# Why New Bands Don't Play Gibson Guitars ?



## Derek_T (10 mo ago)

Any thoughts ?

I have the feeling this has more to do with MasterCard limit than artist signed...
Fender SRV sig: 2.6k$
Gibson es-345 Marcus King sig: 8k$


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Love clickbait titles.

New bands do play Gibsons…


----------



## Jaime (Mar 29, 2020)

*Boring shitty pop bands at Coachella don't use Gibson's.

Weird internet vendetta against a brand, regurgitated by douchey human advertising vehicle on YouTube.


----------



## gtone (Nov 1, 2009)

Vloggers need to come up with content on a regular basis, so some reach for something as completely absurd as this as they feel it's breaking new ground in some manner. Disregard - you have better things to do in life with your limited time on this orb.


----------



## crann (May 10, 2014)

Broad brush, but it does seem more of the modern guitarists prefer bolt-on, longer scale (25" and up) stuff. It's hard to think of a modern-ish guitar hero that played a Gibson, but JM seems to be epicenter of gear and his fascination with Fender, PRS, dumble, two rock, bluesbreaker pedals etc drive a lot of the current 20 somethings gear preference. My guess is most guys on here don't listen to "new" music or newer genres and if we're looking at country/blues you'll still see gibbys. Don't take it too seriously folks!


----------



## Thunderboy1975 (Sep 12, 2013)

Kids are stupid now days. They'd play a rubber band if Fender made it.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Thunderboy1975 said:


> Kids are stupid now days. They'd play a rubber band if Fender made it.


Matching headstock and binding lets go!


----------



## ZeroGravity (Mar 25, 2016)

There are so many good guitar brands out there that are on par or argueably better than Gibson and Fender to choose from, naturally there are going to be players who don't feel the need to go to them.


----------



## Xevyn (Jul 14, 2021)

One thing I have noticed though is that Fender does do a much better job of engaging with younger musicians and grass roots on their social media. Just do a quick check on the Fender and Gibson Instagram accounts and you can see a big difference. Gibson's feed mainly has pics of gear and all their artists whereas Fender has a nice mix of artists, gear, well known musicians and aspiring musicians. You can tell they are targeting the younger demographic.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

Budda said:


> Love clickbait titles.
> 
> New bands do play Gibsons…


Another proponent of the theory.


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

Who was playing Gibson's in the 80's?? 

Oh ya, no one!!! It was Strats, and Super-Strats. 

Then a dude named Slash came along, and everyone wanted a Les. It had it's dominant run into the 90's & 2000's. 

Ebbs & Flows dudes. Ebbs & Flows...


----------



## crann (May 10, 2014)

1SweetRide said:


> Another proponent of the theory.


In terms of sales I'd bet fender does more in sales than gibson. It's easy to find revenue statements from Fender exes but Gibson is usually pretty hush hush, which suggests they're lagging. No bearing on quality per se, other than public perception.

"Fender’s EVP of Sales for the Americas and EMEA Tammy Van Donk describes 2020 as a “roller coaster ride” for the guitar industry. “Demand evaporated in March, rebounded in April and exploded from May on,” she explains. “2020 ended up being the best year in [Fender’s] history with record sales of over $700 million, up 17% from 2019.” Gibson CEO James ‘JC’ Curleigh agrees, making a Dickensian reference to 2020: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,” he says. “April, May, and June were a challenging three months. But since then, we’ve been more than making up for it.” Gibson’s fiscal year ends in March, so annual numbers aren’t final yet but Curleigh says Gibson has seen a “steady increase in sales and growth” since August. "

From: Did Everyone Buy a Guitar in Quarantine or What?


----------



## Arek (Jan 24, 2009)

Thunderboy1975 said:


> Kids are stupid now days. They'd play a rubber band if Fender made it.


rolflol
I’m no kid according to calendar, but that applies to me too.
The brands like Gibson and Fender are burned into my brain.
Probably because of growing up in 80s and inside I am still a kid when it comes to music.


----------



## FatStrat2 (Apr 7, 2021)

I definitely agree that Fender targets the younger crowd and Gibson the more 'established' artist (which usually means older). But that's why Gibson owns Kramer, to try and catch some of Fender's runoff.

Given that, I've always thought that Fenders are fun affordable planks of wood, whereas Gibson are just better investments.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

crann said:


> In terms of sales I'd bet fender does more in sales than gibson. It's easy to find revenue statements from Fender exes but Gibson is usually pretty hush hush, which suggests they're lagging. No bearing on quality per se, other than public perception.
> 
> "Fender’s EVP of Sales for the Americas and EMEA Tammy Van Donk describes 2020 as a “roller coaster ride” for the guitar industry. “Demand evaporated in March, rebounded in April and exploded from May on,” she explains. “2020 ended up being the best year in [Fender’s] history with record sales of over $700 million, up 17% from 2019.” Gibson CEO James ‘JC’ Curleigh agrees, making a Dickensian reference to 2020: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times,” he says. “April, May, and June were a challenging three months. But since then, we’ve been more than making up for it.” Gibson’s fiscal year ends in March, so annual numbers aren’t final yet but Curleigh says Gibson has seen a “steady increase in sales and growth” since August. "
> 
> From: Did Everyone Buy a Guitar in Quarantine or What?


It stands to reason that the generally lower priced Fenders are going to outsell the generally higher priced Gibsons. Especially, to younger people.


----------



## CathodeRay (Jan 12, 2018)

gtone said:


> Vloggers need to come up with content on a regular basis, so some reach for something as completely absurd as this as they feel it's breaking new ground in some manner. Disregard - you have better things to do in life with your limited time on this orb.


See also, cable news and social media + grandparents.


----------



## Parabola (Oct 22, 2021)

People will play whatever they like, or what they have access to, or can afford.

I think what’s interesting is the kind of relationships all music vendors are cultivating with up and coming artists. I’ve read some posts on other forums from Gibson supported artists, and the deals they get are not what I would have expected to see. In most cases it’s a discount, financing options or a free guitar or two for touring.

There are also many vendors that refuse to do any kind of artist sponsorship or discount programs. I think they realize that there are very few artists that are going to bring in the kind of business (fan base) that drives enough guitar sales to make a substantial investment in artist relationships to make it worth their while.


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

Gibson posted sales of $593 million USD in 2021 and the entire guitar industry is absolutely on fire in terms of revenue. They'll be just fine. If we're talking about modern pop and rock acts, look at any awards show or touring act and you'll, generally, see a good mix of Gibsons, Fenders and some other notable brands. If we're talking about the absolute tip of the sphere in uber modern guitar-centric music (progressive, etc), though, I'd say neither Fender or Gibson really occupies that space. Different instruments for different purposes. As someone else noted above, this seems extremely anecdotal and intended to garner views through click-bait/shock value and is pretty much a verifiable non-issue at this point.


----------



## Xevyn (Jul 14, 2021)

1SweetRide said:


> It stands to reason that the generally lower priced Fenders are going to outsell the generally higher priced Gibsons. Especially, to younger people.


This is one thing that I've always wondered about with Gibson. Fender literally has something for every price range: Squier Bullet/Affinity/Classic Vibe, Fender Player series, Fender Performer/Professional/Ultra/American Original and then FCS. They have made it really easy for someone who started out on a $150-200 Squier to continuously move up the chain...whereas you have Epiphone and then Gibson USA/Custom Shop/ML. It's a really big price jump between the two and the Epiphones are starting to creep up in price now too. I always felt that Gibson should have something to fill the gaps between those two brands....or maybe just use the same headstock on both


----------



## jdto (Sep 30, 2015)

LOL these YouTubers are just jumping on the latest Gibson-hater troll thread at TGP to generate traffic and ad views. It appears to be working.


----------



## GuitarT (Nov 23, 2010)

SWLABR said:


> Who was playing Gibson's in the 80's??
> 
> Oh ya, no one!!! It was Strats, and Super-Strats.
> 
> ...


Yup, that's the exact reference he used in the video.


----------



## GuitarT (Nov 23, 2010)

jdto said:


> LOL these YouTubers are just jumping on the latest Gibson-hater troll thread at TGP to generate traffic and ad views. It appears to be working.


And ironically he's a pretty hard core Gibson guy.


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

GuitarT said:


> Yup, that's the exact reference he used in the video.


Did he?? I didn't watch the whole vid. I guess that's evident now... ops.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

SWLABR said:


> Who was playing Gibson's in the 80's??
> 
> Oh ya, no one!!! It was Strats, and Super-Strats.
> 
> ...


Yeah...no one like Angus Young, The Edge, Gary Moore, BB King, Joe Perry, Eric Bloom, Steve Howe etc etc etc


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

I just looked at the Coachella line-up too. How many of these bands are even guitar-centric music acts that would be indicative of or capable of influencing the modern landscape of guitar? Extremely few, if any.


----------



## GuitarT (Nov 23, 2010)

I've seen a lot of Rhett Shull's videos and quite honestly most of the time he's pretty spot on. In fairness to him he did frame it in the context of observations from one music festival but that doesn't necessarily make some of his conclusions invalid. I can't comment on what "new bands" are playing because I don't follow enough of them to know. I will say based on connections with young guitarists through my teenage son a lot of them do see Gibsons as "dad guitars". That doesn't mean they're all about Fender, in fact many who want and are able to spend the money are more likely to buy something like a Jennings or Reverend over a Fender or Gibson.


----------



## NotFromToronto (Dec 10, 2009)

I think his opinion is spot on… and I’d go so far as to say that I’d be surprised if Gibson leadership didn’t agree fully with it.

Gibson is a tricky brand though…their bread and butter market are absolutely gen x and boomers that have enough finances to be able to afford the more expensive guitar… and some of the thing they may need to do to attract the younger market may run the risk of devaluing the brand to the existing market.


----------



## Xevyn (Jul 14, 2021)

NotFromToronto said:


> I think his opinion is spot on… and I’d go so far as to say that I’d be surprised if Gibson leadership didn’t agree fully with it.
> 
> Gibson is a tricky brand though…their bread and butter market are absolutely gen x and boomers that have enough finances to be able to afford the more expensive guitar… and some of the thing they may need to do to attract the younger market may run the risk of devaluing the brand to the existing market.


This is where I think introducing another line or expanding the Epiphone line might help. Brands such as Cort, Reverend, Eastman, Schecter have all proven that people don't care as much about where the instrument is made nowadays so they could create a new line to target that younger demographic. If it bombs or doesn't do well then it's still separate from the main Gibson line and the existing market demographic.


----------



## Archeonn (Sep 8, 2021)

I don't really know much on new music or bands. Harry Styles plays Gibson (and Fender), but his personal style is sorta vintage-y 70's fashion too, so goes with the "old man guitar" lol.

I do know that when I was first starting guitar, the models were difficult to tell apart. I didn't recognize a lot of features of each brand or model, nothing about pickups, wood, quality. As long as it looked close enough or I liked the shape, it was fine. When someone walks into a guitar shop nowadays looking for a beginner guitar, the Fender options priced over a better range compared to the Gibson/Epiphone lines. Squier guitar + amp kits look like an actual strat, whereas the Epiphone equivalent is not only more expensive, but it looks like a less recognizable LP/SG Jr (The Slash starter pack is an exception).The "Fender" brand name and good-looking guitar in the MIM range is (or was, after all the price increases) available at Epiphone prices, but you can't get a Gibson name headstock for that price unless it's a faded model. When someone doesn't know very much about quality or playing, a guitar with a finish that _looks like_ a more expensive model is the better guitar. 

I noticed that when Gibson creates hype over a new release, it's for something like the $10000 Korina Flying Vs, or a new $7000 signature model like the BB King or Slash. They try too hard to be desirable just because it's hard to get, like limited edition sneakers and the Rally thing. The viral Fender stuff I see, is for stuff like the Acoustasonic and Meteor (Ok and Silver sky, which is a PRS but still looks Fender-esque). Like those models or not, at least it's something new and not riding on rich person collectibles. If Gibson's marketing is targeting the top dollar sector with exclusive releases and models based on guitar-hero nostalgia, that's who they want to buy their guitars- not struggling musicians and new bands. Perhaps Gibson wants regular musicians to play Epiphone, but imo, it's not working yet. A Fender or other brand headstock still looks more prestigious on stage than an Epiphone, with a history of being the student line.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

jdto said:


> LOL these YouTubers are just jumping on the latest Gibson-hater troll thread at TGP to generate traffic and ad views. It appears to be working.


Dunno, the two videos I saw seen to be evidence based. I don’t hate Gibson and wish them success so it’s not confirmation bias.


----------



## isoneedacoffee (Oct 31, 2014)

I think two things are true here for me:

1) Rhet wants clicks

2) It is indeed true that Fender does a better job in the current marketing landscape than Gibson. I am thinking beyond artist endorsements... Women who play guitar are both respected and represented currently within Fender. Better to my eyes than within Gibson. Fender offers online classes. They are free for a limited time with the purchase of their gear. That seems like a good business strategy to create brand loyalty. And then there's cost which has already been talked about a lot.


----------



## jdto (Sep 30, 2015)

1SweetRide said:


> Dunno, the two videos I saw seen to be evidence based. I don’t hate Gibson and wish them success so it’s not confirmation bias.


This is “newsjacking” at its finest. Take a topical issue from an enthusiast community and turn it into content. It works really well and I don’t doubt they’ve put together something slick, as they are both pros. I just haven’t been enjoying YouTube guitar “experts” much in the past little while, so I didn’t feel like taking the time to watch. Also, COVID has me feeling a bit grumpy lol.

Edit:

Ok, I watched Rhett’s video and he regurgitates the more reasonable talking points I already read in the TGP thread, so nothing too earth-shattering or original there. I guess it’s good content for his channel since we’re watching and talking about it.

Fender certainly makes more accessibly-priced guitars in Mexico and China. Gibson makes accessibly-priced guitars in China, but they say Epiphone on them. I wonder how Epiphone’s sales look in the youth market compared to the similarly-priced Fenders.


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

Gibson and Fender are both associated with "dad" music. Their most high profile brand ambassadors/artists are overwhelmingly deceased or over 40-50 years old. Even Fenders Charvel line is grounded in and formed out of 80s metal. Theyre not seen in the same light as todays Ibanez or ESP-type brands. This is a good thing, though, because most music today is overwhelmingly "dad" music (top 40, country, rock, R&B, etc) thats written and produced with these very instruments. Just look at the writing credits of today's most popular songs, copyright lawsuits, record company investments in older catalogues, etc. People form these ideas because of their perceptions and anecdotal accounts, but, like someone else posted, the reality is that the industry goes through cultural ebbs and flows and the real numbers don't lie. Gibson and Fender have both gone through periods of ups and downs and right now is a time of widespread industry boom (Fender at about $500-700 million in sales and Gibson at about $500-600 million). I have yet to see any quantitative evidence that this is the product of boomers and Gen-xers in the case of Gibson and young/modern players in the case of Fender. They're both storied brands with quality decades-old designs that aren't cheap.


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

nonreverb said:


> Yeah...no one like Angus Young, The Edge, Gary Moore, BB King, Joe Perry, Eric Bloom, Steve Howe etc etc etc


See! Nobody! A collection of nobodies. Ha, ha… 

In all seriousness, I think of a Strat when talking about the Edge. I know he “started out” on an Explorer, and some iconic riffs came from it, but he’s a Black Strat guy to me.


----------



## BlueRocker (Jan 5, 2020)

These guys seem to like Gibson (even though they're Zeppelin)

Greta Van Fleet










Harry Styles


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

SWLABR said:


> See! Nobody! A collection of nobodies. Ha, ha…
> 
> In all seriousness, I think of a Strat when talking about the Edge. I know he “started out” on an Explorer, and some iconic riffs came from it, but he’s a Black Strat guy to me.


So is David Gilmour but his most iconic solo from Another Brick in the Wall was done on a '55 Goldtop....so what counts? All to say, there were plenty of Gibson users throughout the 80's and 90's.


----------



## Xevyn (Jul 14, 2021)

BlueRocker said:


> These guys seem to like Gibson (even though they're Zeppelin)
> 
> Greta Van Fleet
> 
> ...


Don't forget the Jonas Bros!


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

nonreverb said:


> So is David Gilmour but his most iconic solo from Another Brick in the Wall was done on a '55 Goldtop....so what counts? All to say, there were plenty of Gibson users throughout the 80's and 90's.


I would never suggest there were none. I'm saying the scales were tipped towards Strats (and Super-Strats). Then they tipped the other way, and now they've tipped back. My original point of Ebb & Flow.


----------



## Jaime (Mar 29, 2020)

All I get from this topic on TGP and here is that the vast majority of guitar gear enthusiasts don't have an interest in listening to music/finding bands, etc.


----------



## paraedolia (Nov 26, 2008)

cos they think this is a musician


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

paraedolia said:


> cos they think this is a musician


One fun difference is that guy gets paid, and likely well.


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

Budda said:


> One fun difference is that guy gets paid, and likely well.


So sad, so true.


----------



## paraedolia (Nov 26, 2008)

Budda said:


> One fun difference is that guy gets paid, and likely well.


When I was at university, the hipster ents committee at my student union spent 2 grand on getting Paul Hardcastle to come play but refused to pay a grand for the Stanglers. Paul Hardcastle showed up drunk with a C90 cassette tape, put it in the deck said "I'm Paul Hardcastle!" into the mic and went to the bar. Came back at the end and put the cassette back in his pocket with one more "I'm Paul Hardcastle, goodnight!" and went home. Money well spent?


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

SWLABR said:


> I would never suggest there were none. I'm saying the scales were tipped towards Strats (and Super-Strats). Then they tipped the other way, and now they've tipped back. My original point of Ebb & Flow.


There definitely were a lot of Superstrats/strats. That said, it depended on who you listened to as well. I was never a hair metal or metal band follower (although there were a healthy supply of Gibson users like KK Downing, Rudolf Schenker and Michael Schenker come to mind) so my view is somewhat skewed towards the guys who were more akin to playing Gibby's....and there were lots of them. To me it really never changed...more lake shore than sea shore.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Mike_Blaszk said:


> Gibson and Fender are both associated with "dad" music.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

laristotle said:


> View attachment 414638


Yeah, you know....the people with money.


----------



## Parabola (Oct 22, 2021)

I’ll also point out that Gibson and Fender, while perhaps not supporting upcoming musicians in ways you might have expected, are heavily engaging social media influencers and YouTube creators . I’ve seen Rhett, Marty Swartz and others, do exclusive factory tour videos,where they are gifted guitars at the end. How many videos have we seen of these guys getting advance gifts of gear,with videos that coincidentally drop on the day that the gear is released to market? 

I see this emerging trend and redirection of supports that might have at one point gone to musicians, now going to social Media influencers. You don’t need to be a great talent anymore to land corporate support, you can be mediocre, have thousands of followers and likes for your content and do better financially than touring musicians with no social media pull. I wouldn’t be surprised if Rhett made more from YouTube vs a touring or session musician. 

Companies are smart to do this with people who have established a audience, and whom most people depend on to see gear, and hear opinions on it. But what’s the path for those who choose music over being a social media player?


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

paraedolia said:


> cos they think this is a musician


I would argue being able to compose that would qualify as being a "musician"


----------



## Archeonn (Sep 8, 2021)

Parabola said:


> I’ll also point out that Gibson and Fender, while perhaps not supporting upcoming musicians in ways you might have expected, are heavily engaging social media influencers and YouTube creators . I’ve seen Rhett, Marty Swartz and others, do exclusive factory tour videos,where they are gifted guitars at the end. How many videos have we seen of these guys getting advance gifts of gear,with videos that coincidentally drop on the day that the gear is released to market?


The companies send 50-100 guitars to various Youtubers, who make videos and are only allowed to release them on a certain day. Way cheaper than buying advertising. That's why all the Meteora, PRS Silver Sky SE, Gibson Theodore videos all came out at the same time. The Youtube creators either keep the guitar or send it back after the review, but it's good for their channel either way. It's a real problem IMO, If you give a bad or negative review, bye bye, no more free guitars for you. I usually watch Phil Mcknight because he says it like it is.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

Archeonn said:


> The companies send 50-100 guitars to various Youtubers, who make videos and are only allowed to release them on a certain day. Way cheaper than buying advertising. That's why all the Meteora, PRS Silver Sky SE, Gibson Theodore videos all came out at the same time. The Youtube creators either keep the guitar or send it back after the review, but it's good for their channel either way. It's a real problem IMO, If you give a bad or negative review, bye bye, no more free guitars for you. I usually watch Phil Mcknight because he says it like it is.


This is why influencers are BS, folks just glom on to what they have to say while the whole while they are just paid advertising. I find, these days about the only opinion I find that I can trust is my own, that or some bunch of collected misfits like one might find on, oh I don't know, a particular Canadian guitar forum


----------



## paraedolia (Nov 26, 2008)

Mark Brown said:


> This is why influencers are BS, folks just glom on to what they have to say while the whole while they are just paid advertising. I find, these days about the only opinion I find that I can trust is my own, that or some bunch of collected misfits like one might find on, oh I don't know, a particular Canadian guitar forum


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

paraedolia said:


>


Some days I forget how amazing that movie really is.


----------



## paraedolia (Nov 26, 2008)

Mark Brown said:


> I would argue being able to compose that would qualify as being a "musician"


_All our associates are busy helping other customers. Your call is important to us, please stay on the line and one of our experts will be glad to assist you. Did you know, you can find answers to many questions, place an order, and so much more on our website at double-u double-u double-u dot ..._


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

It’s a guitar. Any kind will do so long as you got something to say with it.


