What would YOU do to save Gibson?
This...
First look video: Fender dives into effects market with 6 new pedals | MusicRadar
This...
First look video: Fender dives into effects market with 6 new pedals | MusicRadar
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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?
- Thread starter ThinCrappyTone
- Start date
Yup. Cutting 15 employees will sure do it!
15 employees from the division actually making money. Cooking the goose that lays golden eggs while keeping the industrial wood chipper devouring profit at the top because ... well who gets to make the lists?
Those are probably some of their longest-serving and most talented (production oriented) employees, too.
In Poland we have special saying for this kind of situations :
"Ryba psuję się od głowy" which basically means : "The Fish rots from the head first"
"Ryba psuję się od głowy" which basically means : "The Fish rots from the head first"
stop charging over $3,500 for a guitar you can buy from other manufacturers for $800 and move some volume. It's NOT that kids aren't playing guitar, they are.. But not many Dads are going to plunk down that kind of cash even on a guitar for themselves, let alone their kid, who realistically could become disinterested in a few weeks.
It's dollars & cents, you can buy a decent guitar for 1500 and it'll be virtually the same guitar.
It's dollars & cents, you can buy a decent guitar for 1500 and it'll be virtually the same guitar.
And this is how MBAs think: Squeeze the most profit from something that is possible, regardless of outcome. That's how the healthcare system - really everything these days - got into such trouble.
This is telling, seeing as how they were at CEA and not NAMM. They see their market as consumer and not pro.
I never liked Gibson basses; they just never played nor sounded nor fit right to me.
However, the Les Paul is a standard. Make them less heavy and less expensive. Less expensive, most importantly.
They could also do as everyone else, and make a Jazz Bass clone.
But I wonder how much the imported rosewood debacle hurt them? Anyone know?
It’s too late IMO for lowering prices, Standard Gibsonian will think that the company is in the s...t, which is in effect the case ... they should have started this process some years ago ... now they need a large amount of fresh cash or they shall bring their books to court ...
Looking up HJ on Wiki, I see that he has been CEO since 1986. So any recent decline may not be squarely on his shoulders.
Changig the name to "Gibson Brands, Inc." is also telling, in that it shows they didn't view themselves primarily as a guitar compnay. rather, the guitar compay may be used to prop up other investments withing the overall brand.
However, I also note that HJ has history with GM, around the time GM was saying they were not in the business of making cars, but of making money:
"Second, I don’t think General Motors is concerned with real choices of cars. In a fascinating chapter, which I didn’t have the space to discuss, Mr. Sloan in his book tells how Charles F. Kettering in the early Twenties wanted G.M. to build an air-cooled car, which would have then revolutionized the automobile industry. But this car would have interfered with the marketing strategy of the company, and Sloan finally killed it. The point is that General Motors is not in business to make cars, but to make money. If there is a choice between a better car (such as in Mr. Sloan’s example) with a prospect of a low profit margin, and a poorer car with a high profit margin, isn’t it obvious what the choice will be? As Mr. Sloan’s book makes abundantly clear, the first point of reference in company policy is the rate of return on investment, and all elements are geared to that."
General Motors
If HJ infected Gibson with that failed GM mantra, you might have a reason.
Changig the name to "Gibson Brands, Inc." is also telling, in that it shows they didn't view themselves primarily as a guitar compnay. rather, the guitar compay may be used to prop up other investments withing the overall brand.
However, I also note that HJ has history with GM, around the time GM was saying they were not in the business of making cars, but of making money:
"Second, I don’t think General Motors is concerned with real choices of cars. In a fascinating chapter, which I didn’t have the space to discuss, Mr. Sloan in his book tells how Charles F. Kettering in the early Twenties wanted G.M. to build an air-cooled car, which would have then revolutionized the automobile industry. But this car would have interfered with the marketing strategy of the company, and Sloan finally killed it. The point is that General Motors is not in business to make cars, but to make money. If there is a choice between a better car (such as in Mr. Sloan’s example) with a prospect of a low profit margin, and a poorer car with a high profit margin, isn’t it obvious what the choice will be? As Mr. Sloan’s book makes abundantly clear, the first point of reference in company policy is the rate of return on investment, and all elements are geared to that."
General Motors
If HJ infected Gibson with that failed GM mantra, you might have a reason.
Gibson has made notoriously unbalanced instruments that have some quirk you need to deal with, and it is even more so with basses. The only major bass models they have today, the SG and Thunderbird, are very awkward and tend to have a lot of neck dive. So by being pretty much a guitar only company, they are cutting themselves off from lucrative markets.
I don't put too much stock on them not being at NAMM. Schecter was, but not a booth, just meeting rooms. Orange didn't have a single piece of gear to demo. ESP\LTD was basically a museum where you could look, but that's it. I mean, what are they going to show us? "Hey look, another Les Paul and SG."
The price is what the price is. If you want the whiz bang models, it will cost you. However a Studio Les Paul is the exact same guitar with less bells and whistles and is pretty affordable. High end Epiphone models are pretty good these days.
I honestly think loosing so many big name artists to other brands or custom builders is what is hurting them. If they are the brand of rock stars and rock stars aren't playing them, what do they have to offer?
I had a Thunderbird in the late 70's. I remember 2 things about it - How long and heavy the neck was, and how the neck bowed...
Smooth_bass88
vaxx!
- Oct 31, 2006
- 12,122
- 16,793
- Disclosures
- have been on nationally released albums, charting on the Billboard 200
I worked at Gibson many, many years ago for a very short time. King Henry was there at the time. All I can say is it was the absolute worst job I ever had. HJ is an idiot IMO. The whole upper management was scared to death of him and would push out total garbage just to make the number of guitars for the week. That was how he wanted it. I won’t go in to details but some of you paid a lot of money for real POS. Maybe things have changed. If not, death could not happen to a more deserving company.
Ship good ol' Henry off to Australia like they did in the old days when prisoners were sent here. We know how to treat jolly thieving bushrangers. Hang 'em high. That would be step 1 and i'm sure the rest would take care of itself after that. I wanna stand next to Paulabass as she slips the hood over his scrawny little neck.
loll nooo Jeff..my lot apparently emmigrated from the good ol UK way back in the 1800's...so here in Aust they could probably call me a Pom..lol
Ps. Jeffo...its Giffro..who's Griffo? Can't even get my nic right..lolll
Ps. Jeffo...its Giffro..who's Griffo? Can't even get my nic right..lolll
Last edited:
