A rant concerning Robots and Dark Fires...

[Plank_Spanker]

This is where I stick my head in the dirt as a Gibson "traditionalist". Gibson is exploring the market with the Robot and now the Dark Fire. They're trying to compete with Fender and Line 6, but they are ignoring their base market and pricing these "innovations" way above the level the target market can afford - while attempting to cash in on the Gibson brand.

The Fender VG and Line 6 Variax are priced well below whatever Gibson offers. It seems to me that Gibson has forsaken it's true strength and has decided that the cachet alone will carry the brand and command the prices. Gibson has discontinued a good deal of popular models lately to focus on gadget filled guitars in hopes that they will sell at typical Gibson premium prices. The target demographic for all of these gadgets is young guns - and they don't have the financial firepower for these guitars.

Whatever new group of suits is now helming Gibson, they are steering the wrong course. Their base market has always been a more well heeled, mature player seeking a great guitar and having the money to afford it - not some wild eyed kid drooling over the gadgets and Gibson brand cachet without two nickels to rub together.

Gibson's tradition of excellence does not lie in offering gadget and gimmick laden, iPOD style guitars. It lies in building a consistantly excellent line of "traditional" guitars.

OK..................................Off Rant!

It's Friday and I have a gig tomorrow night..................

Time for a cocktail....................................

[Tone2TheBone]

Plank be thankful that you have some of the last remaining well made traditional Gibsons. I been shaking my head at the backbone of the company for a few years now. There's gotta be some wealthy old school guy around that would save the world from it's peril and buy them out to bring back what once was. Maybe Steven Seagal will read this and feel moved to step in and help.

[hubberjub***]

Gibson has always likes to tread the line between tradition and experimentation. The initial reaction to the Flying V and Explorer was not public acceptance. Even the Les Paul was considered somewhat revolutionary when it was introduced. Granted, I am not a fan of the Robot or any modeling guitar. It's just a gimic. They have slashed the prices of the Robots recently. I do like the looks of the SG Robot in green. At this point it's cheaper than getting a SG Standard.

[araT]

Actually, the prices of the non-first-release Robots are falling dramatically..

In the case of the SG Robots, ZZSounds is selling them at $1379, MusiciansFriend has them at $1399.. lots of other bargains around to be found. While they may not have been priced for the general market to begin with, they are certainly amongst some of the cheapest Gibsons around now. This may be due to the imminent Dark Fire release, but regardless of what's caused it, they are definitely affordable to anyone in the market for a Gibson today.

I have a first-run Robot, and I'm very happy with it. I tend to use it most when playing songs in alternate tunings, I don't think of it as a gimmick/gadget, but rather a tool.

[Ch0jin]

In a way though it's got to be tough for a company like Fender, Gibson, Marshall, and Vox though. I mean if you listen to the internet and to a lesser degree, guitar players. None of those guys has made a product worth a damn for 50 years. Even if you don't buy in to that line of thinking, the collectible and second hand market sure does with prices of over $20K for "vintage" guitars and amps.

It's got to be a little frustrating from a marketing point of view when you are trying to sell almost the exact same product year after year for more than 50 years. I mean obviously they pull it off, but still, it's got to hurt a little that you can basically -never- say "This new LP is the best one ever!" or "The new Marshall XYZ Stack is the best ever made" because they just -know- that "purists" and collectors as well as people who never have, and never will play either, are going to start screaming "OMG WTF LOL!!! The Plexi was the best amp ever" or "The 59 Les Paul was the best guitar ever" and so on.

Sorry it's a little OT, but yeah, I love the idea of a robot and I don't at all see it in the same class as digital modeling amps. I also don't see it aimed at kids (OK so most music marketing is of course aimed at teenagers, but I don't see the robot excessively so) and I'll explain why.

Isn't the basic concept of the Gibson robot to tune for you? It's not about digital modeling and effects. It just tunes your guitar for you right? I ask any and all of you gigging musicians if having a guitar that not only holds tune, but changes tuning at the twist of a dial isn't something that'd make your life easier. Sure there's the "more electronics, more to fail" argument. But man, I've watched soooooo many guys have to re tune on stage for dropped D and swap out guitars for half and whole step detunes, and then there's slide/open tunings and the list goes on. What about re-stringing? Sure just threading the strings and clicking "go tune that sucker for me" is easier than by hand.

I see it as a great tool for the pro. I see it aimed at a pro for those reasons too. It doesn't profess to "make you sound like Jimmy Page" it doesn't add "vintage fuzz effects" and it doesn't claim to model the sound of a Marshall stack on 11. It gets you in tune quickly and keeps you there. Sounds like a pro's dream feature to me.

(note: I'm not affiliated with Gibson and am not a pro muso)

[Jimi75]

Be honest. Who in the world really needs a robot guitar? We all did get along pretty well with non-robot guitars, didn't we? All the real Gibson fan wants is good qualitly and keeping the tradition, which automatically leeds to excellent guitars. Spud, I can absolutely understand what you write. Just recently I was in touch with a Gibson guy and I believe they are still very conservative/traditional, but they fear losing even more markets to the other global players that put out "innovative" new insturments. The qualitiy issue with Gibson is well known and I myself bought an ESP Paula due to that issue, but I am quite convinced that Gibson will find the way back to its strength - that is when I will buy my Goldtop LP. It's like riding a bike. Once done you'll never forget how it goes. I do not know how open minded they are at Gibson, but I think that contacting them via email and telling them how frustrating the development of this company is to the enduser, they will maybe react - I took my chance to tell that guy that I met and he was right before making a business trip to the HQ in the USA - I bet this story didn't last long until he told it to the other managers at Gibson!

[Plank_Spanker]

Gibson's sole strength is tradition. While they have innovated in the past, their bottom line has always been based on their hard earned reputation of traditional excellence. They build benchmark guitars.

I fear that Gibson has lost sight of this and has decided to sell off the "traditional excellence" in favor of the current "quick kill" corporate model.

Time will tell.

[Andy]

gibson still makes classic Les pauls, SG's ,V's Explorers ,335's ect...... people don't get your get pantys in a twist just because they released something different .....It will be ...OK.

[Plank_Spanker]

gibson still makes classic Les pauls, SG's ,V's Explorers ,335's ect...... people don't get your get pantys in a twist just because they released something different .....It will be ...OK.

Time will tell. The Les Paul line has been compromised and bastardized as of late, and things don't look good for Gibson in general. The price increases alone are absurd.

[Andy]

I don't understand the price issue,
there are several guitar brand prices that make gibson's prices look quite tame.

Parker,Hamer,PRS,Jackson..just to name a few of many that are far more expensive

[SuperSwede]

There's gotta be some wealthy old school guy around that would save the world from it's peril and buy them out to bring back what once was. Maybe Steven Seagal will read this and feel moved to step in and help.

Thats really what must happen, it seems like most of their guitars today is aimed at suit-wearing corporate executive with fat salaries and not young aspiring rock stars.

[Tibernius]

I don't understand the price issue,
there are several guitar brand prices that make gibson's prices look quite tame.

But judging by the ones I saw in Birmingham last Friday (Music Live), they're much better quality. The Gibsons I saw were...barely better than an Epiphone. so the extra £2000 on the price tag compared to the Epi seems to give you a different logo on the guitar.

[Ch0jin]

Thats really what must happen, it seems like most of their guitars today is aimed at suit-wearing corporate executive with fat salaries and not young aspiring rock stars.

I disagree.

I actually work in marketing these days and one of the demographics I cover is "C Level" executives. CEO, CFO, CIO etc. As part of my role I need to be across what other brands and products are on offer in the same advertising space and I can honestly say I have never seen any advertising by Gibson in any medium targeting corporate execs. Of course I can only talk about Australia and NZ and things may be different in other countries obviously.

I think it's their business model that results in a lot of those type of people buying high end Gibsons. If they wanted to sell to the bottom to mid range budget they'd never have started Epiphone. Ditto Fender and Squier.

Keeping your products just out of reach of the average Joe helps maintain and enhance a prestige image that results in preservation of margins for Gibson and preserves resale value for the customer. If for example Gibson could actually run a business selling LP's for say $200. Assuming they sound every bit as good, do you think they'd be as desirable? I very much doubt it. Maybe, maybe, 30, 40 years later they might be (think 5F1 Champs for example) but now? No way. There are far too many people shopping for guitars, no, -anything-, who think more expensive equals better.

Some people -want- to spend the money so they can hold the guitar and know they bought a little piece of exclusivity. A status symbol if you like. The same thing goes on in the Automotive world too. Why does a Porsche 911 lose on a race track to a Nissan Skyline GTR, but cost three times as much? That's a concious decision by Porsche to preserve the prestige of the brand.

Anyway I'm rambling now, but in short. I don't see Gibson marketing to the rich. Rich people buying them is a result of Gibson successfully preserving their brand equity. Hey, if you can afford one, then you should be thankful too. If Gibson had become known as a "cheap" brand your vintage guitars would be worth FAR less now.

[Plank_Spanker]

Gibson markets to the well heeled - those that can afford them. Gibson has always commanded a premium price, and rightfully so for a premium guitar.

I just think Gibson is missing the mark with the gadget guitars - Robot, Dark Fire. Most players I know coveting Gibsons aren't in it for the gadgets - they're in it for the traditional excellence that Gibson offers. Most players seeking the gadgets are younger, and sorely lacking the fiscal firepower to swing these new gadget Gibsons.

Fender and Line 6 have covered this ground already with reliable, much cheaper guitars. Gibson is trying to compete in this arena.................fish out of water.

[sunvalleylaw]

I disagree.

Why does a Porsche 911 lose on a race track to a Nissan Skyline GTR, but cost three times as much?

Because of how they are weighted and the tendency to break their rears loose and spin a$$ backwards out into the dirt on tight corners. At least that is they way it was some years ago when I drove my little old Alfa against them on Alfa track day. The bigger Alfas were quite competitive and actually could beat the 911s. They were rear wheel drive too, but were weighted and drove better. Alfa was just never respected as much, except by true driving afficianados that did not buy into the "reps" and new the truth. But I guess that makes your point. Alfa started putting out excellent touring and sport sedans before BMW did. But BMW was more successful at building the prestige image.

Ok, this is about guitars. And Plank, if I was going to buy a Gibson, it would be a heritage line type, likely a Les Paul. Likewise, I would not buy some weird, auto tuning Martin. I would get a D-28, or even better a HD-28V. I think Gibson would be better off focusing on quality control, and making great guitars, but I wish they (Gibson and Martin) would sell them at a bit more realistic price. But because of the prestige marketing model described by Chojin above, I cannot afford to buy either a Martin or a Gibson. That chaps me a little too. So I agree with you, but I still wish they cost just a bit less.

[Ch0jin]

Because of how they are weighted and the tendency to break their rears loose and spin a$$ backwards out into the dirt on tight corners.

Well I did intend that as a rhetorical question, but great answer! I'm a bit of a motorsport fan too

Alfa started putting out excellent touring and sport sedans before BMW did. But BMW was more successful at building the prestige image.

Yes that follows my point. Another example of marketing Vs "real life" is Subaru and Mitsubishi. I was involved in Rally for a few years as the company I work for sponsored a national series. One of the perks I had was to get laps in basically all the manufacturers cars. (In Australia thats Mitsubishi, Toyota, Subaru and Ford). For the last few years the championship series has been dominated by Toyota with both 4WD and recently 2WD Corolla's. So you'd think that when we invited corporate guests along for a VIP day, and we asked them which car they wanted to go for a lap in they'd say "Oh a Corolla please". Nope. Almost without exception they wanted a ride in a rexy. I'd explain to them that the quickest car on the track is hands down a Corolla, followed by an EVO Lancer, and they'd usually pretend to think about it, and line up for the Subaru WRX.

I see parallels with Gibson. When I was last shopping for a new guitar the guy in my local store was handing me guitar after guitar from Ibanez, explaining their features, grabbing me different models to show me the difference in sounds and as nice as they all were, I still found my eyes wandering the rack of expensive Gibson's thinking "I bet they are better". Eventually, even after flat out telling me that I could get a much better guitar for the same money (advise I later took) I had to play a bunch of LP Standards and Studios. Why? Because of their brand image. If their marketing goal is to preserve their image as expensive and quite elite, then their marketing team is right on track in my estimation. It's about creating aspiration products. If people aspire to owning one of your products, you can basically charge whatever you like.

I know none of that helps a guy afford one, but as I mentioned, thats why Epiphone exists. If Gibson's were affordable, there'd be no point having the Epiphone brand. Running two brands gives Gibson, to some degree, the best of both worlds. You can either (broadly speaking) sell a small quantity of high margin products, or a large quantity of low margin products. Running two brands enables Gibson to do both.

Ok, this is about guitars. And Plank, if I was going to buy a Gibson, it would be a heritage line type, likely a Les Paul. Likewise, I would not buy some weird, auto tuning Martin.

Oh me too. I actually thought the auto tuning stuff would be a great thing for a pro musician but I'm not one of those so I don't really know. Plank also makes a great point about gadgets being the domain of the younger crowd. I overlooked that, but I agree.

I cannot afford to buy either a Martin or a Gibson. That chaps me a little too. So I agree with you, but I still wish they cost just a bit less.

Yes, but you clearly -want- to and thats a marketeers agenda, creating a desire for a product. I am playing devils advocate here of course in my whole defence of Gibsons tactics, but the fact that you want one means they have done their job well. You know you could probably buy a guitar the feels, plays, sounds and looks better than a Gibson LP from any number of guitar makers for less money, but you still desire a Gibson.

One of the things that finally got me to consider another brand (the one I bought) was, strangely enough, reading Slash's autobiography. The part where he mentions that the guitar he used for Appetite wasn't even a Gibson Les Paul, it was a copy from a local guitar maker.

[sunvalleylaw]

Ch0jin, you are right that I would like to own a real Gibson Les Paul. Mostly because of Mr. Les Paul. But I would more likely buy a copy from another make. I simply cannot, given other responsibilities, spend the extra on a true Gibson, at least at this point. On the other hand, I still have yet to find the Rosewood/Spruce acoustic guitar that makes the sound of a Martin D-28 (or D-45 for that matter) that I could buy instead. Maybe a Takamine? But I have not found the right one yet. I think the closest thing is the more simply appointed Martins like Tone got. That or maybe a Larrivee, though they really sound different. Anyway, I will stop highjackiing Plank's thread now. :-)

[Ch0jin]

Ch0jin, you are right that I would like to own a real Gibson Les Paul. Mostly because of Mr. Les Paul. But I would more likely buy a copy from another make. I simply cannot, given other responsibilities, spend the extra on a true Gibson, at least at this point. On the other hand, I still have yet to find the Rosewood/Spruce acoustic guitar that makes the sound of a Martin D-28 (or D-45 for that matter) that I could buy instead. Maybe a Takamine? But I have not found the right one yet. I think the closest thing is the more simply appointed, asian Martins like Tone got. That or maybe a Larrivee, though they really sound different. Anyway, I will stop highjackiing Plank's thread now. :-)

I'll stop being a hijacker as well

Just briefly though, I'm not sure where'd you'd find these brands in the US, but if you can find them, play them before you buy a Martin.

http://www.maton.com.au Very highly regarded Aussie made acoustic guitars

http://www.coleclarkguitars.com I think Cole Clark is an ex Maton craftsman, but regardless, also very highly regarded for acoustics.

Not cheap, but very, very good.

Both guys make wicked good electrics too, but if you're shopping for acoustics you owe it to yourself to try one

[sunvalleylaw]

That FL-3 from ColeClark looks very interesting indeed. Ok, I really need to hop off the highjacked plane now.