----------



## Midnight Rider (Apr 2, 2015)

I like Gibsons & Fender and owned some during the 70's and early 80's. Then by the mid-eighties I discovered PRS and G&L guitars and began to switch over. The main driving force for investing in PRS and G&L was due to what I felt was the diminishing build quality of Gibson and Fender products. The playability and overall construction of PRS and G&L at the time just seemed superior over the competition.


----------



## SWLABR (Nov 7, 2017)

nonreverb said:


> Yeah, you know....the people with money.


That’s exactly what I was thinking. Does it really matter if the folks on a big stage are playing them or not? There are more of us than them anyway. 
Gibsons are still being sold by the truckload in L&M’s and Guitar Centre’s. (I guess in the US it’s Center)


----------



## PTO (12 mo ago)

If we’re specifically comparing the Fender and Gibson brand families, my impression is that Squier has been a difference-maker in the last decade. They’ve put out some exciting reissues and adaptations for which there’s no “superior” Fender counterpart. Maybe Epiphone has as well—I’m sure there are examples—but I haven’t gotten the same broad impression.


----------



## BlueRocker (Jan 5, 2020)

PTO said:


> Maybe Epiphone has as well—I’m sure there are examples—but I haven’t gotten the same broad impression.


Crestwood / Coronet / Wilshire are Epiphone only, throwbacks from their vintage models.


----------



## Havok (11 mo ago)

Beato-Lite clickbait

I prefer watching thisHelpful. #shorts


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

paraedolia said:


> _All our associates are busy helping other customers. Your call is important to us, please stay on the line and one of our experts will be glad to assist you. Did you know, you can find answers to many questions, place an order, and so much more on our website at double-u double-u double-u dot ..._


Haha. I actually don't mind this tune too much but after reading this comment I can't unhear it. It totally sounds like fancy call centre hold music.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

Mike_Blaszk said:


> Haha. I actually don't mind this tune too much but after reading this comment I can't unhear it. It totally sounds like fancy call centre hold music.


I just want to demonstrate that they are definitely musicians, I thought popping bangers might not be the way to do it, too many folks just call it noise


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

I certainly don't want Gibson to go bankrupt by any stretch, but it's kind of hilarious to watch people over the last week or so decide that a company that has historically had many financial issues and consistently bungled their marketing attempts is now solid as a rock because the numbers of the last 2 years, which are universally agreed upon to be fugazi, look good.


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

Okay Player said:


> I certainly don't want Gibson to go bankrupt by any stretch, but it's kind of hilarious to watch people over the last week or so decide that a company that has historically had many financial issues and consistently bungled their marketing attempts is now solid as a rock because the numbers of the last 2 years, which are universally agreed upon to be fugazi, look good.


Their sales numbers have been good for quite a long time. The issue was their debt load from bad acquisitions/ventures. Even the year they went through the bankruptcy issues they had something like $1 billion in revenue.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

Mike_Blaszk said:


> Their sales numbers have been good for quite a long time. The issue was their debt load from bad acquisitions/ventures. Even the year they went through the bankruptcy issues they had something like $1 billion in revenue.


I completely understand. Their problem is their profits, not their revenues. Their new products have been flops since the 50's, lol.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Okay Player said:


> I completely understand. Their problem is their profits, not their revenues. Their new products have been flops since the 50's, lol.


Well, that's somewhat inaccurate as the SG and Friebird came out in the early '60's. To be fair, Fender hasn't come out with much since the early '60's either. What clearly differentiates the two companies and gives Fender a huge advantage is their amplifier program. Gibson was not even close when it came to design, models and sales.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

nonreverb said:


> Well, that's somewhat inaccurate as the SG and Friebird came out in the early '60's. To be fair, Fender hasn't come out with much since the early '60's either. What clearly differentiates the two companies and gives Fender clearly a huge advantage is their amplifier program. Gibson was not even close when it came to design, models and sales.


They only sold Firebirds for like 2 years before selling "non-reverse" because no one wanted the weird design. The SG's history kind of speaks for itself given that it was introduced as the Les Paul.
Those aren't great examples of marketing prowess even though personally I really like both of those guitars.

When you say Fender hasn't introduced much since the 60s I'd agree with you, but they tend to be fairly on point with their marketing and don't dump huge amounts of money into flops. Fender knows what it's base clientele and new clients want. Gibson seems to be completely tone deaf in that regard. You do make a very good point about amplifiers. That being said what did Gibson just do? Bought Mesa who make great, but very, very expensive amps that beginners aren't going to buy and even hobbyists like myself would have very difficult time justifying the cost of. For the record that's not me saying they're bad amps at all. But to get what I'm looking for in an amp from Mesa will cost quite a bit more than it will from Fender, Vox or Marshall.


----------



## Parabola (Oct 22, 2021)

Throughout its history, the groups that owned Fender, took chances and acquired other companies, they seem to have always had the goal of being diversified in the music industry. Leo started as an amp guy, and found his way into guitar. Not all areas of the Fender group were always successful, which is the benefit of that approach…survivability. 

Gibson had a different approach to the business, and they’ve also had their ups and downs. But, I think the main takeaway, is that they are both still around, relevant and thriving to this day. That’s a great accomplishment.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Okay Player said:


> They only sold Firebirds for like 2 years before selling "non-reverse" because no one wanted the weird design. The SG's history kind of speaks for itself given that it was introduced as the Les Paul.
> Those aren't great examples of marketing prowess even though personally I really like both of those guitars.
> 
> When you say Fender hasn't introduced much since the 60s I'd agree with you, but they tend to be fairly on point with their marketing and don't dump huge amounts of money into flops. Fender knows what it's base clientele and new clients want. Gibson seems to be completely tone deaf in that regard. You do make a very good point about amplifiers. That being said what did Gibson just do? Bought Mesa who make great, but very, very expensive amps that beginners aren't going to buy and even hobbyists like myself would have very difficult time justifying the cost of. For the record that's not me saying they're bad amps at all. But to get what I'm looking for in an amp from Mesa will cost quite a bit more than it will from Fender, Vox or Marshall.


I guess it's a matter of perspective. Yes, Gibson has indeed taken big risks on some designs that were initially huge flops....but some became huge successes afterwards. The V and Explorer come to mind. As for what their clients want? Well look no further than the Theodore....ugly as fuck, done in very limited numbers and sold out before they even hit the showroom floors. Here's the thing: Gibson has always been in a position to take chances. Why? A few reasons but some were to differentiate themselves. So how then do we measure success? Well in Fender's case it's make 25 different variations of the Strat and about as many of the Tele and some odds and ends Jags and Jazzmaster plus the prerequisite Jazz and Precision variations. Conversely, Gibson's guitar stable is truly vast. They make outstanding acoustics, basically set the bar for jazz guitars, rock and country guitars etc. For some reason, Fender has never been much on innovation in guitar design since their halcyon days and when they did, they too had a couple of flops..
Regarding Gibson's marketing strategy, look no further than the recent Korina V's and Explorers which had ridiculous price tags and all sold out immediately. Might not apply to the kid buying his first $300 Epi...but he's dreaming of that Korina so the press has taken care of itself.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

nonreverb said:


> I guess it's a matter of perspective. Yes, Gibson has indeed taken big risks on some designs that were initially huge flops....but some became huge successes afterwards. The V and Explorer come to mind. As for what their clients want? Well look no further than the Theodore....ugly as fuck, done in very limited numbers and sold out before they even hit the showroom floors. Here's the thing: Gibson has always been in a position to take chances. Why? A few reasons but some were to differentiate themselves. So how then do we measure success? Well in Fender's case it's make 25 different variations of the Strat and about as many of the Tele and some odds and ends Jags and Jazzmaster plus the prerequisite Jazz and Precision variations. Conversely, Gibson's guitar stable is truly vast. They make outstanding acoustics, basically set the bar for jazz guitars, rock and country guitars etc. For some reason, Fender has never been much on innovation in guitar design since their halcyon days and when they did, they too had a couple of flops..
> Regarding Gibson's marketing strategy, look no further than the recent Korina V's and Explorers which had ridiculous price tags and all sold out immediately. Might not apply to the kid buying his first $300 Epi...but he's dreaming of that Korina so the press has taken care of itself.


Personally I measure success of a business primarily on its stability. Gibson hasn't done a great job of demonstrating that over the course of its existence.

Personally, I don't know enough about acoustics to speak on the quality of a Gibson. Theirs look particularity pretty, but I shudder at the price tags.


----------



## tomee2 (Feb 27, 2017)

Mike_Blaszk said:


> Their sales numbers have been good for quite a long time. The issue was their debt load from bad acquisitions/ventures. Even the year they went through the bankruptcy issues they had something like $1 billion in revenue.


I was stunned to recently find out they bought Philip's in 2014, thinking they would turn into a lifestyle music brand... they owned the licenses to the brand names Onkyo, Teac, Plilips and Marantz (maybe others?)... just as the home theater boom was fizzling out. I'm not actually sure what happened but I'm guessing the bankruptcy they dropped that segment.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Okay Player said:


> Personally I measure success of a business primarily on its stability. Gibson hasn't done a great job of demonstrating that over the course of its existence.
> 
> Personally, I don't know enough about acoustics to speak on the quality of a Gibson. Theirs look particularity pretty, but I shudder at the price tags.


Both companies have gone from strength to strength. Norlin was the bane of Gibson at the same time that CBS was of Fender. Both companies almost suffered fatal damage because of it.
Therefor, I measure success based on where the companies are at this point. Both are showing strong sales. That said, Henry was troublesome for Gibson with his crazy Philips acquisition and other silly pet projects but that's behind them now.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

nonreverb said:


> Both companies have gone from strength to strength. Norlin was the bane of Gibson at the same time that CBS was of Fender. Both companies almost suffered fatal damage because of it.
> Therefor, I measure success based on where companies are at this point. Both are showing strong sales. That said, Henry was troublesome for Gibson with his crazy Philips acquisition and other silly pet projects but that's behind them now.


But again, Fender was bought by its employees, it wasn't unloaded as Gibson has been repeatedly. They were under Chapter 11 in 2018 and it wasn't due to low sales, it was because they were spending more than they were bringing in. It's not inconceivable to think that without the COVID-boom, they could be done. I hope they do something to create growth with younger folks and those of lesser means, but where Fender is refining their entry level Squier products, Gibson seems to be doubling down on their uber-expensive offerings. As they say, time will tell.


----------



## jdto (Sep 30, 2015)

Okay Player said:


> But again, Fender was bought by its employees, it wasn't unloaded as Gibson has been repeatedly. They were under Chapter 11 in 2018 and it wasn't due to low sales, it was because they were spending more than they were bringing in. It's not inconceivable to think that without the COVID-boom, they could be done. I hope they do something to create growth with younger folks and those of lesser means, but where Fender is refining their entry level Squier products, Gibson seems to be doubling down on their uber-expensive offerings. As they say, time will tell.


Isn’t that what Epiphone is? Epiphone is making some really nice stuff now and much improved over what it was a decade ago.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

jdto said:


> Isn’t that what Epiphone is? Epiphone is making some really nice stuff now and much improved over what it was a decade ago.


We're at the point where a new Epiphone Les Paul standard is a $900 guitar.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

Okay Player said:


> We're at the point where a new Epiphone Les Paul standard is a $900 guitar.











Epiphone - SG Special Satin E1 - Vintage Cherry


Epiphone - SG Special Satin E1 - Vintage Cherry




www.long-mcquade.com





I picked up one of those at L&M the other day and damn near threw down on it because it played so nice, but I figured I should hold out for my first cross over into the Gibson Family to be an LP. It was probably the wrong choice.


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Okay Player said:


> But again, Fender was bought by its employees, it wasn't unloaded as Gibson has been repeatedly. They were under Chapter 11 in 2018 and it wasn't due to low sales, it was because they were spending more than they were bringing in. It's not inconceivable to think that without the COVID-boom, they could be done. I hope they do something to create growth with younger folks and those of lesser means, but where Fender is refining their entry level Squier products, Gibson seems to be doubling down on their uber-expensive offerings. As they say, time will tell.


It was bought from its employees because the writing was on the wall. CBS wanted to dump Fender. It was extra costly assets just like Leslie and Rhodes were. Fender was not doing well at that time. Quality was a thing of the past so it's pointless to assume because the employees bought it that it was any better off...it was not.
I don't know where you get this idea that Gibson was "unloaded" repeatedly. It has changed hands more times than Fender....it's also almost twice as old.


----------



## jdto (Sep 30, 2015)

Okay Player said:


> We're at the point where a new Epiphone Les Paul standard is a $900 guitar.


And how much is a MIM Player Strat? Epiphone has guitars in the Squier price ranges, but bridges into the MIM ranges, too. The lowest-priced MIA Fender is quite a bit more than the lowest-priced MIA Gibson. The way they structure their product lines is different between the two, but they both have a solid presence from budget to custom shop.


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

jdto said:


> And how much is a MIM Player Strat? Epiphone has guitars in the Squier price ranges, but bridges into the MIM ranges, too. The lowest-priced MIA Fender is quite a bit more than the lowest-priced MIA Gibson. The way they structure their product lines is different between the two, but they both have a solid presence from budget to custom shop.


The boots on the ground reality beyond brand posturing is that these companies are more similar to one another than different in almost every metric.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

nonreverb said:


> It was bought from its employees because the writing was on the wall. CBS wanted to dump Fender. It was extra costly assets just like Leslie and Rhodes were. Fender was not doing well at that time. Quality was a thing of the past so it's pointless to assume because the employees bought it that it was any better off...it was not.
> I don't know where you get this idea that Gibson was "unloaded" repeatedly. It has changed hands more times than Fender....it's also almost twice as old.


Fender was founded like a year or 2 after Gibson's first sale. Gibson's been sold I think 4 times since then, Fender just to CBS and the back to its employees in the mid-80's. I'm not some sort of Gibson hater, I just took a bit of a deep dive into the histories of both companies around 2019, and one was starkly different from the other. Fender certainly isn't above trying to sell the Katana, or coming out with expensive pedal lines no one wants though. Don't think I hold them in some regard that's above criticism.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

jdto said:


> And how much is a MIM Player Strat? Epiphone has guitars in the Squier price ranges, but bridges into the MIM ranges, too. The lowest-priced MIA Fender is quite a bit more than the lowest-priced MIA Gibson. The way they structure their product lines is different between the two, but they both have a solid presence from budget to custom shop.


