# Interesting article on the state of Fender



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

Anyone trying to sell guitars on the secondary market lately can feel their pain...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/business/fender-aims-to-stay-plugged-in-amid-changing-music-trends.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&smid=tw-nytimes&partner=rss&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1348984562-qJSDjbJLuZwERuvwz4IfIQ&


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Thanks...very interesting read indeed.

Times are tough for music stores....this article gives us insight as to some of the reasons.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Once upon a time, the major western companies - Fender, Gibson, Gretsch, Guild, Martin - turned out ONLY higher-end instruments for the discerning and dedicated buyer. If you were only dickering around, and were one of those kids that bought a cheap guitar and amp during high school and put it in the garage a few years later, there were other brands for you, usually budget Asian or Italian imports from a department store. When you got serious, you would pony up the dough for a name brand. Until then you simply dreamed about doing so. The big North American builders were content to do a good job at what they did, serve their niche, and stay comfortably afloat.

In the 70's, as interest in acoustics waned and interest in electrics picked up, and especially as manufacturing techniques changed, and Asian manufacturers were able to start pursuing North American markets, we saw the emergence of look-alike "lawsuit" guitars. North American manufacturers took some steps to protect their trademarks, but in the end not nearly enough. Perhaps the assumption was that people would simply *know* that, no matter what the guitar looked like, or even sounded like (to the novice ear), if it didn't have "the name" on the headstock, it simply wasn't the same thing, and was multiple notches below. As we got into the 80's, especially after some very bizarre efforts from both Fender (Katana?) and Gibson (Corvus?) to go beyond their usual offerings, and as newer companies or established conglomerates - some boutique, like Hamer, and others more oriented towards mass markets, like Ibanez, Yamaha, or Hondo - got into the guitar game, the push was on for the major North American makers to maintain their brand and hang onto their market share.

But what seemed to happen was that, instead of fighting to maintain their trademarks and brand, they decided to expand, and fight the budget-makers on their own terms. It was as if Holt-Renfrew or Harry Rosen decided they weren't big enough, so now they were going to try and be Wal-Mart. Clearly, this was the sort of mentality one moves toward when the goal is to make shareholders happy, instead of simply having company pride, a decent product, secure employment, and a steady income.

And when both Gibson and Fender decided to go after the low end market, they kind of lost their brand. Perhaps professionals know the difference between an $80 Strat clone or an Affinity model, and a custom shop or American Standard, but there are a whole lot of kids who simply don't hear it. How many guys here have as much as outright stated that there was no point in buying an ES-335 at Gibson prices, when an Epiphone Dot did the job for 1/6 the price. Moreover, with contemporary production techniques, the gap between Fender, or anyone else's made-in-Asia low end, and the mid-to-upper end models, is smaller than it was 40 years ago. The Pan, Apollo, Emperador, Kent, or Raven guitar I might have bought at the local department store for $129 was several orders of magnitude below what I would have gotten for $800 back then. Shit pickups, shit bridge, shit tremolo, shit electronics, shit tuners, and a neck that wanted to keep bending over to lick its own crotch like a dog. So people are content with the bargain basement, and whether that Strat clone says Fender, or Turser, or any other name, is not that important, or as important as the shareholders and marketing people thought it would be.

Fender and Gibson panicked a decade back, and tried to have their legal departments fix the problem their marketing people had created, to reverse "brand erosion". In Gibson's case, they sued PRS because the Single-Cut looked too much like a Les Paul, and they lost. The horse had left the barn 30 years earlier, and the lawyers were yelling "Dammit, you get back IN there!".

Nope, Fender's "problems" aren't part of some economic downturn. They wanted to fly too near the sun using wings made of the crap that falls off Canada geese when they fight. Plain old hubris and the sense that if it isn't bigger, it doesn't count. Maybe it was the eagerness of Leo's widow, maybe it was a board of directors. Whatever it was, it sure as hell wasn't anything like the operation it started out as.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

Quote mhammer "Shit pickups, shit bridge, shit tremolo, shit electronics, shit tuners, and a neck that wanted to keep bending over to lick its own crotch like a dog."

