lacks the interest to do so and sufficient commitment to see it through.

Bottom line: Splitting hairs over whether a comparison to Fender is valid or not is a moot issue AFAIC. Because it’s immaterial what Fender may or not be doing as far as Gibson goes. All that really matters for Gibson is what Gibson decides (as Gibson) to do. Smart companies don’t pay a lot of attention to what their competition is doing. They have no competition if they’re doing things right.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Gibson needs financial people to help them through their maze, yes, but I disagree with you somewhat. The "guitar nut" should listen to his financial people, yes, but they should report to him - making decisions that bring value to your cutomers is the fundamental thing that, long term, will make a business healthy, and with financial people running the place, you won't get decisions that are aimed in that direction. The "guitar nut" is there because he understands his customers, and is passionate about providing value to them in terms of great products - some of your descision have to be aimed at that, or you won't survive very long. The financial people help him, but they shouldn't drive the ship. When Guitar Center let Bain capital run things, they made a deal with the devil that they probably won't get out of - they handed the decision kaking to business folks, not "guitar nuts". Yes, it may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but the road they're on is a one way trip to nowhere.

I'm going to disagree with your disagreement. There have been many companies run by those who are passionate about products, but have tunnel vision, believing they know what customers want, and have been run into the ground. I'm not sure that Gibson can afford anything other than something focused on the bottom line and good market research. A small passion-related slip up could end Gibson

 

[-Asdfgh-]

Gibson doesn’t come close to competing with Fender in the bass market because Gibson hasn’t ever seriously competed in the bass market, much to the chagrin of those who are interested in what Gibson might do if it did. Bass (except for two brief periods in the 70s and early 80s) was always seen as a sideline at best, and a distraction more often than not. So despite some real breakthrough designs that were either abandoned or left to die on the vine in fairly short order, Gibson has basically coasted on the EBs and TBirds, save for some short lived attempts to do more.

So from my perspective of watching Gibson starting around 1970 or thereabouts, it’s not that the company lacks the ability or resources to make serious inroads into the bass market. Gibson simply lacks the interest to do so and commitment to see it through.

Splitting hairs over whether a comparison to Fender is valid or not is a moot issue as AFAIC. Because it it doesn’t really matter what Fender may or not be doing is immaterial. All that really matters for Gibson is what Gibson decides (as Gibson) to do. Smart companies don’t pay much attention to what their competition is doing. They have no competition if they’re doing things right by their customers.

A company that has no competition is one about to be investigated for an overly dominant in the market place. In guitar manufacturing there is a lot of completion, though, so Gibson needs to keep an eye on fender, ibanez, etc else it will only ever be able to sell clones of guitars from the 50s and 60s, even more than Fender is.

 

[40Hz]

I'm going to disagree with your disagreement. There have been many companies run by those who are passionate about products, but have tunnel vision, believing they know what customers want, and have been run into the ground. I'm not sure that Gibson can afford anything other than something focused on the bottom line and good market research. A small passion-related slip up could end Gibson

At this juncture I think you’re spot on. Getting their financial position stabilized and the credit situation placed in more favorable terms is the single most important thing. Many people have trouble understanding how a profitable business can still go bankrupt because they don’t realize the truth in the old business adages that say: “Cash is king.” and “Time is money.”

If you can’t meet your current obligations with your present cash flow, you become insolvent. And insolvency is the thing that will actually put you out of business - not your profitability or lack thereof.

Business doesn’t operate on the principle of: “Jam yesterday. Jam tomorrow. But never jam today.” You pay your bills when due, or try to borrow to cover them when you can’t. But if you’re short and can’t borrow enough cash - or get more time to pay - then it’s over. Simple as that.

 

[-Asdfgh-]

At this juncture I think you’re spot on. Getting their finacial position stabilized and the credit situation placed in more favorable terms is the single most important thing. Many people have trouble understanding how a profitable business can still ho bankrupt because the don’t realize the truth in the old business adages that: “Cash is king.” and “Time is money.”

