Gibson 2016 predictions, what back door cost savings should we expect if Gibsons go back to normal?

terada

Hi all,

In the thread talking about how well/badly 2015 Gibbies are selling, @ICBM made a great point that when coke went to new coke and back again, the return of the original recipe actually included cost savings that weren't widely picked up as everyone was just relieved that coke tasted relatively 'normal' again.

I thought this was such an interesting prospect that it was worthy of its own discussion, so to directly quote ICBM: "So to cut a long story short, what long-term cost-saving change can we expect from Gibson, disguised by a return to the "proper" spec that everyone wants?"
.
Personally, my thoughts are that I can't see production moving outside the US, but I could see the USA line dropping nitro, leaving the custom shop making both nitro short tenon guitars and then the high end true vintage.
.
What do you guys think?

Teetonetal

Bolt on neck....

stickyfiddle

Honestly, the big costs they can change are the finish (or rather the time and climate-controlled storage space required to allow the finish to cure), and the cost of labour.

So I can see them going to Japan or Korea as Gretsch did, or switching to some kind of poly-type finish, as basically everyone else has. Those are certainly the 2 options I'd look at if I was running the show.  Well, besides CNC-ing the neck joints so they always fitted perfectly every time, which would presumably save a buttload of time on each LP.

But honestly, as much as HenryJ appears to be a dick, they must be terrified of what's going to happen over the next decade. It ain't going to be growth unless another Slash or Cobain comes along, but I just cant see that happening.

crunchman

There will probably be another attempt at a futuristic do it all guitar.  It's a while since the Firewood X.

There will be a new Real Verified Extra True Historic that costs £15,000.

Alternatively, if sales have tanked as badly as people are saying they have, then maybe Henry will be forced out and some sense will prevail.

xSkarloey

Make some lefties.

I mean, do you know how much it pains me not to be able to join in writing stuff like "have you tried the new Gibbos? They're pants"?

Phil_aka_Pip

I'd tool up for making the traditional designs with consistent build quality. Nobody criticises Yamaha for building guitars out of parts made on CNC machines, and if they do criticise Yams for being "soul-less" I don't believe that is because they are built with CNC-produced parts, it's probably because the pickups are "too consistent" in their windings and have magnets that are closely matched.

Saving the labour costs and improving perceived build quality while shifting more product for an affordable price would be one way for Gibson wi back the street-cred they've lost over the years.

underdog

They won't cut costs because they can increase price instead. Gibson's will sell, if they just switch back to a more traditional guitar they will sell, guitarists are boring, we like the same old stuff.

xmrchi

I will put money in it we will never see a non American gibson(core line) , that would be the final nail in the coffin, Americans are in another league when it comes to patriotism. Gibson's biggest market is the US, with the heritage and the stigma of overseas guitars they wouldn't take that chance, plus they would be competing with 2nd American Gibson's, they may eventually have a line which is Asian made but it will never be the core line.
As much as the 2015 line has been lauded, Gibson are not stupid, they know their demographic (middle age white men), and due to now trying to be a lifestyle brand won't chance something as risky as moving production.

ThePrettyDamned

I hope they automate the neck fit areas more - a more consistent fit and one less thing to look for when picking a Gibson.

Other than that, I don't want to see cost saving. I don't really want Gibson to be a cheap brand - Yeah, they can have lower product lines such as the lpj and melody makers, but I don't want to see a thousand different models of les paul. The cheap brand is epiphone.

If they have to charge a couple of grand to make a great quality, consistently well built and beautiful looking les paul, explorer or firebird then they should charge that much - but make sure they're all done right, just the way the customer wants it. Then you axe the custom shop R series - just have them as regular models, just as they always were back in the day. The custom shop should be reserved for, you know, custom stuff for shops to order and spec themselves and artist models.

jpttaylor

I don't quite get how Gibson can justify their prices in the market anymore.

I wonder if Gibson now have some work to do on the actual basic craftsmanship of their guitars. It's all very well having the historic brand logo on the headstock but if the guitar plays like shit then no one's going to want it. Their issues with quality control are notorious across gear forums.

