• 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.

What would YOU do to save Gibson?

#501
ThirdChord said:
Okay, First I would ask the board of directors if they are really interested in saving Gibson. If the answer is yes, then strip out all the dead weight in middle through upper management. If that means Henry has to go, then so be it. His parachute is worth the cost of redeeming Gibson's brand namesake. Next start a campaign to get intelligent feedback from working musicians on the state of current Gibson guitars. Take that feedback and rework the necessary production facilities to make a damn good product.
Click to expand...

Is the primary market for Gibson guitars working musicians, hobbyists, or collectors? Is it the same market for electric guitars, acoustics, other instruments? Would a change in product lineup significantly increase sales overall, even if it reduces the sales in a market segment? What is the lifetime of those markets?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 12BitSlab
#502
Gianni "Orlandez" Orlati said:
Sad to say but if this is the situation either they will be able to find some money quickly or the whole company will collapse because of the lack of return from certain recently acquired divisions which have nothing to share with guitars ... point ... how to find that money? Very difficult in the western world ... the unthinkable and unspeakable should happen .... Gibson sells to a Chinese investor in the field which will pay all debts ... it’s the only way to get the required cash assuming that potential buyers to knock at their door are already known ... however I don’t believe that this American pride company will finish in eastern hands ... hence the company shall declare bankruptcy unfortunately
Click to expand...

In the case of bankruptcy all assets must be sold to satisfy creditors. The brand may be one of the most valuable assets, and so bankruptcy would not preclude the use of the name on non-USA products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gianni "Orlandez" Orlati
#503
hrodbert696 said:
My hypothesis:

The problem with Gibson is not guitars, nor guitar sales. It's everything else.
a
Click to expand...

Great observation and sad proof of how few can be bothered to read threads. The majority of responses are an attempt to fix the only part of Gibson that ain’t broke!

In another thread, I can see the point of making suggestions about Gibson GUITARS, but not this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bdplaid and hrodbert696
#507
-Asdfgh- said:
In the case of bankruptcy all assets must be sold to satisfy creditors. The brand may be one of the most valuable assets, and so bankruptcy would not preclude the use of the name on non-USA products.
Click to expand...
Yeah correct but by declaring bankruptcy Gibson may get some more official time to verify the internal market’s conditions avoiding the decision of the court imposed administrator ... fact is that I don’t know who may think about buying it from within the USA ... any ideas/rumours?
 
#511
How I see it Gibson is down for the count but what I would do as a "last stand". Lower the prices it would hurt their margins but better to sell for less than not sell at all. Gibson has lost its reputation for quality so they can't charge for it. Something should have been done but they didn't listen to customers and now lost followers who where very loyal. Also after the 2008 when the economy fell people where forced to go lower with their budget. I think that is why there is so much bang for your buck now and I feel it is the future. People used to dream of having a Gibson but now especially since people had to maybe sell their Gibson in 2008 and bought a cheaper guitar people have found how over priced Gibson is. Less people care about the name look at squier, epiphone, Ibanez, places like rondo music. People are more savvy shoppers I feel the used market is getting better which is where those who have the money to splurg choose to take the used route.

Granted bang for you buck is epiphones market but if Gibson sits one tier above you may get more epiphone buyers to spend a little more to get the Gibson. To try and salvage Gibsons reputation they can announce they're lowering prices to let more people experience the legendary Gibson line. As I said that is a last stand scenario. Gibson makes their on pups which boutique pups add a huge cost so they have potential.

All in all the quality isn't there and if I am going to spend 3k on a guitar or bass it better not snap. Hard to convince people to spend the extra money when guitars way less in price are equivalent or some times better. Granted I have never been a Gibson guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ross W. Lovell
#513
40Hz said:
Huh?

GC was acquired by Bain Capital. More recently Ares Management purchased a majority stake with Bain Capital retaining a minority holding.

Where is Gibson in any of that?

Besides, if that were the case why would Fender or any other major competitor ever considered letting GC carry their product lines - assuming Henry would have even allowed them in his stores?
Click to expand...



Again, helps if people actually pay attention, Bain still had an interest last I knew.

There are many reasons for Henry to "allow" them, but likely more keeping him from dumping those competitors, plus he needs sales any way he can get them.

Maybe the Auto-Tune was just a way to make more people buy Fenders? He still made some money.

But meanwhile......
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0116.PNG
    IMG_0116.PNG
    232.8 KB · Views: 19
  • IMG_0117.PNG
    IMG_0117.PNG
    373.3 KB · Views: 21
#515
Ross W. Lovell said:
Again, helps if people actually pay attention, Bain still had an interest last I knew.
Click to expand...

Agree. Where has Gibson ever taken an ownership stake in GC? I've heard other people say that as well. Gibson Brands owns Harmony Central last I heard. That was acquired from Musician's Friend/GC. Gibson didn't acquire GC.

Ross W. Lovell said:
There are many reasons for Henry to "allow" them, but likely more keeping him from dumping those competitors, plus he needs sales any way he can get them.
Click to expand...

The only problem with that scenario is that manufacturers often share proprietary marketing and pricing information with their retail partners. So for Fender to effectively work with GC they'd have to share advance product release information, dealer pricing and incentive programs, advertising plans and budgets plus some co-branding plans...in short open their marketing department's kimono to Gibson if Gibson did own GC. I can't see any of Gibson's competitors doing that. Gibson could have also been crippled severely if it owned GC and everybody abruptly pulled their dealerships citing conflict of interest on the part of GC. They wouldn't even have had to actually do it. The simple announcement of intent would have been enough to send the financial analysts running to drop Gibson's rating as fast as they could.
 
#517
ThirdChord said:
Okay, First I would ask the board of directors if they are really interested in saving Gibson. If the answer is yes, then strip out all the dead weight in middle through upper management. If that means Henry has to go, then so be it. His parachute is worth the cost of redeeming Gibson's brand namesake. Next start a campaign to get intelligent feedback from working musicians on the state of current Gibson guitars. Take that feedback and rework the necessary production facilities to make a damn good product.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, that makes sense. Not going to happen.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back