Gibson Fooked

Three-ColourSunburst

Philly_Q said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Today's 'Gibson' is still a different company in a different location, using CNC machines to do what was once done by hand etc etc.  Given this disconnect with the original company (and given the Norlin era the current company actually is two steps away from the original) is the brand name really so important?

You could extend that argument to virtually any long-established company or brand.  They've all changed ownership, changed locations, modernised.  It doesn't make all brands meaningless.

Brands are certainly useful marketing tools. However, that just reflects on the irrationality of consumers who tend to buy something not so much because of the intrinsic qualities of the actual product, but because of the associations the brand name carries. Coke, designer clothes, Gibson guitars, it's all a case of 'Don't sell the sausage, sell the sizzle'. That is, what is most important about brand names is that they allow companies to 'engage the customer on an emotional level', effectively getting the customer to ignore their own rationality. The guitar market is full of this sort of nonsense, with people paying a premium for all sorts of 'mojo', with an irrational belief in magic extending way beyond the emotional power of a brand name.

What's more the destructive power of brand names goes a lot further than getting people to think in irrational ways, as Naomi Klein highlighted in her book ' No Logo'.

https://archive.org/details/fp_Naomi_Klein-No_Logo

So, Fek Harry Juszkiewicz, and anyone else who ends up buying the 'Gibson' brand name. If anyone wants a guitar that looks like one of those models that a now long-dead company made 60 years ago, there is and always will be plenty of choice. 

Teetonetal

Philly_Q said:

Three-ColourSunburst said:

Today's 'Gibson' is still a different company in a different location, using CNC machines to do what was once done by hand etc etc.  Given this disconnect with the original company (and given the Norlin era the current company actually is two steps away from the original) is the brand name really so important?

You could extend that argument to virtually any long-established company or brand.  They've all changed ownership, changed locations, modernised.  It doesn't make all brands meaningless.

Brands are completely meaningless .Your just buying into the idea that they are important. Manufactures work very, very hard to make you think that brands are important, hence all the endorsement deals, marketing campaigns  etc, Players buy into that importance and perpetuate the myth and we get stories that make certain brands or certain guitars feel iconic, everyone leverages this to sell more product.

Reality is it shouldn't matter to the player, fantasy is it does.

Three-ColourSunburst

AlexC said:

Why do people romanticise a corporation?

That is a VERY good question.

 'Propaganda' by Edward L. Bernays' ('the father of public relations') was the first major book on the topic, back in 1928.

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of  the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.

Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.

They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons — a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million — who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.

https://archive.org/details/EdwardL.BernaysPropaganda

bacchanalian

I spent a bit of time as an anti-capitalist and No Logo would have been a bible of mine. Surely Klein’s argument is about brands like Nike and Abercrombie that use marketing to create an ersatz heritage and then have their stuff made by kids in low wage economies. Gibson are the opposite of that. Their heritage is real (C Berry, BB King, Kossoff, Clapton et al) and their stuff is largely made in a high wage economy.

Not wishing to disagree or troll, but how would people feel if Gibson was bought over by Primark?

Three-ColourSunburst

bacchanalian said:

Surely Klein’s argument is about brands like Nike and Abercrombie that use marketing to create an ersatz heritage and then have their stuff made by kids in low wage economies. Gibson are the opposite of that. Their heritage is real (C Berry, BB King, Kossoff, Clapton et al) and their stuff is largely made in a high wage economy.

In reality,  just take a look on GlassDoor and it is clear that Gibson treats even its US employees appallingly, expecting ever-more work for ever-less pay. I would bet that the average worker in the Harley Benton factory in China  has a better opinion of the company they work for than most of Henry's corporate slaves, sorry, employees - something that is most likely also reflected in the quality of what they make!

https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Gibson-Brands-Reviews-E6869.htm

Edit. Also, isn't a lot of Gibson's stuff already made in 'low wage economies', from Epiphone guitars through to all those cheap electronics the Gibson group produces?

AlexC

If Primark bought Gibson then I’d assume to prices would go down. For which I would cheer!
@bacchanalian Don’t apologise. You’re not trolling. You’re discussing. There’s a world of difference!

ICBM

Philly_Q said:
You could extend that argument to virtually any long-established company or brand.  They've all changed ownership, changed locations, modernised.  It doesn't make all brands meaningless.

Martin hasn't.

Nor Rickenbacker, at least since the Hall family bought the company in 1953.

Nor PRS, other than moving factory - and they've been going for over 30 years now.

OK they've all modernised their production processes along the way, but all are the same companies under the same ownership that built their classic models.

BBBlues

Whatever happens guitars will still be made with Gibson's name on the headstock. Their brand name and customer base alone are intangible assets big enough for someone to come in and by out their debts and own them as a subsidiary. Who will the new parent company be, and where they'll be from are the real questions here.

crunchman

BBBlues said:

Whatever happens guitars will still be made with Gibson's name on the headstock. Their brand name and custom base alone are intangible assets big enough for someone to come in and by out their debts and own them as a subsidiary. Who will the new parent company be, and where they'll be from are the real questions here.

Also, how it will be managed.

Will they just offshore the production and use the brand name on cheap poly-finished guitars, or will they try to think long term and keep the quality up, and keep the features like nitro finishes that most want on a Gibson?

Teetonetal

bacchanalian said:

I spent a bit of time as an anti-capitalist and No Logo would have been a bible of mine. Surely Klein’s argument is about brands like Nike and Abercrombie that use marketing to create an ersatz heritage and then have their stuff made by kids in low wage economies. Gibson are the opposite of that. Their heritage is real (C Berry, BB King, Kossoff, Clapton et al) and their stuff is largely made in a high wage economy.

Not wishing to disagree or troll, but how would people feel if Gibson was bought over by Primark?

I wouldn't care - you should judge a product by how good it is - not who makes it. 

I am not anti-capitalist at all, but I do not like to romanticize brands, products or people. 

Philly_Q

ICBM said:

Philly_Q said:
You could extend that argument to virtually any long-established company or brand.  They've all changed ownership, changed locations, modernised.  It doesn't make all brands meaningless.

Martin hasn't.

Nor Rickenbacker, at least since the Hall family bought the company in 1953.

Nor PRS, other than moving factory - and they've been going for over 30 years now.

OK they've all modernised their production processes along the way, but all are the same companies under the same ownership that built their classic models.

I wasn't claiming that there's no company in the world in space which hasn't changed ownership, of course there are exceptions. 

But in any case I expect C.F. Martin IV, direct descendant or not, runs a modern business, he doesn't ride around in a coach and horses speaking German and keeping records in a big dusty ledger.  And Paul Reed Smith presumably has a board of directors, many staff and runs a rather different operation than he did 30 years ago.

Just making the point that brands survive through all manner of changes but do maintain a perceived significance and value (even though, yes, of course, they are really meaningless).

bacchanalian

Teetonetal said:

bacchanalian said:

I spent a bit of time as an anti-capitalist and No Logo would have been a bible of mine. Surely Klein’s argument is about brands like Nike and Abercrombie that use marketing to create an ersatz heritage and then have their stuff made by kids in low wage economies. Gibson are the opposite of that. Their heritage is real (C Berry, BB King, Kossoff, Clapton et al) and their stuff is largely made in a high wage economy.

Not wishing to disagree or troll, but how would people feel if Gibson was bought over by Primark?

I wouldn't care - you should judge a product by how good it is - not who makes it. 

I am not anti-capitalist at all, but I do not like to romanticize brands, products or people. 

I agree that you do not sound like an anti-capitalist but we are same distance apart on whether or not it matters who makes a product. 

SteveRobinson

Teetonetal said:

Brands are completely meaningless .

Not meaningless. They give you some assurance that what you are getting is the quality you expect. That's why companies protect themselves against copies which would devalue their brands.

scalino65

Surely the best outcome would be if Terry Morgan took over.

Bridgehouse

Someone has leaked Gibson’s last ditch attempt to recover the business. 

Apparently they think the modern new designed guitar will revolutionise the guitar market and save the business.....

darthed1981

Bridgehouse said:

Someone has leaked Gibson’s last ditch attempt to recover the business. 

Apparently they think the modern new designed guitar will revolutionise the guitar market and save the business.....

Will it be "True Historic"?

guitars4you

darthed1981 said:

Bridgehouse said:

Someone has leaked Gibson’s last ditch attempt to recover the business. 

Apparently they think the modern new designed guitar will revolutionise the guitar market and save the business.....

Will it be "True Historic"?

make it in Mexico and it will be 'True Hispanic'

ICBM

crunchman said:

Will they just offshore the production and use the brand name on cheap poly-finished guitars, or will they try to think long term and keep the quality up, and keep the features like nitro finishes that most want on a Gibson?

Personally I would ditch the nitro on everything other than the Historics.

It hasn't done Fender any harm. Most buyers of the lower ranges probably don't care, other than getting pissed off when it marks in a non-'relic' way. Stopping using nitro doesn't have to mean that typical dipped-in-polyester look either, there are other stable modern finishes and they can be done thin too.

Teetonetal

SteveRobinson said:

Teetonetal said:

Brands are completely meaningless .

Not meaningless. They give you some assurance that what you are getting is the quality you expect. That's why companies protect themselves against copies which would devalue their brands.

It's not quite what I meant.

I agree there is brand reputation in terms of QC for sure and often a good experience leads to brand loyalty (even if you just got lucky, loads of examples of I had a problem with x, followed by numerous people say I did/didn't). But would Gibson fall into that category? Dodgy QC is one of the complaints leveled at them. It also takes a company ages to shake off a reputation (good or bad). Look at TC electronics reg. dodgy switches) and EHX reg. build quality. The internet is rife with comment on those subjects.

Branding is important to a manufacturer, no question. They are all in the game of making money and continuing to exist. Branding helps that because we associate and identify so deeply to brands. "Slash and Kossof played Les Pauls, therefore I want a Les Paul" etc Brands need that association. They need people to buy into dreams,.

My point was more that in those terms branding is actually not important. If you arm youself with knowledge, you can spot something that is well made (especially a guitar). Something well made, is well made the branding doesn't alter that and it doesn't matter who makes it. There are so many companies churning out good product, yet people still chase Gibson and Fender and look down on the others (even PRS are the butt of lots of jokes right?) As a consumer, if you can liberate yourself from tying to a brand, based purely on the dream being sold to you by the brand, chances are you will get - either a better, more suitable product or similar of cheaper.

It doesn't matter at all to me if Gibson go down or not. Historical achievement and association is irrelevant to me. I just want to buy good product today.

impmann

Its a utopian view that brands are meaningless. And I admire anyone who genuinely lives by that ethic. But more often than not its posturing.