A MIM Player Strat is a Fender, so it's kind of a moot point. I'm not sure that as a general rule a Player Strat or Tele is a better guitar than a Classic Vibe Strat or Tele, but it is what it is. To some people the name on the headstock matters. What I'm about to say is obviously very anecdotal, but I've had more than one person tell me "Man, _insert Epiphone model_ is really nice. But if I'm paying $1000 I'd rather look for a used Gibson."


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

Mark Brown said:


> Epiphone - SG Special Satin E1 - Vintage Cherry
> 
> 
> Epiphone - SG Special Satin E1 - Vintage Cherry
> ...


Some of the Bonamassa Epphone stuff has been really, really cool.


----------



## jdto (Sep 30, 2015)

Mike_Blaszk said:


> The boots on the ground reality beyond brand posturing is that these companies are more similar to one another than different in almost every metric.


In the grand scheme of things, yes. They are both companies that make guitars across a wide range of prices. Before I started playing guitar, I couldn’t tell a Les Paul from a Strat from a Tele. They were all just electric guitars.


----------



## Parabola (Oct 22, 2021)

Okay Player said:


> Fender was founded like a year or 2 after Gibson's first sale. Gibson's been sold I think 4 times since then, Fender just to CBS and the back to its employees in the mid-80's. I'm not some sort of Gibson hater, I just took a bit of a deep dive into the histories of both companies around 2019, and one was starkly different from the other. Fender certainly isn't above trying to sell the Katana, or coming out with expensive pedal lines no one wants though. Don't think I hold them in some regard that's above criticism.


If you looked at the history, you surely noted the social, economic and geopolitical storms Gibson weathered, just to survive their first 40 years…WW1 and recovery, the Great Depression, WW2, and then enters with Fender into the post war boom. These companies don’t operate in a vacuum, they are affected by the times they exist in. Whatever their paths, success and failures, they are both here today and doing good things I enjoy Fender and Gibson products, they have sentimental value to me, and I’m hoping they are around for many years and that my kids and grandkids eventually are enjoying them. I’ll be long gone but hopefully my guitars will still be in good enough shape for them to play.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

To be fair, if both companies tanked today there are enough guitars out there to keep the population strumming for another 7 generations. Just @2manyGuitars would have to let some Strats go and @BlueRocker might need to lighten up some of them LP's.


----------



## jdto (Sep 30, 2015)

Okay Player said:


> A MIM Player Strat is a Fender, so it's kind of a moot point. I'm not sure that as a general rule a Player Strat or Tele is a better guitar than a Classic Vibe Strat or Tele, but it is what it is. To some people the name on the headstock matters. What I'm about to say is obviously very anecdotal, but I've had more than one person tell me "Man, _insert Epiphone model_ is really nice. But if I'm paying $1000 I'd rather look for a used Gibson."


As I said, they have slightly different approaches, but they run the gamut of pricing from entry-level to custom shop. Because Fender makes guitars with “Fender” on them in Mexico, they have a slightly lower entry-level, although there are Gibsons in that same range. Epiphone overlaps with Squier and some MIM Fender, as well as entry-level Gibson. It covers the bases for many different tastes, which is what both of these companies try to do.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

Parabola said:


> These companies don’t operate in a vacuum, they are affected by the times they exist in.


That goes without saying. Their rivalry (and changes of ownership) ironically all occurred during the same (electric guitar) period.



Parabola said:


> Whatever their paths, success and failures, they are both here today and doing good things I enjoy Fender and Gibson products, they have sentimental value to me, and I’m hoping they are around for many years and that my kids and grandkids eventually are enjoying them. I’ll be long gone but hopefully my guitars will still be in good enough shape for them to play.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

Mark Brown said:


> To be fair, if both companies tanked today there are enough guitars out there to keep the population strumming for another 7 generations. Just @2manyGuitars would have to let some Strats go and @BlueRocker might need to lighten up some of them LP's.


My Gibson count is probably at least double my Fender total. Especially if you don’t count the 2 Hello Kitty Strats.

Hell, just my SG count probably equals the number of Fenders.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

jdto said:


> As I said, they have slightly different approaches, but they run the gamut of pricing from entry-level to custom shop. Because Fender makes guitars with “Fender” on them in Mexico, they have a slightly lower entry-level, although there are Gibsons in that same range. Epiphone overlaps with Squier and some MIM Fender, as well as entry-level Gibson. It covers the bases for many different tastes, which is what both of these companies try to do.


I completely understand, but there's a very obvious pricing disparity between the 2 brands. Ie, If we pick 2 guitars from each manufacturer. Let's say the most obvious ones. The Strat and the Les Paul. The Les Paul is noticeably more expensive at each rung on the latter. When I got back into guitars a few years ago I was pleasantly surprised to see the price of a Les Paul Studio but at this point a Studio Les Paul is almost as expensive as an Am Pro II Strat.


----------



## Parabola (Oct 22, 2021)

We take the miracle of the electric guitar for granted these days, so much technology exists in modern music, the average home studio probably has more computing power and memory than 60’s era NASA. The technical revolution that brought amplification to music, brought many companies into the music space as innovators, manufacturers and retailers. Not many are still around From that era, but there are new players emerging all the time. We live in a golden era of music, we have access to the global holdings of all music in our pockets, there are countless resources, many of them free, to learn any instrument, or tutorials for any song, technique or theory. Excellent instruments are available at any price point. The sky is the limit in terms of creativity. Perhaps the next Mozart or Hendrix is cutting their teeth right now in their parents basement.


----------



## Mark Brown (Jan 4, 2022)

2manyGuitars said:


> My Gibson count is probably at least double my Fender total. Especially if you don’t count the 2 Hello Kitty Strats.


Well then.....
I haven't been around long enough you see, I was here on "all aboard strat" and seem to have missed the "Glutton for Gibson"
I stand corrected.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

2manyGuitars said:


> My Gibson count is probably at least double my Fender total. Especially if you don’t count the 2 Hello Kitty Strats.
> 
> Hell, just my SG count probably equals the number of Fenders.


I feel like neither company sells you many new guitars...


----------



## nonreverb (Sep 19, 2006)

Okay Player said:


> Fender was founded like a year or 2 after Gibson's first sale. Gibson's been sold I think 4 times since then, Fender just to CBS and the back to its employees in the mid-80's. I'm not some sort of Gibson hater, I just took a bit of a deep dive into the histories of both companies around 2019, and one was starkly different from the other. Fender certainly isn't above trying to sell the Katana, or coming out with expensive pedal lines no one wants though. Don't think I hold them in some regard that's above criticism.


It's been sold a total of 4 times.


----------



## 2manyGuitars (Jul 6, 2009)

Okay Player said:


> I feel like neither company sells you many new guitars...


Not counting guitars for my kids...

I bought my last new Gibson (one Les Paul) in late 2017. Otherwise, you’d have to go back to around 2010.
The last new Fender I bought was probably in the ‘80s when I worked at a guitar shop.
The only guitars I bought “new” in recent memory were some Supro reissues and even those were being blown out below cost so they were cheaper than used.


