
Why Gibson Guitars Failed at Innovation – As Fender Thrived - jonbaer
https://lucidworks.com/2019/06/10/digital-transformation-failure/
======
tjr
Interesting to hear Fender described as innovative. Their core products --
Telecaster, Stratocaster, Precision Bass, and Jazz Bass -- have remained
mostly unchanged since the 1960s, and Fender fans seem to like it that way.

Have they really succeeded because of their digital guitar lessons?

~~~
pinewurst
I think Fender succeeds more because their product lines are a broad rather
than a steep pyramid. Gibson makes most of their income from a smaller number
of manually intensive instruments. Leo Fender’s genius was to design for
manufacturability which enables a large, quality product line that’s mostly
CNCed at lower per unit cost than Gibson (and typically sold for less with
higher margins).

~~~
NikkiA
I think that part of it is that gibson differentiate between their CNC'ed low-
price products and their hand-made high-price products far more visibly.

They both have the same stratification, with fender's base of cheap but usable
being MIM and MIUSA products, and the expensive 'pro' being custom shop.

But with a fender guitar you need to be able to see that it's a MIM/MIUSA or
CS, usually by recognising finish options or by reading small text on the
headstock, whereas with gibson the differentiation between a CNC'ed les paul
and a CS les paul are blindingly obvious from lack of fretboard or body
bindings, overall design in some cases, and other things that can told
visually from a distance.

This effect essentially makes the low-end gibson offerings a 'faux pas' to
use, everyone will instantly dismiss you as a 'pro', whereas a MIM strat or
tele will 'blend in' and only if you're famous enough for people to write
magazine columns about is anyone really going to care, and by that point
you've probably moved up to a CS option.