If Fender/Squier can release guitars costing sub-£300 like the Classic Vibes then surely Gibson can afford to lower the RRP on theirs even just by a little bit. I appreciate Gibson will use all US parts and exotic woods but charging over twice that seems a bit much to me. 

Knowing their typical demographic however, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't do much except maybe take the min-e-tune system out. Like @mrchi said, Americans will laud them purely for continuing to build their guitars in the states and that's probably enough for some people.

Sassafras

They could get a Bishop or a Lutheran Priest to bless them at the end of the production line. Americans like that kind of thing. Or even better, have a fully automatic assault rifle built into the case.

xmrchi

Sassafras;666215" said:

They could get a Bishop or a Lutheran Priest to bless them at the end of the production line. Americans like that kind of thing. Or even better, have a fully automatic assault rifle built into the case.

Neil

jpttaylor said:

If Fender/Squier can release guitars costing sub-£300 like the Classic Vibes then surely Gibson can afford to lower the RRP on theirs even just by a little bit. I appreciate Gibson will use all US parts and exotic woods but charging over twice that seems a bit much to me. 

 Because nobody in Tennessee will work for 20p a week?

In answer to the OP's question - they won't do anything.

Why should they?

Chalky

Wisdom to @mrchi comment earlier. Plus I think we will see the standard return to standard and I expect some more experimental guitars - stratalike or telealike? :-?

equalsql

Perhaps they'll create a Japanese QC dept or even better farm QC out to Tokai Japan.

equalsql

Neil said:

jpttaylor said:

If Fender/Squier can release guitars costing sub-£300 like the Classic Vibes then surely Gibson can afford to lower the RRP on theirs even just by a little bit. I appreciate Gibson will use all US parts and exotic woods but charging over twice that seems a bit much to me. 

 Because nobody in Tennessee will work for 20p a week?

These boys will:

xmrchi

Chalky;666281" said:

Wisdom to @mrchi comment earlier. Plus I think we will see the standard return to standard and I expect some more experimental guitars - stratalike or telealike? :-?

Cheers @Chalky I'm 6 off 2k frets so I got to a pull the big guns out :-P

Chalky

terada

Neil said:

In answer to the OP's question - they won't do anything.

Why should they?

I'm not sure but wonder whether my intensions for the thread have been slightly missed. The business rationale for doing it would be that if it worked, they'd make better margins on the guitars they make from 2016 onwards. 

My point is less for what will we be released (I think its probably quite likely we'll get a more 'normal' spec les paul for example), but rather which 'back-door' cost savings Gibson may include alongside such a shift.

For example:

2015: Gibson release guitars that are (supposedly) widely disliked by target demographic.

2016: Gibson go back to the old style guitars, but with a number of cost saving elements that prior to 2015 would have been held in contempt. These cost saving elements are accepted by target demographic as the lesser of two evils. The "at least they're better than they were in 2015" attitude.

I was curious as what these back door cost savings might be, such as poly finishes/ country of production changes/headstock joints/binding etc etc.

—————————————————————————————————————

In addition to this, it is clear from the changes made to both the USA line and Custom shop, that Gibson are in a period of flux. 

This makes sense as prior to 2015 Gibson was stuck in a cycle of seasonal blow outs, and sales like these eventually reduce the perceived value of your product. 

One possibility would be for Gibson to change the USA line to all poly finishes, but reduce the RRP to 2014 levels. 

In this example, their marketing dept would say that by changing to poly they could reduce prices significantly (compared to 2015 RRP), whereas in reality they would actually be at the same level that they had been in 2014. 

The market would never have accepted this without the price hike and the major changes made to 2015 Gibsons. For the cost of a single years lowered profits (and when they get blown out people will buy them anyway), Gibson would have achieved a more sustainable margin for many years to come.

chrisj1602

Have they got the balls to admit they got it so incredibly wrong with the 2015s?

usedtobe

equalsql;666301" said:

Neil said:








jpttaylor said:





If Fender/Squier can release guitars costing sub-£300 like the Classic Vibes then surely Gibson can afford to lower the RRP on theirs even just by a little bit. I appreciate Gibson will use all US parts and exotic woods but charging over twice that seems a bit much to me. 






 Because nobody in Tennessee will work for 20p a week?










These boys will:

Employees of the month, 3 years on the trot.