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

Okay Player said:


> I completely understand, but there's a very obvious pricing disparity between the 2 brands. Ie, If we pick 2 guitars from each manufacturer. Let's say the most obvious ones. The Strat and the Les Paul. The Les Paul is noticeably more expensive at each rung on the latter. When I got back into guitars a few years ago I was pleasantly surprised to see the price of a Les Paul Studio but at this point a Studio Les Paul is almost as expensive as an Am Pro II Strat.


I dont really think the price disparity is anywhere near what it used to be. I guess it depends on which models you see as equivalent, but Fenders have, generally, increased in price disproportionately in comparison to Gibson over the years. An American Ultra Strat is $2700 and an Ultra Luxe is the same price or higher than a Les Paul Standard ($3299). As someone else noted, they both have guitars in the same price ranges to compete with one another all across the affordability spectrum.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

Mike_Blaszk said:


> I dont really think the price disparity is anywhere near what it used to be. I guess it depends on which models you see as equivalent, but Fenders have, generally, increased in price disproportionately in comparison to Gibson over the years. An American Ultra Strat is $2700 and an Ultra Luxe is the same price or higher than a Les Paul Standard ($3299). As someone else noted, they both have guitars in the same price ranges to compete with one another all across the affordability spectrum.


Am Pro II is the "American Standard" in 2022. Standard to Standard and the Strat is $1k or more less than the LP. To compare a LP to a Ultra you're into your Gibson HP or Modern, or whatever they're calling it now. I don't even know what equivalent those weird ass Ultra Luxe gutiars would have, lol.


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

Okay Player said:


> Am Pro II is the "American Standard" in 2022. Standard to Standard and the Strat is $1k or more less than the LP. To compare a LP to a Ultra you're into your Gibson HP or Modern, or whatever they're calling it now. I don't even know what equivalent those weird ass Ultra Luxe gutiars would have, lol.


I think the Studio would be more comparable to an Am Pro. Les Paul Standard to Ultra and Modern to Ultra Luxe. So the price difference between models ranges from even to $300-600 and theres obviously construction/production differences to consider there.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

Mike_Blaszk said:


> I think the Studio would be more comparable to an Am Pro. Les Paul Standard to Ultra and Modern to Ultra Luxe. So the price difference between models ranges from even to $300-600 and theres obviously construction/production differences to consider there.


The respective companies call them their "Standard" for a reason.


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

Okay Player said:


> The respective companies call them their "Standard" for a reason.


Theyre arbitrary titles for marketing purposes and, in the case of the Les Paul Standard, history.


----------



## Okay Player (May 24, 2020)

Mike_Blaszk said:


> Theyre arbitrary titles for marketing purposes and, in the case of the Les Paul Standard, history.


We'll have to agree to disagree about that idea.


----------



## jdto (Sep 30, 2015)

Okay Player said:


> The respective companies call them their "Standard" for a reason.


This is true. That said, the Les Paul Standard is a fancier instrument than the Standard Strat, with flame maple, binding, fancy inlays and a carved top, so it is not surprising it comes in at a higher price point. Whether that’s worth it or not is an opinion thing.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

Mike_Blaszk said:


> Their sales numbers have been good for quite a long time. The issue was their debt load from bad acquisitions/ventures. Even the year they went through the bankruptcy issues they had something like $1 billion in revenue.


One billion in revenue? Do you have a source for that data? What business lines did that include? Seems quite high.


----------



## BlueRocker (Jan 5, 2020)

Mark Brown said:


> To be fair, if both companies tanked today there are enough guitars out there to keep the population strumming for another 7 generations. Just @2manyGuitars would have to let some Strats go and @BlueRocker might need to lighten up some of them LP's.


Les Pauls are not like cats, you don't have to push a shopping cart down the road when you have six of them.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Xevyn said:


> This is one thing that I've always wondered about with Gibson. Fender literally has something for every price range: Squier Bullet/Affinity/Classic Vibe, Fender Player series, Fender Performer/Professional/Ultra/American Original and then FCS. They have made it really easy for someone who started out on a $150-200 Squier to continuously move up the chain...whereas you have Epiphone and then Gibson USA/Custom Shop/ML. It's a really big price jump between the two and the Epiphones are starting to creep up in price now too. I always felt that Gibson should have something to fill the gaps between those two brands....or maybe just use the same headstock on both


I know people will play down the Epi headstock thing. But it is an issue to a lot of buyers. Every level of Fender looks like it's higher end counterpart. You can say that's silly, but it is a factor to some consumers.


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

1SweetRide said:


> One billion in revenue? Do you have a source for that data? What business lines did that include? Seems quite high.







__





Redirect Notice






www.google.com




"Between 2013 and 2016, Gibson’s revenue fell from $2.1 billion to $1.7 billion. The bankruptcy petition estimated its debt could be as much as $500 million."

Also, Rhett Shull, Beato and Dave talk about it in this video (11:30):





Don't forget that, when we're talking about revenue from this period, we're talking about gross income from every acquisition/venture as well; Not just guitar sales.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

torndownunit said:


> I know people will play down the Epi headstock thing. But it is an issue to a lot of buyers.


Some have done conversions by adding wings.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

Mike_Blaszk said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He's done a few of these including one about Apple being done too. I'm pretty sure I watched this one but I'll check it out again. I can believe $1B in revenue if it's including all of Henry's M&As.


----------



## tomee2 (Feb 27, 2017)

torndownunit said:


> I know people will play down the Epi headstock thing. But it is an issue to a lot of buyers. Every level of Fender looks like it's higher end counterpart. You can say that's silly, but it is a factor to some consumers.


It would be interesting to see what would happen to Squier sales if they changed the headstock shape to be different from Fender.


----------



## Fuzzy dagger (Jun 3, 2016)

“Why don’t new bands play Les Pauls?”, I know a couple of new bands locally and they play what they can afford. Mostly Ibanez, squire and epiphone. Godin and offshore Gretsch as well. You can’t really choose to get a Les Paul until you can afford it. By the time you can afford a $2000.00+ guitar, there’s a lot of choices out there.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Budda said:


> One fun difference is that guy gets paid, and likely well.


Probably true, but that doesn't make him a musician.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

Milkman said:


> Probably true, but that doesn't make him a musician.


Are we still gatekeeping “musician” these days lol


----------



## jdto (Sep 30, 2015)

Budda said:


> Are we still gatekeeping “musician” these days lol


A musician is a person who makes music, right? I’d say that a good DJ who mixes sounds and creates interesting songs is a musician.


tomee2 said:


> It would be interesting to see what would happen to Squier sales if they changed the headstock shape to be different from Fender.


I think if Epiphone went to the Gibson shape, it would be a hit. People responded positively to the most recent headstock change and the MIJ ones with the open book headstock always get ooohs and aaahs on forums. That said, Gibson seems adamant about keeping that exclusively for their main brand and I can understand their reasoning, even if I don’t necessarily strongly agree with it.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

jdto said:


> A musician is a person who makes music, right? I’d say that a good DJ who mixes sounds and creates interesting songs is a musician.
> 
> I think if Epiphone went to the Gibson shape, it would be a hit. People responded positively to the most recent headstock change and the MIJ ones with the open book headstock always get ooohs and aaahs on forums. That said, Gibson seems adamant about keeping that exclusively for their main brand and I can understand their reasoning, even if I don’t necessarily strongly agree with it.