That certainly sums up your thoughts....LOL. 
Not much of the guitar left after "subtracting" that list.

The dog's crotch analogy is far superior to the old, often used "pretzel" concept, for sure. 

Enjoyed your post...you write so well !!

Cheers

Dave


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Thanks, Dave. You'll note I did not cast aspersions on the colour schemes, pickguards, bindings, inlay or wood! Budget import guitars from the 60's and 70's did not use crappier wood than budget import guitars of today. And while the pickguards may have degraded over time, as those sorts of plastic products often do, they didn't start out that way. I still want a Teisco Spectrum with the rainbow-coloured rocker switches.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

Fender also needs to stop making 400 variations of Strats and Teles.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Yeah, it's a bit like Ford calling a Focus with different upholstery options a different "model", or Harveys having a huge menu that lets you order the lettuce-tomatoes-but-no-pickle burger.


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

I love the way they twice refer to Duff as "Mr. McKagan". Sounds like your friend's dad, not the bassist from Guns 'n' Revolver. "Hello Mr. McKagan, can Izzy come out to play?"


----------



## Roryfan (Apr 19, 2010)

The article mentioned how vintage Fenders are hurting their sales, but I also think that gently used newer models are taking a pretty big bite out of new guitar sales. 

Thanks to the recession, there are lots of guys who need to sell gear quickly. Buyers who have cash are able to find deals that are good enough (after the HST is factored in a used US strat is usually $500-600 less vs. new - - the savings on a Custom Shop guitar are several times that amount) to offset any concerns of not having a warranty or getting the exact colour. 



Hamstrung said:


> Anyone trying to sell guitars on the secondary market lately can feel their pain...
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/business/fender-aims-to-stay-plugged-in-amid-changing-music-trends.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&smid=tw-nytimes&partner=rss&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1348984562-qJSDjbJLuZwERuvwz4IfIQ&


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

Good point Rf, guitars are still selling, just not as many new ones.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

There's too many companies making guitars.

And considering that many instruments have been around 50 or more years, a person could play all their life and never buy a new one. This is the sort of business best left to the small family company, where a smaller rate of profit and low growth go hand-in-hand with pride in quality workmanship.

Perhaps this is why small boutique producers are taking an increased share of the market. They have no big shareholders on their backs forcing them to sacrifice quality for increased sales. They simply strive for perfection and make a living at it.


----------



## Robert1950 (Jan 21, 2006)

Krelf said:


> Perhaps this is why small boutique producers are taking an increased share of the market. They have no big shareholders on their backs forcing them to sacrifice quality for increased sales. They simply strive for perfection and make a living at it.


That's what I was thinking.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

+1

Maybe their board confuses guitars with things that we treat like consumables: cellphoes, printers, tvs, etc. Apparently guitars get better with age, not merely obsolete. Amazing!


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)

That is a good point about smaller builders.

A whole lot more of them than ten or twenty years ago.
Lower overhead, more attention to detail, high quality control (or more consistant).
That'll take a bite out of your guitar building business.


----------



## FrankyNoTone (Feb 27, 2012)

I think Fenders were never "high end" quality guitars. They were designed to be mass produced by unskilled (Mexican) labor. I would say that the MIM Fenders and Squire's are closer to the iconic guitars of the 50-60's. It doesn't take a mechanical engineer to look at the Strat's tremolo or the Tele's ashtray bridge to see that these were not precision instruments. And the amps were taken straight from a tube design cookbook and fortunately, mediocre fidelity amplification was ideal for guitars.

So the only magic this gear had came from the players and they are passing away now along with the relevance of guitars in mainstream music. I don't see much future in Fender except for nostalgia.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

FrankyNoTone said:


> . I don't see much future in Fender except for nostalgia.


They're more or less a household name, which is part of why I think they'll stick around.


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

FrankyNoTone said:


> I think Fenders were never "high end" quality guitars. They were designed to be mass produced by unskilled (Mexican) labor. I would say that the MIM Fenders and Squire's are closer to the iconic guitars of the 50-60's. It doesn't take a mechanical engineer to look at the Strat's tremolo or the Tele's ashtray bridge to see that these were not precision instruments. And the amps were taken straight from a tube design cookbook and fortunately, mediocre fidelity amplification was ideal for guitars.
> 
> So the only magic this gear had came from the players and they are passing away now along with the relevance of guitars in mainstream music. I don't see much future in Fender except for nostalgia.


It's funny how Fenders were meant to be the 'beater' that you can take out on gigs and bang up, and it didn't matter because it wasn't as valuable as other brands.


----------



## kat_ (Jan 11, 2007)

mhammer said:


> Maybe it was the eagerness of Leo's widow


Does she have any involvement at Fender? Why would she? A friend of mine met her during a tour of the G&L factory in the 90s so she definitely stayed involved there after Leo's death. Why would she have anything to do with a company that her husband had sold 25 years before he died?


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

how could it be a surprise? i mean seriously, there's only so many people out there ready to spend too much on a new instrument. same with the "other" brand. they both chose to brand themselves they way they have. let them reap the consequences. frankly, it wouldn't break my heart if they went tits up. i'm sure someone out there would step right into their shoes. when factory made guitars become so expensive they make custom builds competitive for price, things have long passed the point of ridiculousness.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Very fair question. I have no idea of the extent of any involvement she might have with respect to a seat on the board or anything like that (it DOES bear his name, after all). Leo DID sell the company, but I'm not privy to what the full nature of the deal was. If Mrs. Fender is entirely out of the picture, then I respectfully and humbly withdraw any innuendo....and chalk up any and all bad decisions to the bozos he sold and waved goodbye to.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

cheezyridr said:


> how could it be a surprise? i mean seriously, there's only so many people out there ready to spend too much on a new instrument. same with the "other" brand. they both chose to brand themselves they way they have. let them reap the consequences. *frankly, it wouldn't break my heart if they went tits up*. i'm sure someone out there would step right into their shoes. when factory made guitars become so expensive they make custom builds competitive for price, things have long passed the point of ridiculousness.


When you consider exactly how many decent instruments are out there, with their name on it, or someone else's who knows how to make a decent instrument, I'm with you on that. It's not like it's the last dairy to sell milk in bottles, or the last company to make a car radio with push buttons where, once they stop, that category of technology will soon vanish.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

butterknucket said:


> Fender also needs to stop making 400 variations of Strats and Teles.


This is one of the things that got GM in trouble.


----------



## GuitarT (Nov 23, 2010)

> It's funny how Fenders were meant to be the 'beater' that you can take out on gigs and bang up, and it didn't matter because it wasn't as valuable as other brands.


Huh??? When was that? I was raised in a musical family and started playing guitar in the 70's. I don't recall anyone who thought of a Fender as a "beater" guitar back then. In fact I don't remember anyone with a beater guitar mentality back then. A new Strat would run you about $750-$800 back in the late 1970's and that was a lot of money back then considoring general labourers were making about $5-$7 per hour so believe me for those of us scrimping and saving to buy one back then they were quite valuable. All of the guitar players I knew treated their Fenders as well as their Gibsons or Guilds or whatever they played. Most guys would get their guitars refinished if they started to look too beat up. That whole "cool factor" of well worn guitars came much later.


----------



## Krelf (Jul 3, 2012)

In the 60s a Fender was the guitar of your dreams if you were young. You started off with a Teisco (most likely a Kent, Silvertone or Beltone) worked your butt off to move up to a Harmony, Hagstrom or Hofher and only if you became quite proficient and got a decent stream of funds would you ever have a chance to get a Fender. But in those days Fenders were all made in the US and a Fender generally meant a Tele or Strat, and cheaper models like the Musicmaster were few and far between.

My fear today is that if they close down the company, they will sell off the brand name and logos and they will be used on the cheapest of budget and beginner instruments made and imported by an opportunistic group of profiteers who care nothing about the esteemed Fender legacy.


----------



## FrankyNoTone (Feb 27, 2012)

butterknucket said:


> It's funny how Fenders were meant to be the 'beater' that you can take out on gigs and bang up, and it didn't matter because it wasn't as valuable as other brands.


Funny Pete Townshend quote:
I tried everything that I could pick up at less than the price of a house. There are pictures of me with a Gibson 335, Strats, Teles, Jazzmasters and Danelectros. *What* *I was looking for was not a good-sounding guitar but one that was strong. And so I used quite a lot of Fenders*. The necks never broke when I was doing my destruction routine, and gluing the bodies back together and rewiring helped me one step closer to becoming a luthier.
Read more: http://www.premierguitar.com/Magazi...Becoming_a_Gear_Aficionado.aspx#ixzz28AqMkUpW
​


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

GuitarT said:


> Huh??? When was that? I was raised in a musical family and started playing guitar in the 70's. I don't recall anyone who thought of a Fender as a "beater" guitar back then. In fact I don't remember anyone with a beater guitar mentality back then. A new Strat would run you about $750-$800 back in the late 1970's and that was a lot of money back then considoring general labourers were making about $5-$7 per hour so believe me for those of us scrimping and saving to buy one back then they were quite valuable. All of the guitar players I knew treated their Fenders as well as their Gibsons or Guilds or whatever they played. Most guys would get their guitars refinished if they started to look too beat up. That whole "cool factor" of well worn guitars came much later.


I'm talking about when the Tele first came out in the early 50's.


----------



## J-75 (Jul 29, 2010)

Just a brain-dump...

Leo Fender was a practical engineer - he experimented, and used real musicians as his testing program. He did this for years. He also hired talented staff to co-develop his products with him. Fender stands above all other music companies in that it has been successful and dominant in *two* domains: musical instruments _and_ music amplifiers. Although some have tried, no other has ever enjoyed that platform.

Fender's early success was partly based on innovation, and partly on acceptable Q/A (quality assurance). It is naiive to think that no other company can compete with Fender - they can, once they apply the same, or better, production standards. The proof of this has been Japanese production through the decades. Originally, Japan produced department-store crap (aptly described earlier in this thread), then the "lawsuits", and currently, under Fender management, lawful, fine quality instruments with Fender and Gretsch labels. Good stuff doesn't have to be made only by Mexican-Americans in California, it can be made in many places _under experienced Q/A supervision_.
China is rampant with producers of low cost/quality instruments, but anyone with one of the three classic vibe teles can tell you that with proper training and Q/A supervision, they can produce something that is definitely _not_ junk.
I think that eventually, China c_ould _be producing a lot of _quality_ instruments. I'm thinking the fact that guitar music is not native to their culture may currently be an impediment - i.e. they just don't "get it". I remember in the 60's when Honda introduced their first car here - a 600cc air-cooled, chain driven vehicle. We all laughed - it was a motorcycle under the hood - forgeddaboudit!

Out-of-the-box "Luthiers" are now popping up like weeds in my lawn. In the absence of formal training and apprenticeship, wouldn't it be questionable as to what they are producing? Aside from museum value, would you really want to own _and use_ one of Leo's (or Les's or Orville's) early attempts at an electric guitar? No credit for years of their experimentation and development? There seems to be a profusion of "Frankenstrats", possibly being assembled by pimply-faced adolescents, that profess to be superior, one way or another, to what are commonly referred to as "MIM"s. This is the curse of the bolt-on neck - their the most-copied, because they are the _most easily _copied. In most cases, the only genuine Fender component is the decal on the headstock. I've never owned a MIM, but if it bears the "Fender" name, then I assume it has been put through some Q/A prosesses, and final approval. Not so, the "partscaster".

