The clone (an inaccurate term for "counterfeit", "fake", whatever, that tends to gloss over the illegal), put simply, dilutes the brand with a substandard instrument that looks like the real thing. The company's reputation is tarnished. This is one of the primary reasons for seeking and obtaining trademark protection.wj350 wrote:I still have a hard time understanding how lower cost alternatives hurt the USA-name brand. Someone who can only afford a couple hundred $$ for a guitar is only going to spend that much. They're not going to buy a Fender CS, Gibson, or for that matter Ric. They *might* buy a MIM Fender, a Squier, or an Epi. And once they get to like playing the guitar, they *might* decide it's worth saving or spending to get the USA-made version.
I guess what I'm trying to say is the guy/gal buying the clone wasn't going to be buying the USA model in the first place. By tapping into the lower-expense market, the brand would presumably obtain a customer they wouldn't have had otherwise.
Bill
The "brand" is a premium, boutique brand. RIC has always been an American company and over the past few decades, has been in great demand, when factory capacity is taken into account. Even if cheapos were possible to build Stateside (and costs prohibit that), why expend effort for less profit? RIC's profit margin is a fair one, taking into account their business model, so (hypothetically) why would anyone want to expend 80% of the effort for one quarter of the profits?
In other words, the brand doesn't want the low end customer.
There are no valid reasons for RIC to ever play on that field.