What I never get with their logic is the customers that buy Epiphones aren't the customers that are shopping for their high end guitars. Obviously there's exceptions, but they are generally going to be people who don't have a few thousand dollars to spend. So I don't really get what they would have to lose by using it across their line. I would never pay a huge amount for a Gibson Junior though I love them because I don't have the cash. I would love an Epi version with the regular headstock though. So they would gain a customer in me offering that.

I actually don't mind the new headstock. I found the previous one ugly. Not just because it wasn't a Gibson one, it was just an ugly headstock (imo). I just don't see why they can't take it a step further and just use the Gibson one. It would only increase their sales.


----------



## Parabola (Oct 22, 2021)

It’s because they want to protect the branding, why would anyone buy higher end Gibsons if they could get the same in an epi? It also devalues the stuff that’s already been sold and out there on the collector and player markets.

I think Epiphone is cutting it as close as they dare, getting their customers close enough to Gibson style without undercutting them.

Gibson figures, and rightly so, that if you want a Gibson, you’ll find a way to buy one, so they offer models at lower price points and make things like financing available. This also enhances the branding as a prestige item.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Parabola said:


> It’s because they want to protect the branding, why would anyone buy higher end Gibsons if they could get the same in an epi? It also devalues the stuff that’s already been sold and out there on the collector and player markets.
> 
> I think Epiphone is cutting it as close as they dare, getting their customers close enough to Gibson style without undercutting them.
> 
> Gibson figures, and rightly so, that if you want a Gibson, you’ll find a way to buy one, so they offer models at lower price points and make things like financing available. This also enhances the branding as a prestige item.


Their core high end market wants a Gibson and has the money to spend on it. 
Those people won't buy an Epi and I am sure there are a lot of people just on this forum who are Gibson buyers that would verify that. And again, a huge portion of Epi customers can't afford a Gibson and never will. Financing is not winning those people over. That comes back to the threads topic on a reason why people wouldn't buy them.

Yes, it might be Gibson's theory, but it's just not correct and I do think they will "give in" at some point because money talks. Also, I'd venture to guess that at this point the Epi sales likely exceed the Gibson sales. They'd just end up winning even more by making the line even more appealing.

I think it's a case where theres a very clear disconnect between how customers of a high end product see things vs. the people who could never afford that product.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

Parabola said:


> It’s because they want to protect the branding, why would anyone buy higher end Gibsons if they could get the same in an epi? It also devalues the stuff that’s already been sold and out there on the collector and player markets.
> 
> I think Epiphone is cutting it as close as they dare, getting their customers close enough to Gibson style without undercutting them.
> 
> Gibson figures, and rightly so, that if you want a Gibson, you’ll find a way to buy one, so they offer models at lower price points and make things like financing available. This also enhances the branding as a prestige item.


It’s not the same. For one thing, the Gibson logo means something to consumers. Otherwise, why do you think Gucci survives and luxury goods are pretty much recession proof?

Not to mention wood quality, number of pieces, neck carves, electronics, wage and skills, resale, etc.

If an Epiphone’s headstock looked the same as Gibsons’, I don’t believe anything would change in terms of unit sales. People who can’t or won’t pay Gibson money will buy Epiphone and people who want a Gibson won’t see Epiphone as a substitute.


----------



## Parabola (Oct 22, 2021)

torndownunit said:


> Their core high end market wants a Gibson and has the money to spend on it.
> Those people won't buy an Epi and I am sure there are a lot of people just on this forum who are Gibson buyers that would verify that. And again, a huge portion of Epi customers can't afford a Gibson and never will. Financing is not winning those people over. Yes, it might be Gibson's theory, but it's just not correct and I do think they will "give in" at some point because money talks. Also, I'd venture to guess that at this point the Epi sales likely exceed the Gibson sales. They'd only win by making the line even more appealing.
> 
> I think it's a case where theres a very clear disconnect between how customers of a high end product see things vs. the people who could never afford that product.


Top end Epiphones right now are pushing close to, if not over $1000 with taxes retail. That’s creeping into entry level Gibson territory if you’re hitting a sale. There is definitely a path into getting into entry level Gibsons if one wants to save a bit extra, wait for a sale or do some sort of financing arrangement.

Gibson has no problems selling either Epiphone or Gibson models, and have done a great job keeping both lines fresh and appealing to their respective customer demographic. As a business they do see avenues for growth and have revived the Maestro pedal line and bought Mesa amps. Gibson will never devalue their flagship Guitars by blurring the lines between Epiphone and Gibson.

As someone who in life always didn’t have the ability to afford certain things, and still don’t, there’s no disconnect. I buy and enjoy the things I can afford, or that I see relative value in. That’s life, and it’s not unjust.

I could walk into my local LM today and spend $1100 taxes in on a new Epiphone Custom LP, on my local Kijiji right now there are 3-4 Gibson Studios listed in the $1150-$1400 range OBO, with an OEM Gibson case that you could probably resell for $150 easily, making the guitar cost that much cheaper.


----------



## Parabola (Oct 22, 2021)

1SweetRide said:


> It’s not the same. For one thing, the Gibson logo means something to consumers. Otherwise, why do you think Gucci survives and luxury goods are pretty much recession proof?
> 
> Not to mention wood quality, number of pieces, neck carves, electronics, wage and skills, resale, etc.
> 
> If an Epiphone’s headstock looked the same as Gibsons’, I don’t believe anything would change in terms of unit sales. People who can’t or won’t pay Gibson money will buy Epiphone and people who want a Gibson won’t see Epiphone as a substitute.


That’s my point, features of Gibson guitars are part of their branding and trademark. They have, and are actively suing other companies based on having similar designs including the headstock. 

Nothing will change the sales of either brands, but there would likely be a reputation hit attached to it.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Parabola said:


> Top end Epiphones right now are pushing close to, if not over $1000 with taxes retail. That’s creeping into entry level Gibson territory if you’re hitting a sale. There is definitely a path into getting into entry level Gibsons if one wants to save a bit extra, wait for a sale or do some sort of financing arrangement.
> 
> Gibson has no problems selling either Epiphone or Gibson models, and have done a great job keeping both lines fresh and appealing to their respective customer demographic. As a business they do see avenues for growth and have revived the Maestro pedal line and bought Mesa amps. Gibson will never devalue their flagship Guitars by blurring the lines between Epiphone and Gibson.
> 
> ...


The comment about the disconnect it not something targeted directly at you. Again, it goes back the actual topic of this thread. Which is why people might not be buying Gibson's. Also, owning a Studio just because it says Gibson on the headstock is not a lot of people's thing. Yes, I could afford a Studio likely if I wanted to stretch. I have zero desire to own one.


----------



## torndownunit (May 14, 2006)

Parabola said:


> That’s my point, features of Gibson guitars are part of their branding and trademark. They have, and are actively suing other companies based on having similar designs including the headstock.
> 
> Nothing will change the sales of either brands, but there would likely be a reputation hit attached to it.


There would be zero reputation hit. You should join Gibson's marketing team.


----------



## Mike_Blaszk (Sep 16, 2021)

torndownunit said:


> The comment about the disconnect it not something targeted directly at you. Again, it goes back the actual topic of this thread. Which is why people might not be buying Gibson's. Also, owning a Studio just because it says Gibson on the headstock is not a lot of people's thing. Yes, I could afford a Studio likely if I wanted to stretch. I have zero desire to own one.


People are buying Gibsons though.


----------