I guess, in summary, people should give a little credit to Fender's early years of development.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I would like to see them get back to basics and have a few less varieties of tele and strat models. I think they will be forced to eventually. I also think that they will become the "in" thing to have again. It seems to go in cycles, strats are in this year, next year is a modded shred machine, the next year ya gotta have a LP, the next a PRS, on and on.


----------



## FrankyNoTone (Feb 27, 2012)

J-75 said:


> ...I guess, in summary, people should give a little credit to Fender's early years of development.


Leo Fender does deserve credit and its amazing how big a role he had considering that he didn't even play the guitar. That only reinforces the statement that with the right assistance, you can design and build professional grade guitars. Although truth be told, I would honor his memory by buying G&L guitars rather than Fender.

And as far as fads are concerned, I can't discount that Fender and guitars in general could be back in vogue. Right now the big world wide 15 minute sensation is the artist PSY and "Gangnam Style". Its worth a look on youtube to see his wacky dance but ya know, our parents probably thought Elvis' hip gyrations was pretty wacked out too... who knows, we could all be playing K-Pop soon.


----------



## PickALick (Aug 4, 2012)

Wow, very interesting article. Thank you for sharing that. 

I share a like mind with many other posters here, both "good" and "bad". If I may ... 

I've never owned a Stratocaster until recently. I'm "on the fence" as to whether i'd buy another again. Yes, the look and sound are, undoubtedly, classic, but holy friggin' CHEAP. I'm sorry, but that bridge _thing_ is cheap. I don't give a flyin' crap WHAT name is on the headstock, if you put that little turd of a bridge on a guitar and try to charge $1000+ for it you certainly aren't getting my money. The bottom line here, at least for me, is very simple - PERFORMANCE. The cheap design doesn't change AT ALL from the $129 Squier Bullet to the $1699 Fender *whatever* (sorry, I don't know what their super dollar Strats are named - I think it's ridiculous and totally don't follow it/them). Perhaps some would say this is a nice feature for musicians looking to get in on the cheap, and i'll give them that, but only that. Otherwise I find it disturbing. I've played a few of these $1000+ super dollar strats and they hold tune as poorly as the $129 Bullet. For me, when I experienced that with my own hands/ears/being I was crushed. I thought there had to be _something_ that separates the low end from high end but apparently not - or at least not enough. Yeah yeah, the pickups maybe are a bit hotter and there are "better materials" used (I can't argue the tuning heads - thank god for at least that much), but with most other manufacturers you get an overall ACTUAL *BETTER* guitar when you spend more money. I don't believe this to be marketing fluf at it's finest, albeit an arguable point, nor do I believe it to be The Board puppeteers' strings at play - this is just plain old poor management. PLEASE don't get me wrong, I enjoy my two cheap azz Squier strats, but to pay untold thousands for a guitar that is put together as it is is just absurd to me. 

You want me to pay $1000? Make it an Aerodyne strat or tele with a fixed, Kahler, Ibanez ZR or Bigsby (ANYTHING other than that pos that comes on a strat - PLEASE) and i'll HAPPILY tell Long & McQuade to put it on credit. $h!+, I don't care if it only came in pink - I have spray paint! 

_*disclaimer - I only feel this way about strats. Teles, thankfully, don't suffer the same bridge equipment so get less "unlove" in my books (amongst other, imho, superior design traits). I gotta have one of each, but I don't think you'll see me selling a tele. _


Anyways, that's point number one. I hope I haven't offended anyone too heavily. I understand the cult following of the strat, I have a couple that I enjoy very much. I just don't think there's sound business decisions being made with the above being taken into consideration. That's strictly the companies fault. (i'm trying hard not to break into another paragraph about the 50 different versions of this/that/the other models - the horse is dead, I digress).


The next point is short and sweet, as are my thoughts about things regarding religion, politics and business ... shareholders = $h!+. It's the same thing with all three realms, as far as i'm concerned. As soon as you bring in a "money team" to back things it all gets royally fv<ked up. Period, end of story, i'm done with this point.


