Why are gibsons more expensive than Fenders???

[SteveK]

Originally Posted by transmaniacon

It really hurts to see the Epiphone so undermined, as if they were the inferior censored son of Gibson-that aint so, any one whose played a MIA '60's batwing understands........those were the days.....yeah hup

steve

Ah, but then there's Epiphone Japan...

I bought this beauty about four months ago from Ishibashi:





Bone nut, three piece-maple cap, Grovers, real pots & switch. It has a finish flaw, some orange peel on the side of the headstock. I suspect that they put that there for authenticity's sake ;)

It's not an Elite, it's from a slightly cheaper range called "Japan Limited". As far as I can tell it's an Elite with Japanese made pickups. I gave it it's first test "under fire" a couple of Fridays ago at a gig/jam session (I was with the house band, even though I was winging it as much as the guys who stepped up from the crowd) and it had a crowd of salivating Gibson owners around it. No problems with how the pickups sound either. The bass player that night is a guy I've gigged with off & on for the past five years and he came over after the first sey and told me it was the best tone he's heard from me. That might have had something to do with the borrowed Super Reverb RI I was playing through though ;)

[RollingThunder75]

A problem I have with the pricing of Gibsons and Fenders is how little more you get for your money when you buy the higher priced models. I think a lot of times the main difference is electronics, and that's it. You can't really compare a lower-end guitar with a higher-end guitar electronically; it's not fair. But quality control in other aspects is lacking. I think a well-made Gibson or American Fender should beat an import every time, but fewer of these instruments are being made to a higher standard.

This happens every time I go into a decently-stocked shop with Fenders. For better or worse, I always play a guitar unplugged for a while before I plug it in. I'll pick up an American Strat or Tele, play it for a while, then pick up a MIM Strat or Tele that blows it away in terms of feel and construction. If they have 5 American or Deluxe Strats or Teles in the store, I'll guarantee you I can find a MIM that'll beat 3 of them. Plugged in might be another story, but you can always change electronics.

I recently had a similar experience with Gibsons. I played an Epiphone Standard LP, then I picked up a Gibson Historic 56 Reissue LP expecting to be blown away. The Historic was a little better of course, but it wasn't $2000 better. Not even close. Then I picked up an Epiphone Elitist LP that beat both of them.

There are good ones and bad ones at every price point, it seems. I can deal with that with cheaper guitars. I can search for a good one, no problem. But, for a Gibson or an American Fender, there should be no search. Each one should be of the highest quality, with very few exceptions. What should be the exception now seems to be the rule.

I might go in with unrealistic expectations concerning American Fenders and Gibsons, as though they should feel like they were handed to me by the Lady of the Lake. I like the fact that the MIMs and Epiphones are typically very well-made instruments, but at the same time, if I pay more, I should get more. I've always wanted a Gibson Les Paul. At the $2400 they're going for new these days, it's out of the question, unless Neil Young came with it and played it for me. I wonder though, if I ever get one, will I feel like I have one of the best instruments money can buy, or will I feel like I've been ripped off?

[Rich Rice]

I have 2 fabulous Gibson Les Pauls, which I dearly love. I gigged one of them for 25 years as my main axe, with a Tele parts guitar as second fiddle. The first practice I brought my custom made KM model to, I was SO proud of it. I played the first song, then reluctantly went back to my home built Tele. I couldn't get anything out of it... I kept plugging away at it, and played it constantly for many years. Then I got a 1996 tobacco burst Studio LP with P-90's (the modern ones) and switched to a 1972 deluxe mini bucker in the bridge, and a 1972 mini from a Firebird in the neck. THAT guitar smokes. I still play my T style guitars, though, and the 'Pauls stay at home. Not for preservation, I just can't play them as well- despite their quality, tone, and looks.

[lwaun]

Originally Posted by Colo Springs E

.....it's probably a little more expensive to manufacture certain Gibsons (archtops and LPs with maple caps on mahogany bodies), but the bottom line is, enough people will pay the high prices. So Gibson charges the high prices.

That's just Econ 101...

You got that right. In fact on the guitar usergroups someone posted a interview with the Owner of Gibson and he said he decided to just double the price of Les Pauls and he found that sales actually went up so he has just continued to put up the prices they charge. They charge what the charge just because they want to. After reading that article I sold my gibson's and am back to buying only Fender.

[Rick S]

Here's something to ponder:

Say you have a particular guitar model that is selling 10,000 units per year at $1,000 per unit. You carry out a thorough market study that states that if you double your price to $2,000 sales will decline to 5,000 units per year.

So, will you be better off raising the price to $2k or staying at $1k?

[LOTF]

Originally Posted by Rick S

Here's something to ponder:

Say you have a particular guitar model that is selling 10,000 units per year at $1,000 per unit. You carry out a thorough market study that states that if you double your price to $2,000 sales will decline to 5,000 units per year.

So, will you be better off raising the price to $2k or staying at $1k?

That's easy. You're better off going to $2k. You'll be getting the same amount of money for the price of production of 1/2 the amount of guitars. Your profit has increased by the amount of money it takes to produce 5,000 guitars.

[LOTF]

Originally Posted by lwaun

After reading that article I sold my gibson's and am back to buying only Fender.

I can understand not buying any more new Gibsons but why did you sell the ones you already had? You aren't causing Gibson's corporate management any pain because they already made their money off those guitars. And you must have liked something about them in the first place or you wouldn't have gotten them.

