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.
Why Doesn't Fender Offer These As Standard Equipment?
- Thread starter PolkaHero
- Start date
oh, and the reason they don't offer the cool dodad as standard equipment is simple.
Ever since Fender discovered that they could charge WAY WAY more money for an instrument that had only $150 worth of extra cool parts added to it, they have kept the cool gadget features for the top tier versions of their instruments.
Same way car dealers do it.
There are plenty of bass companies that don't do it that way. But some still do. It works fine in either marketing style. Some people are willing to pay a lot extra to get 5 special new features all together, even if one of them only probably costs $15. It gives INCENTIVE TO PAY FOR THE HIGHER PRICED VERSION.
imho
It's smart business, to be honest. And let's be honest here - this thread is based on the fact that the OP feels that this item has enough value that it should exist in all Fender basses, not just the most expensive models. So in the OP's case, the marketing strategy is sorta kinda working. It's at least giving him a small incentive to get a more expensive bass, even if he is intelligently realizing that it's a marketing ploy and he doesn't like that fact.
Ever since Fender discovered that they could charge WAY WAY more money for an instrument that had only $150 worth of extra cool parts added to it, they have kept the cool gadget features for the top tier versions of their instruments.
Same way car dealers do it.
There are plenty of bass companies that don't do it that way. But some still do. It works fine in either marketing style. Some people are willing to pay a lot extra to get 5 special new features all together, even if one of them only probably costs $15. It gives INCENTIVE TO PAY FOR THE HIGHER PRICED VERSION.
imho
It's smart business, to be honest. And let's be honest here - this thread is based on the fact that the OP feels that this item has enough value that it should exist in all Fender basses, not just the most expensive models. So in the OP's case, the marketing strategy is sorta kinda working. It's at least giving him a small incentive to get a more expensive bass, even if he is intelligently realizing that it's a marketing ploy and he doesn't like that fact.
Because Fender, at the end of the day, is a corporation. They do market research. They most likely found the traditionalists would welcome them like robotuners on Gibsons.
Honestly, fender is the Pepsi of music, short answer, they don’t need to do anything, people will still buy them.
This is why I stopped buying from Fender. With the right knowledge, you can do it WAY BETTER, for WAY CHEAPER. I made a parts jazz with better parts than a USA fender for less than a cost of a standard USA.
Fralin split jazz pups, status neck, Hipshot ultralites, Hipshot bridge and retainer, CTS pots, Switchcraft jack, CF Pickguard, black control plate, gotoh knobs, Dunlop strap locks. Less than $1100
This is why I stopped buying from Fender. With the right knowledge, you can do it WAY BETTER, for WAY CHEAPER. I made a parts jazz with better parts than a USA fender for less than a cost of a standard USA.
Fralin split jazz pups, status neck, Hipshot ultralites, Hipshot bridge and retainer, CTS pots, Switchcraft jack, CF Pickguard, black control plate, gotoh knobs, Dunlop strap locks. Less than $1100
Well, maybe. It is a design decision. You may not like it but that doesn't mean it is a faulty design. The one piece Fender neck was pretty astute. No fragile scarf joint or heavy volute. Cheaper and easier to make and the disk retainer in reality isn't unattractive or problematic for most. I have never experienced an issue with the A string on a Fender neck when strung properly. I have many basses of both styles and have never noticed any issues to favor one design over another.
I don't argue that your opinion is wrong, just that it is an opinion. The Fender neck and headstock has proven itself for decades. If I'm not mistaken Fedora is using a design with string retainer on their bolt on necks. They aren't known for "band-aid" fixes. I do agree the "stealth" retainer is kind of, well, stupid and not very stealthy. Seemed like a gimmick to get people to buy that anniversary bass it first appeared on.
Id say that it's because they are already charging as much as they can for instruments based on their market research. So if they were to include this item, two things would happen...
1. They would eat the cost of the item.
2. They would forfeit the profit margin on selling the item as an aftermarket accessory.
So unless they felt that inclusion of this product would increase sales of the instruments, they'll make more money by not adding it.
1. They would eat the cost of the item.
2. They would forfeit the profit margin on selling the item as an aftermarket accessory.
So unless they felt that inclusion of this product would increase sales of the instruments, they'll make more money by not adding it.
