4 ms·
Interesting to hear Fender described as innovative. Their core products -- Telecaster, Stratocaster, Precision Bass, and Jazz Bass -- have remained mostly uncha
by tjr 7y ago
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 7y agoI 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 7y agoI 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.