Your advice on a Ric

adam_swapp · Post by **adam_swapp** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:38 pm

This whole capitalism thing leaves a sour taste in your mouth, doesn't it?

Pricing is usually done according to what the market will bear, and not according to the cost or utility of the product (see shoes, watches, Euro cars, etc.). Reliced guitars are a market opportunity; why is it so wrong for Fender to serve that market? There is no coercion, there is no monopoly; it's a free market driven by voluntary decisions. If you don't like them, don't buy them - but it's hard to argue that there's any immorality or impropriety associated with the practice.

Finally, can you please explain the concept of "creating artificial 'rarity'"?

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:56 pm

Adam, I'm a capitalist. I ran my own business for 30 years and now I train students to enter a capitalist corporate environment.

There is a difference between cynical exploitation and taking a fair markup. Before I took the position at the University, I worked in R&D management and R&D consulting for a couple of decades, so I understand and have experienced the difference between intrinsic value and false, created value.

Here we go again. Intrinsic value is NOT what "the market will bear". Flim-flammery is. Intrinsic value is cost of materials plus cost of labor plus burden plus reasonable markup. The manufacturers I worked with aimed for a profit margin which varied, but 35% was typical.

"Artificial rarity" is when you state in advance, driven by what you think the market will bear, that something is rare, and so-called "limited in production" or "limited edition" in order to fire up demand. And although this item costs little more than a standard item of its kind to produce and market, you charge more because the market will bear it, and your customer thinks he is getting something very special whose worth goes beyond its commodity value. And you don't charge 10% more--you double the price in some cases.

It's only a "free market" to the extent that a company's marketing department gouges its customer base, and the customers support it by paying exhorbitant prices for ordinary items with slightly different exterior appearances.

Immoral? I'm not a moralist, so I won't comment on that. Improper? I do think so, as it is a cynical exploitation of a business' most important asset--its customers.

And the darned fools think they've got something special just because it cost a bundle.

adam_swapp · Post by **adam_swapp** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 3:07 pm

This is poppycock. You say that "Intrinsic value is cost of materials plus cost of labor plus burden plus reasonable markup." That would seem to imply that your professional existence is built upon a charade, as you have made no allowance for design or appeal. Why does Armani cost more than Men's Wearhouse? Why are LeBron James' shoes more than Keds? It's all the same thing.

As for your definition of "arificial rarity": do the names "Tom Petty", "Carl Wilson", "Pete Townshend", or "Susannah Hoffs" mean anything to you?

Finally, it is a free market, period. Every one of these guitars that you so sneeringly condemn was purchased voluntarily in a transaction free of coercion or mandate. That is the very definition of a free market.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:03 pm

How does one "sneer" in print?

This is gonna bore the heck out of everybody but you, Adam. And you're going to ignore the thrust and again pick apart one or two phrases that you have a rejoinder to. But this is my last reply this time. It'll come up again. You are welcome to the last word on this!

I won't defend taking from a customer what the traffic can bear, no matter who does it, including Rickenbacker. I personally think that buying a Tom Petty over a FG 660-12 because of a pickguard and a certificate is a bit over the top and lacking in intrinsic value, so I wouldn't entertain doing so. If the market thinks it's a "good investment", then so be it.

In my posts, I never mentioned service-based added value. But now you bring it up. There's a different standard that applies here. My own professional existence as a consultant was based upon reasonable added value in a fair marketplace, which is the basis of good design and good service-related work. There are "name designers" whose participation in a project adds real value and marketability ("cachet") and they charge more. There are others who charge more than they are worth; they are considered to be prostitutes and to do so is in most cases professional design suicide.

Armani costs more than Mens' Wearhouse for two reasons: it costs more to make things of excellent quality (that's good) and they charge for the "brand", (which, if excessive, is not good, despite your idea of charging what the traffic will bear being acceptable).

Branding is a curse that clouds peoples' appreciation of genuinely well-made items, by calling up an intrinsically worthless celebrity or false wealth connection having nothing to do with quality.

I can't comment on the LeBron vs. Keds thing because I've never owned a pair of LeBrons and haven't owned Keds since my folks bought them for me. But my point stands: Where's the REAL value? If LeBron James shoes are $300.00 a pair and it costs proportionately more to make them, so be it. If they should cost $150.00, then the company is screwing the purchasers who foolishly stand in line to buy them at $300.00, because of a famous name connection that adds nothing to the net worth of the actual product--a SHOE, which should be made well enough to support its price, as well as the foot it covers.

One of my best friends designs shoes--real advanced stuff--in Nike's Test Kitchen. The really expensive Nikes are really unique in style, materials, construction, and as suxch command a higher price tag because of the added intrinsic value. If it's a licensed product--Nike does lots of licensing, as you know--the cost of the license is amortized over the run of shoes, boosting the price, too. Lots of companies do. It's an unpleasant condition of the marketplace, but if you're gonna compete.

So--hey--let's take Michael Jordan's last pair of Nikes, and replicate them by wearing them out and tearing them and busting them up, tossing them around in a bin of dirt and gravel, soak them in sweat and toe jam, and sell them for $1000.00 a pair! Relicked sneakers! Whatta concept!

And it could be done, too, as ridiculous as it sounds. Get some of Michael's B-Ball "mojo"! Play better! Jump Higher! and let your friends envy you that you spent $1000.00 on--beat-up NEW shoes?

You're right--nobody holds a gun to the heads of the fools who buy overpriced, so-called "relicked" guitars, which are phony as hell because they have high prices dictated by fake "mojo" done on an assembly line.

Nobody ever said that we Americans "get it", given the choice between more and bigger and flashier and better in the one-upmanship department. That doesn't make us smart or more conscious in our choices.

OPINION: For my money, I'll take a beautifully-made, fairly-priced instrument over a faked antique with an excessive price tag anyday.

This topic is getting pretty exhausted. You seem to be the only person who continually hits on it, and the last time it bored the pants off everybody anyway. Why continue? We disagree, you're as convinced of your view as I am of mine, and the entire business of collectibles, built upon false worth, is booming.

So, Adam, enjoy your "free market" buy your Armani (actually a good example!), wear your LeBron James shoes, because it's a free society and we're free to spend our hard-earned money however we want, and by all means let's keep on playing and appreciating these wonderful guitars!

Did I sneer anywhere in this post? 'Cause I'm laughing now.

adam_swapp · Post by **adam_swapp** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:15 pm

That's one more thing you're wrong about - it bored the heck out of me, too.

expomick · Post by **expomick** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:36 pm

Hey, I rather enjoyed it. Good points.

Lesson learned - do NOT mess with Paul.

chris_scruggs · Post by **chris_scruggs** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 8:04 pm

Hey Paul,

Mexican Fender necks are made in the U.S. That's why they're the best part of the guitar. I think over all, Mexican Fenders are fine for the money, but I do agree that they are "cheesier" than the American ones.

CS

Adam, you just need a hug, man!

roadrunners · Post by **roadrunners** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:24 am

Luckily....I am able to tell the difference between good and bad...old and new...Such as...I would never buy a fender mexican strat...(unless i could get it in blue agave or shell pink) simply due to the fact that if one searches....one can find an infinitly better fender from the 70's. Same with the amps...I think id stop my fender amp collecting at the year 79'.........Im currently eyeing a 68 fender reverb twin

bmi_guy · Post by **bmi_guy** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 5:48 am

I don't think the problem here is with foreign manufacturers. Some of the best keyboards ever designed and built come from Japan, as most of you know. I think Roland equipment has proved that to be the case as well as anyone.
The real problem here is "American" guitar manufacturers selling cheaply constructed instruments branded with a trusted name in the industry. I won't pretend to be a marketing or production guru - 'cause I aint!!
But, Fender and Gibson, up until lately, have both built a solid reputation on producing quality instruments. To sacrifice that quality, and still brand the instuments as "Fender" or "Gibson" is the problem.
Younger musicians, or the dad going to the music store to buy his son / daughter their first guitar, and who has always heard that Fenders or Gibsons are "good" instruments, are being misled.
They could base a purchase decision on a reputation that is no longer "a given".

That is what upsets me with the folks at Gibson and Fender.

My advise on a RIC? Get a 430 - it's been a trusted companion of mine for 30 years. (Unless you have the money for a 620!!!)

dkensrue · Post by **dkensrue** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 7:08 am

Paul,
Have you been to the RIC factory to watch them build the guitars. I haven't seen any guitar kits there, most every piece is made by hand over several days and weeks in some cases. One of the biggest reasons why RIC's are so much money is the limited ability to manufacture higher volumes with the AQMD emissions and local restrictions. This makes each guitar a premium price...because of the demand and availability.

Doug

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 7:40 am

Doug, your post echoes exactly what I've been saying. You haven't been reading my many long posts on this subject. If you've got the time and patience, do so and then post your own views on the topic.

admin · Post by **admin** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:33 am

Welcome to the Rickenbacker Forum Doug. Thanks for your observations of the factory. It is always of great interest to converse with those who have seen the factory first hand.

admin · Post by **admin** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:37 am

Adam Swapp: Your posts are growing increasingly more abrasive and disrespectful. Your posting privilages have been suspended.

randyz · Post by **randyz** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:43 am

I know I'll be somewhat off-topic here, but I feel the need to speak up about my recent new guitar purchases. In the last couple months, I've bought myself a Gibson SG Classic (Heritage Cherry, Dual Soapbar P90's) and a Gibson Les Paul Junior (Vintage Sunburst, Single Dogear P90). I love playing both of them. As a guitar collector with ten Ricks built from 1964-1993, obviously I appreciate the style and workmanship of these guitars as well. While I know there is always junk available in the marketplace, it bothers me to hear generalizations made about guitars based upon brand name and location of manufacture. Last year I purchased an Epiphone Casino Elite that was made recently in Japan. It is a magnificent guitar in every way. In fact I recently sold my '66 Casino (made by Gibson USA) that I played for twenty years because it just didn't measure up to the new one. I also sold a '66 Gretsch Tennessean that I didn't enjoy playing because the binding seemed to be deteriorating unlike other old guitars I own. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that every old American guitar is better than what's available today.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Tue Mar 15, 2005 9:45 am

I agree that it does nobody any favors when generalities are tossed about (ALL Fenders, Gibsons, Epis, etc. are bad, or all made in the '70s are bad, etc.) But we do spot trends and our views do become part of the "buzz".

I've done a lot of criticism of what I perceive to be Fender's cynicism in some areas of marketing, and Peter and the rest of you have been pretty patient with my lengthy posts.

Fact remains: I own 3 Fenders and love them for what they are. All three play very well, and all have unique and distinctive tone palettes. I do different things on each. I have two Gretsches, one pre-Fender, one post-Fender. the pre-Fender is getting a refret due to neck hump. The post-Fender is spectacular. I have no Gibsons right now, but have owned a Howard Roberts, a Les Paul Personal (1970) and a '63 SG standard when it was new. The least impressive of them all was the Howard Roberts.

The Gretsch binding problem is typical of them and spoils the esthetic but not the sound. I'm really happy to hear about your Epi. It's now a working guitar and the '66 ends up with a collector, huh?

I don't think Mike or I (for that matter) or even most of us would fall into that "trap" as you call it. The one thing that makes this Forum stand head and shoulders above others is the high level of discourse and informed opinion here among most contributors. If there's a rumor to be raised or debunked, it'll happen here. If there's a warning or a celebration to be shared and noted, it'll happen here, too.