True Historic Snafu

Discussion in 'Historics & Reissues' started by AtomicModern, Dec 12, 2018.

  1. sws1

    sws1 V.I.P. Member

    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    974
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2015
    What incentive do they have to fix whatever QC issues they have? The guitar business is already massively profitable. Why would they spend more money in that area?

    Priority area #1 is the brand, which has been tarnished by their failed investments, and from the incorrect belief that "flawed guitars" were the reason for their troubles. Spend whatever money they need to in order to convince players that "they're back", even if they don't do anything different.
     
  2. AtomicModern

    AtomicModern Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    229
    Likes Received:
    198
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2013
    There’s a huge incentive for Gibson to improve quality control. Changing the conversation amongst players from one about QC issues to one about incredible quality is a big deal. I don’t think new management is blind to that at all. There’s an interview with the new CEO from NAMM where he specifically talks about this, along with a new plan to include QC checks after each step of the build process, as opposed from how it’s done now - which is just once at the end of the entire process. That’s a huge step in the right direction.
     
  3. sws1

    sws1 V.I.P. Member

    Messages:
    794
    Likes Received:
    974
    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2015
    Yeah - I saw the same interview. And he kinda said that QC at Gibson is high, but "perception is reality". Meaning, if the market thinks QC is a problem, as part of the branding efforts they are putting in, they are going let people know if they are working on it (even if they don't).

    Think about it...just because he said that, market consensus about QC probably went up. The perception of the brand goes up, etc. etc. And it cost nothing more than him saying it.
     
    DanD likes this.

Share This Page