Who wants to be the next CEO of Gibson?

[re simmers]

When can you start?

[MikeEdgerton]

...Any questions ?

Yes. Any chances I could get a parking spot near the front door?

[Jess L.]

... I dont even think he knows what a g string is ...

Lol!

[pheffernan]

Any questions ?

What will the standard nut size be?

[Bertram Henze]

While I certainly agree with Shakespeare's sentiment, I'm not aware of any aspect of being a CEO which would, in and of itself, preclude a person from appreciating and playing music.

-Chris

Granted, there are things great CEOs and musicians can have in common:

- you don't have to be a narcissist, but it helps
- you can sell your mistakes as achievements
- your being good at the above determines how full your hat is at the end of the day

but there are essential things they cannot have in common:
- you can't be a woodshedding CEO all on your own, clearing day job troubles out of your mind, e.g. by signing contracts and orders at nobody in particular
- you can't be a musician and not know what instrument you're playing

[Timbofood]

OK, Jeff, you’ve got my vote, where can I put in an application for a janitorial position? I think there will be a lot of “waste” to shovel out!

[Al Trujillo]

Is Gibson the music industry equivalent of Harley-Davidson? After several years of declining sales, HD finally admitted that its bread-and-butter (aging, graying, 50'ish+ men) are not spending $$ on their bikes any longer, and they haven't hit any sweet-spots with millennials (who don't like to dress like pirates and get sunburned).

A week or so ago, HD announced expansion to try to capture more of the European and Asian market by building Sport touring (to compete with BMW), a street fighter (to compete with the Asian street bike), an electric (to attract greenies/millenials) and possibly a pedal assist bicycle (which everyone needs).

HD has been dealing with declining sales for several years and probably like Gibson has to reinvent its culture if it plans to be around much longer.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/...-to-worse.aspx

[re simmers]

HD reinvented itself about 25-30 years ago. “More than a Motorcycle” details how good leadership turned around the company. Gibson decision makers should read it.

[Jeff Hildreth]

Al,

Excellent observation. I believe you are right.

Grossly overpriced and inconsistent quality and weird design affectations.

I know little about electric guitar, having owned only a few ( Fenders and Epiphone Byrdland Elite).
However I would make the electric department a separate entity and hire assemblers and painters and mechanics from Harley who need a break.

As to the acoustics.
Build what made the company what it was when it was viable. No more of this new age Song Writer or whatever the flavor of the Millennial (sp) sock head, skinny saggy crotch, flavor of the day BS might be. And NO electric or electronic gadgetry or battery packs or any of that stuff.

Concentrate on the J45, Southern Jumbo, Nick Lucas, Advanced Jumbo. J100 and 200, 185 etc. And use traditional quality materials and workmanship and charge fair prices. And no nut width less than 1 3/4.. not even the traditional 1 23/32nds..
Bring back the WM series.

Banjos. US made, as much as possible in house, or source from the best USA sources.

Mandolins and mandolas.
A s and Fs.. Oval and F hole.
All will be fully fretted. Up charge for abbreviated fingerboards, those instruments will be sent to the Harley shop for modification.
Standard nut width will be 1 7/32nds or the metric equivalent.

Archtop guitars.
Back in business as acoustic instruments.L-5, and variants. Any electric add ons will be sent to the Harley assembly shop.

The plywood topped instruments will also be made in the Harley shop as to differentiate them from musical instruments. ( yes I like the 175 but c'mon.. plywood?, there are other ways to deal with feedback)

There will be NO endorsed models. Endorsements are gone. That applies to Electrics, Acoustic guitars, Banjos and Mandolins.


There will be NO custom shop. Every instrument will be built with the mindset that it is a custom.
Making something in my world is :
Best Design
Best Materials
Best Workmanship possible.
Price fairly so that there is good value for the customer, and a decent profit margin for the maker and the retailer.

Quality not quantity ( the reverse, in my personal experience, is the CF Martin Credo.)

I'll note that Martin has copied Gibson a few times over the years. Gibson will not copy anyone.
Martin hired their banker years ago as president and was the first non Martin in a titular position. CF M IV ois a suit.

Gibson will have someone at the helm who has some serious hands on experience in making instruments as well as managerial skills.

As an afterthought CNC and efficient production methods are not your enemy.
Consider the business model "invented" by Dr. W. E. Deming.
Every business is a service business and quality control is everything.

Any of the above subject to revision at the whim of the author.

[Rush Burkhardt]

If you always do, what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always gotten, Henry!

[Hudmister]

In defense of Gibson (the brand and their products), they have withstood the assault of intellectual property theft for decades now. I have an Aria copy of a Gibson ES-175 made in 1977. A friend of mine has an Aria copy of the classic black Les Paul. While researching Aria guitars I ran across a period of time in the 70's when many Pac-Rim guitars were called "law suit guitars". It is actually amazing that Gibson survived this long with so many of their products being copied and sold for much less money than the name brand instruments. If half of the people who bought the knock-offs had purchased a real Gibson the company may well be in better shape today. Their products set the standard in so many musical styles while the design thieves ran rampant without being stopped. This of course extends to mandolins and banjos, all shamelessly copied and sold in American stores. I have many Gibson instruments but I am certainly guilty of contributing to the problem (as my Aria 175 copy indicates) of undermining the foundation of a good quality American manufacturer. Sure management mistakes can be pointed to as the reason for Gibson's sorry situation but they have withstood a tidal wave of fakes, replicas and copies. During this time I have never seen a fake Corvette or Cadillac or Mustang, etc. while Gibson has taken it on the chin. Let's protect our great designs and our unique product offerings and defend companies like Gibson.

