It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
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.
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"?
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.
Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
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.
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.
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?
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.