Interesting and inspiring comments made about the small scale luthier. I didn't know how many local lutheries there are ... and i'm sure I still don't know. I'd soooo kill to get into this more, but ... I don't know, maybe i'm suffering a midlife crisis or something. Whatever the case may be, I hope that with big companies getting bigger it means that "the little guy" is able to grow as well.


I give credit to Leo Fender, hands down. *applauds* To FMIC, well ... *shrug* just another guitar company.


----------



## PickALick (Aug 4, 2012)

J-75 said:


> Just a brain-dump...
> 
> Leo Fender was a practical engineer - he experimented, and used real musicians as his testing program. He did this for years. He also hired talented staff to co-develop his products with him. Fender stands above all other music companies in that it has been successful and dominant in *two* domains: musical instruments _and_ music amplifiers. Although some have tried, no other has ever enjoyed that platform.


Successful and dominant - yes, but Peavey and Ibanez both make guitars and amps ... and lots of them.


----------



## WCGill (Mar 27, 2009)

PickALick said:


> Wow, very interesting article. Thank you for sharing that.
> 
> I share a like mind with many other posters here, both "good" and "bad". If I may ...
> 
> I've never owned a Stratocaster until recently. I'm "on the fence" as to whether i'd buy another again. Yes, the look and sound are, undoubtedly, classic, but holy friggin' CHEAP. I'm sorry, but that bridge _thing_ is cheap.


My advice is to look away and listen. I'd say the Telecaster bridge is magnitudes cheaper than the Strat's and I'm a huge Tele whore.


----------



## BEMUSofNrthAmra (Jun 9, 2012)

I'd like to see every big music industry player fall into a pit of molten-lava. Guitar-Center, Long&Mcquade, Fender, Gibson.... this would make tons of room for the boutique builders. I wouldn't mind if the world was nothing but small hand builders.

As much as I like Gibson and Marshall products, I wouldn't loose a wink of sleep if they were gone. I could easily buy a custom guitar with Gibson specs, or a custom tube amp with Marshall specs, besides, my Gibby and Marshals aren't going anywhere. I don't need new ones.

The whole "Fender, Gibson, Marshall" being the face of Rock music.... it's long dead. Grunge music killed all that. There was one last grasp at materialism in Nu-metal, but thankfully that died quickly. 

We're entering an age where all sub-$1000 musical instruments are made overseas. The only way to get something with hand-build quality is to buy boutique.

Long live the small boutique builders.


----------



## gtrguy (Jul 6, 2006)

GONE


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

gtrguy said:


> Competition means low prices.



obviously

http://www2.gibson.com/Products/Electric-Guitars/Les-Paul/Gibson-USA/Dusk-Tiger.aspx


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

A sign of the times. I would imagine that other guitar companies like Gibson, PRS, Martin, etc are also feeling the pinch.


----------



## J-75 (Jul 29, 2010)

gtrguy said:


> Just curious... where do you guys think 'the big guys' came from? PRS was a one man operation... you think someone wants to live hand to mouth building instruments one at a time versus expanding to actually be able to afford to have a family, a comfortable life, etc?
> 
> Not to mention- say the 'big guys' all fold.,.. what do you think is going to happen to prices for instruments? Competition means low prices.


+1 The natural course for someone who has developed a good product worth its value is success, and _growth_.

J-75


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

BEMUSofNrthAmra said:


> I'd like to see every big music industry player fall into a pit of molten-lava. Guitar-Center, Long&Mcquade, Fender, Gibson.... this would make tons of room for the boutique builders. I wouldn't mind if the world was nothing but small hand builders.
> 
> As much as I like Gibson and Marshall products, I wouldn't loose a wink of sleep if they were gone. I could easily buy a custom guitar with Gibson specs, or a custom tube amp with Marshall specs, besides, my Gibby and Marshals aren't going anywhere. I don't need new ones.
> 
> ...


The thing is, if the big amp manufacturers were to suddenly disappear, so would the tube manufacturers who keep them in business. 

Small tube amp manufacturers wouldn't be able to buy enough product to keep the tube manufacturers in business.


----------