If you can’t meet your current obligations with your present cash flow, you become insolvent. And insolvency is the thing that will actually put you out of business - not your profitability or lack thereof.

Business doesn’t operate on the principle of: “Jam yesterday. Jam tomorrow. But never jam today.” You pay your bills when due, or try to borrow to cover them when you can’t. But if you’re short and can’t borrow enough cash - or get more time to pay - then it’s over. Simple as that.

I've experienced a failed business, and once there are net cashflow issues it can go bad very quickly. PRS might be a good president (maybe not CEO, and not COO) in five years, once things are stable. I'd liken that to Jobs being ejected from Apple, and it being stabilised by bean counters, such that Jobs later had something to return to. It's not a direct comparison, but the visionary Jobs might well have ended Apple in the 80s otherwise.

Bean counting isn't sexy, but I've been there, and attempting to get stability can mean tough decisions, and curtailment of activities, in the hope of more freedom in the future. It can also be a death spiral.

 

[40Hz]

A company that has no competition is one about to be investigated for an overly dominant in the market place. In guitar manufacturing there is a lot of completion, though, so Gibson needs to keep an eye on fender, ibanez, etc else it will only ever be able to sell clones of guitars from the 50s and 60s, even more than Fender is.

They’re only going to be investigated if there’s cause to suspect unfair trade practices, such as cutting deals with distributors to shut out competing products or doing some form of illegal financing. US law differentiates between “illegal monopolies” and “natural monopolies.” In Europe and elsewhere, antitrust legislation is viewed as laws intended to increase and encourage competition. In the US it is only seen as a tool to prevent and punish illegal competitive business practices. If your company plays by the rules and emerges as the last man standing (i.e. a natural monopoly) there’s nothing illegal about that under US law.

The only time natural monopolies get challenged here (with mixed success) is in the case of a merger approval where such action would have the effect of eliminating any possibility of future competition in some critical public market segment such as: Internet access, broadcasting, or medical services.

 

[Clark Dark]

I was born and raised in Philly. In da day there was Zapf's, Cintiolli's, Eighth St. Music, in Ardmore there was Medley Music, in West Chester there was Studio 42, all fine music stores where you could walk in and buy Gibson guitars and basses, as well as,(Fender guitars and basses, but let's concentrate on Gibson now) all day long. So along comes circa 2012 and Gibson will no longer supply these "little" operations and will only be sold through Sweetwater, Guitar Center, and another online outfit whose name escapes me at the moment. Gibson self throttled itself by limiting the number of outlets that sold their product and at the same time jacked the prices of its products. Of all the stores I mentioned from the time of my youth to my adulthood only Cintiolli in Northeast Philly (shout out to Bennie) still exists. Eighth St. Music was a Philly staple for years and supported the Philly Philharmonic and those musicians but once Gibson and Fender pulled out, those stores folded. My favorite Gibson is the ES-335 IMO for rhythm it's the best. But they have totally screwed the pooch.

 

[40Hz]

Bean counting isn't sexy, but I've been there, and attempting to get stability can mean tough decisions, and curtailment of activities, in the hope of more freedom in the future. It can also be a death spiral.

Been there too. And I’ll admit to a little bias. I got a degree in bean counting and spent the first decade of my work career in corporate finance. So I tend to be a “numbers person” who’s tempered by the realworld experiences I gained running my own businesses after that.

And while I tend to have realistic levels of faith in the value of numbers, I’ve also learned not to base every business decision exclusively on them.

But if push comrs to shove, accurate numbers - and a solid understanding of what they actually represent - will save your bacon more often than not.

But even so, there’s a limit to that if you have creditors who won’t budge. However, most times they’re numbers oriented too, so if you can produce a plan based on verifiable numbers and rational expectations, you at least stand a chance.

As things stand (and I’m basing this on intelligent guesses since there’s no public hard data to base it on) I think Gibson will emerge from this. At least in some shape or form. How much it resembles its present self is anybody’s guess. But I’m guessing it will be a smaller, leaner, and much more tightly focused company than it presently is.

And that can only be a good thing.

 

[ZenG]

Earth to Gibson...it's 2018. Adapt or die.

 

[ab2112]

I see it as Heritage having a budget line: Gibson by Heritage. You know, kind of like Squier is to Fender, but will not be good enough in quality to move people to want to buy them.

I love this

 

[ab2112]

Uh, hello?? Epiphone Thunderbird bass | Sweetwater

Reverse thunderbird

**EDIT** I am an idiot - I had these flipped.

**EDIT 2** Or should I say...REVERSED

 

[LiveToWin]

Pardon me, I wish to add my 0.02.

One of the biggest issues for me with Gibson is their "chambering" or weight relief. FFS why anyone would ever want any additional holes ? Gold era LP were solid ... (and yes, your beloved Slash used a copy !). If it ain't broke - don't fix it.
I laugh so hard when I see guys whining "Oh, my back ... this guitar is so heavy". I mean, really ? Just man up, hit the gym and the weigh will not be a problem. BUT, if you are elder person or have back problems - this is fully understanding approach (wanting a guitar with less weight).

And there is something which I don't understand : this whole relief thing just increase the cost of guitar. So why the "Traditional"(solid body) series are higher in price ? This doesn't make any sense to me ...

 

[gjohnson441496]

When you're in business you should pay attention to the competition or you will be left behind, and there are a ton of examples:

If Bill Gates weren't paying attention to Steve Jobs, Microsoft wouldn't have Windows.

If Kodak had paid attention to their very own engineer, Steve Sasson, like Nikon and Canon they would have had a handle on the world of digital photography, and would not have had to file bankruptcy in 2012.

If Jerry Baldwin, Gordon Bowker, and Zev Siegel weren't paying attention to Alfred Peet, we wouldn't have a Starbucks on every corner of the free world.

AOL vs Google
Mark Zuckerberg vs The Winklevoss twins
itunes vs Napster

Yeah, you should keep an eye on your friends, and co-workers... I mean... "the competition"

 

[ZenG]

I say 'Viva The Revolution!!" I'm tired of being dictated to by one or two major Jurassic instrument companies that keep trotting out products from over half a century ago that are still considered "cutting edge".

 

[Jeff Scott]

...As things stand (and I’m basing this on intelligent guesses since there’s no public hard data to base it on) I think Gibson will emerge from this. At least in some shape or form. How much it resembles its present self is anybody’s guess. But I’m guessing it will be a smaller, leaner, and much more tightly focused company than it presently is.

And that can only be a good thing.

Where do you see Henry the J, in this plan?

 

[40Hz]

I say 'Viva The Revolution!!" I'm tired of being dictated to by one or two major Jurassic instrument companies that keep trotting out products from over half a century ago that are still considered "cutting edge".

But what’s “cutting edge” when it comes to electric guitars and basses these days? A different pickup? An onboard preamp? Composites or a carbon neck? An even heavier bridge? Adding yet another string?

You can only change a guitar or bass so much before it stops being one - or it morphs into something else entirely - as was the case with the Chapman Stick.

The basic design and 50+ years worth of extensively field tested and heavily vetted mods and improvements have already been created and catalogued. And we now have a very good idea of what works and what doesn’t and how to accomplish it when it comes to these instruments.

So I don’t see where there’s a “cutting edge” any more with guitar. Today it’s small incremental improvements at best coupled with enough cosmetic changes to keep things interesting for certain buyers. Beyond that it’s time to start considering a different instrument to play if that’s not enough.

Dunno. When it comes to cutting edge I just don’t see it as far as the design and function of the instrument goes. There’s room for it in the manufacturing process in order to improve quality and get the costs down. But that’s cutting edge manufacturing. That doesn’t translate out into something that’s going to change anything from the sound or playing perspective. It just makes the existing overall experience more uniformly good for every player.

Or so I think anyway.