[Jeff Hildreth]

There is absolutely no proof of the mystical "law suit instruments, specifically directed at Gibson. More internet BS.

Gibson has been a corporation NOT Associated with Orville Gibson since 1906-08.
No "Gibson: has been involved with the company since then. It ahs been a corporate entity capitalizing on Gibson's name and has NEVER equaled the quality of Orville's hand made instruments.

"undermining" the quality of Gibson? ,, they are the culprits. No one is undermining more than exposing inconsistencies in quality.

Who would fake a substandard piece of Amurrican made iron such as Mustang or Cadillac or (you must be joking) Corvette? Who would bother. ?

As mentioned earlier. GIBSON is a C O R P O R A T I O N whose intent is to maximize the value of the stock for the benefit of shareholders and has zip all to do with the manufacture of the finest quality instruments available.( which they have proved is a matter of marketing not substance) Henry proved that point and made more of a statement than the ( Parking lot, commercial real estate holding corp) NORLIN. Gibson's "sorry situation" is contrived and well deserved.
Poorly designed, substandard materials, substandard workmanship and a con artists such as Henry J... selling the sizzle not the steak have for years duped Gibson devotees (such as myself) to buy this tripe at obscene prices.. But I didn't grab the hook as I am not so friggen stupid... Get rid of Henry blow aArtin and Collings and S Cruz out of the water...how ? I'm in the book and I have some suggestions.

[allenhopkins]

Gibson has no one to blame but themselves if their designs are copied. If they neither patent nor trademark them they're up for grabs. Manufacturers who build Les Paul or F-5 lookalikes are taking advantage of G's negligence.

Martin came out with the "dreadnaught" style guitar, square-ish silhouette, larger size. The fact that other companies built similar-looking guitars did not put Martin out of business.

A large part of the problem with Gibson is their diversification into a whole slew of distantly-related areas, from consumer electronics to pianos. Martin "diversified" by building a bewildering variety of acoustic guitars, not by buying a company that makes food processors. I think Martin learned their lessons when they bought Vega, distributed Goya, tried a line of solid-body electrics. Do what you're good at doing, expand along the margins, pull in your horns when one of your initiatives fails the market test.

I'm afraid the boat has sailed for Gibson to get back strongly into some of the areas it once excelled, such as banjo manufacture. Mandolins? Remains to be seen. Not a big market for high-end mandolins, as compared to electric guitars; also, established competitors, both foreign and domestic, plus quite a few individual builders. Probably the best thing going for Gibson in this area, is their brand name. But do 20-year-old bluegrass musicians have the same veneration for Gibson products, as 65-year-olds? Are there enough 20-year-old bluegrassers to keep several companies building mandolins? (I know, I know, not all mandolinists play bluegrass, but I'll bet a plurality of high-end mandolin sales are to people playing bluegrass.)

Probably the best economic decision for Gibson would be to stick to electric guitars, perhaps also their Montana-based acoustic guitar facility. That would be a shame from our point of view, though.

[Hudmister]

Gibson has no one to blame but themselves if their designs are copied. If they neither patent nor trademark them they're up for grabs. Manufacturers who build Les Paul or F-5 lookalikes are taking advantage of G's negligence.

Is it negligence for failing to get a patent or trademark or is it that many of their iconic designs are dated and the patent period has expired? Certainly Gibson must be gaining patents on their newer or more recent designs. Actually I can't think of any newer designs from Gibson but certainly they must have sought legal protection for the very products that carry their name. We know they have lawyers because it takes a load of lawyers to handle a bankruptcy on such a large scale. But still, is it possible that foreign manufacturers can copy so many Gibson products down to the fine details and there is nothing to be done about it?

[MikeEdgerton]

OK, there was one and only one lawsuit. It concerned Gibson's open book headstock design and Gibson won that case. It was filed on June 28, 1977 against the Elger Company. They were the distributor of Ibanez instruments in this country. Norlin, the parent company of Gibson also owned a distributor in Portland, Oregon named The L.D. Heater Company. I need to note that Heater was importing guitars from Japan with the open book headstock shape in the late 60's. I owned one then and I own one now.

There was no Martin lawsuit. There was no Fender lawsuit. There was no Gibson lawsuit about body shapes. There was a single lawsuit about that heastock shape. There certainly was never a mandolin lawsuit. That lawsuit mandolin you might own is just an imported copy of a Gibson unless maybe it has the open book headstock shape.

This has been discussed before but those copies weren't real copies, they were approximations. The Japanese builders didn't bother buying an actual guitar to copy. They would go to the trade shows and one of them would hold the real deal up and they'd take a picture of it. Generally the person holding the instrument would have something on that was a known size, like a tie tack or tie bar, that could be measured when they got home to get the sizes close. I love that story.

[Timbofood]

Time for me to get some sleep.

[Jeff Hildreth]

Mazda Factory engineers and field people wore a 10mm square Mazda logo on their lapel. When necessary, they would take it of and put it beside the target. Then photographed. Reference for size was simple.