I don't care if Gibson starts making its guitars from old popsicle sticks and triples the price. I won't buy any of them but I'll hold on to my sweet old SG, thank you. Regardless of what the company is doing today, I will always love that guitar.

[5digits6strings]

I recall an article discussing how the one of the main Gibson guys (recently) increased sales by inflating their prices. Anyone that has taken a marketing class should understand this one. People often keep buying, despite artificially high costs...they want them more, because they cost more.

Bottom line: in mass quantities they don't cost that much more to make (with a set neck) to warrant the extra cost. C'mon, you can get an Epiphone with a carved top and a set neck for less than $400.

[Rick S]

Originally Posted by 5digits6strings

I recall an article discussing how the one of the main Gibson guys (recently) increased sales by inflating their prices. Anyone that has taken a marketing class should understand this one. People often keep buying, despite artificially high costs...they want them more, because they cost more.

Bottom line: in mass quantities they don't cost that much more to make (with a set neck) to warrant the extra cost. C'mon, you can get an Epiphone with a carved top and a set neck for less than $400.

I believe the short term increased sales claim, but as we were discussing above, by "increased sales" we would be talking dollars, not units.

The old all American honest dollar for an honest day's work still rules for long term health of a business, but in the past 10 years or so, it's been interesting to see how so many businesses are willing to gamble long term health for short term gains. You see a lot of them going lesser quality off shore "stack 'em deep and sell 'em cheap" and many going far the other direction with the jacked up pricing, elite marketing concept.

Straying too far in either direction can get very risky. Increasing prices to generate a short term increase in the bottom line isn't that simple and always comes at a cost. For instance, the further you raise the price, the further you open the door for competition.

Businesses that are willing to make these moves seem to be banking entirely on their trademarks. Of course, this is a lot of why we are seeing all the ridiculous trademark antics going on.

[UBC]

I agree with the comment that this is an apples and oranges comparison. Gibson's marketing strategy is to be the premium brand, and it always has been the case since way back when. While Fender's original strategy was to provide a utility instrument at a reasonable price. That dichotomy and perception still exist today.

For example, the LP Standard is the flagship product for Gibson, so why would they bring the price down and destroy the premium image that they have built up over the years? The premium image is an asset to the company and they have to maintain that. There are other LP related products (studio, faded series, junior, etc...) to hit the lower price points. You can equate Gibson with Mercedes and Fender as Lexus. Mercedes has always been the premium brand although it's been plagued with deteriorating quality control issues lately, while Lexus is really Toyota going upscale with much better reliability and quality records. Even with that, a Mercedes is still $20K to $30K over the equivalent Lexus. They both have their respective buyers and brand perception is a real premium separating the two manufacturers.

If this forum existed 60 years ago, we would be asking why Gibsons are so much more expensive than Harmony and Kay instead. Afterall, they are all making set-neck acoustic archtops.

[genelovesjez]

Originally Posted by Rick S

I believe the short term increased sales claim, but as we were discussing above, by "increased sales" we would be talking dollars, not units.

The old all American honest dollar for an honest day's work still rules for long term health of a business, but in the past 10 years or so, it's been interesting to see how so many businesses are willing to gamble long term health for short term gains. You see a lot of them going lesser quality off shore "stack 'em deep and sell 'em cheap" and many going far the other direction with the jacked up pricing, elite marketing concept.

Straying too far in either direction can get very risky. Increasing prices to generate a short term increase in the bottom line isn't that simple and always comes at a cost. For instance, the further you raise the price, the further you open the door for competition.

Actually, he was referring to increased sales in units. It's a pretty common occurrence with products that are perceived to be premium - too low a price causes people to doubt that it's really a premium product and sales drop due to this cognitive dissonance. After all, research shows that price is the factor that people rely upon most to rank grades of products. That's what he's referring to when he says that he tested it and got an inverse price curve - every time he raised prices, volume went up.

In fact, you could probably go so far as to say if this phenomenon did not exist, there would be no Fender or Gibson Custom Shops.

[cowboytwang]

Originally Posted by UBC

If this forum existed 60 years ago, we would be asking why Gibsons are so much more expensive than Harmony and Kay instead. Afterall, they are all making set-neck acoustic archtops.

I think we would be asking why are Epiphones so much more than Gibsons?

Because 60 to 70 years ago, Epiphone was Gibsons biggest competition, and they were a higher price range than Gibson. Epiphone made some very nice high quality archtop guitars that were better than any Gibson.
Then in 1957 Gibsons parent company "Chicago Musical Instrument" bought out Epiphone and in 1970 Gibson turned it into a low priced import guitar company.

Could you just imagine if that were to happen today? If Fender bought out Gibson and turned their whole line into a low budget import guitar company.

[Southpaw433]

I like them both but-
I have novice skills, even so -I've put a few partscasters together from parts , gathered from a variety of sources - that I'm very pleased with, and IMHO rival Factory Fenders.

I don't think I could put together a gibson style guitar without signifcantly increasing my skill level and tools. A set neck, carved top, binding, inlays, all things Gibson has done very well for a very long time way before the solid body electric was "invented".

Have you ever noticed that when Fender tried to imitate a Gibson, or when Gibson tried to imitate Fender it just never seems to quite work out?