Those stealth retainers look stupid. And why have three retainers on a headstock? Couldn't get it right the first time, the second time, and the third time all on one bass.
Why can't Fender design one nice retainer that spans across all the strings? Even my Squier Jazz 5 string has a single retainer spanning all five strings.
Why can't Fender design one nice retainer that spans across all the strings? Even my Squier Jazz 5 string has a single retainer spanning all five strings.
I didn't say it was a faulty design - I said the additional friction (there is additional friction) could cause minor tuning stability issues. It is defintitely an economical design - that was the point.
The point of a scarf joint is it ISN'T fragile. The Gibson method (no scarf joint) is what's fragile.
oh, and the reason they don't offer the cool dodad as standard equipment is simple.
Ever since Fender discovered that they could charge WAY WAY more money for an instrument that had only $150 worth of extra cool parts added to it, they have kept the cool gadget features for the top tier versions of their instruments.
Same way car dealers do it.
There are plenty of bass companies that don't do it that way. But some still do. It works fine in either marketing style. Some people are willing to pay a lot extra to get 5 special new features all together, even if one of them only probably costs $15. It gives INCENTIVE TO PAY FOR THE HIGHER PRICED VERSION.
imho
It's smart business, to be honest. And let's be honest here - this thread is based on the fact that the OP feels that this item has enough value that it should exist in all Fender basses, not just the most expensive models. So in the OP's case, the marketing strategy is sorta kinda working. It's at least giving him a small incentive to get a more expensive bass, even if he is intelligently realizing that it's a marketing ploy and he doesn't like that fact.
OP here: "incentive to get a more expensive bass"? Did you even read my original post? I paid LESS THAN HALF for this bass brand new compared to a new Sadowsky. Even with the stealth retainer, Audere preamp, and Hipshot Bass Extender I'm still LESS THAN HALF into this bass than a brand new Sadowsky and this one is just as light, plays as well, and sounds just as good. Maybe you thought I was supposed to settle for a Mexican made Fender?
Those stealth retainers look stupid. And why have three retainers on a headstock? Couldn't get it right the first time, the second time, and the third time all on one bass.
Why can't Fender design one nice retainer that spans across all the strings? Even my Squier Jazz 5 string has a single retainer spanning all five strings.
When installed they're hardly even noticeable. That's why they're called "stealth string retainers"!
Six pages and counting....
In answer to why doesn't Fender fit these string retainers to all basses that can accommodate them is, because unless there appears to be a demand for them, why add something?
Show Fender that there is a demand for them large enough to make it worthwhile for them to add those string retainers and they might. Though I doubt many potential Fender bass buyers are going to buy a different brand over the lack of a string retainer.
I understand the OP's question, the addition of those string retainers may be worthwhile, but at the end of the day Fender is a company that makes musical instruments for profit and maximum return for minimum cost is the aim.
In answer to why doesn't Fender fit these string retainers to all basses that can accommodate them is, because unless there appears to be a demand for them, why add something?
Show Fender that there is a demand for them large enough to make it worthwhile for them to add those string retainers and they might. Though I doubt many potential Fender bass buyers are going to buy a different brand over the lack of a string retainer.
I understand the OP's question, the addition of those string retainers may be worthwhile, but at the end of the day Fender is a company that makes musical instruments for profit and maximum return for minimum cost is the aim.
Well, it's a breath of fresh air from the usual "What's better, a Precision or a Jazz" or "What strings should I use" fluff threads that pervade Talkbass these days.
And some times you just miscalculated the required string length beyond the nut... happens sometimes. And sometimes that happens just when you're stringing flats that you expect to keep on the bass for years... *sigh*
(and my bass won't take the stealth retainer because it's a 90s MIJ J with non-threaded bushings)
Yes, I did. Sorry for making it sound like you personally were interested in buying the bass at either level - that was poor wording on my part. I meant that since you see the value in the part, others will too, therefore it is working as a marketing scheme, and SOMEONE out there will find it worth while.
I was assuming that everyone, myself, and of course you, had already read (or written) the first post, and therefore my conclusions were based upon already knowing what you'd written. Not intending to contradict them, but since we all know that you personally are not about to buy one but your points showed interest enough in the feature to represent those who might want to buy one.
Cheers
Last edited:
