Knock-Offs, Rip-Offs, and Just Plain UGLY!

[marc61]

+1 to Paul's comment. You did a great job doing what they asked you to do. It's just not for me. A guitar and accessories, for me, have to be playable, and workable not 100% ornamental. That said, there's probably collector's that will go gaga for it.

[Tarrbot]

Robert states:

Well I have to tell you boys that we made the guitar case for this set, this was the first project we did with Fender Custom Shop back in 1994. John Page and Fred Stuart came up with this combo very tongue in cheek and they were only too pleased that I was prepared to build a matching case.

That's absolutely hilarious, Robert.

I'm sure the work is top notch. It's just a huge bit of out there for me.

In fact, knowing some of this history makes me want to take a close up view of it. I'm sure cameras may not be able to do the work justice.

[paologregorio]

MOTS makes more sense than MOTO, since as an acronym it properly contains the first letter of each of the words describing the finish. I don't know why Fender chose to call it "MOTO", unless it was some sort of attempt to subtley (?) link it to the motorcycle and hot rod themed concept behind the custom shop. A xlucent black tint over the MOTS might look better (I have a strap with this treatment, which I use on my, you guessed it, MOTS Tele. The back of the guitar body is finished in black on my guitar, for a nice contrast. I wish I'd thought of having it done to my guitar; it would have contrasted with the BE maple neck on my guitar and made the neck grain stand out more. The effect of a darker contrast against the BE maple neck can be seen firsthand in the photo of the back side of the guitar:

[romo1950]

MOTS makes more sense than MOTO, since as an acronym it properly contains the first letter of each of the words describing the finish. I don't know why Fender chose to call it "MOTO", unless it was some sort of attempt to subtley (?) link it to the motorcycle and hot rod themed concept behind the custom shop. A xlucent black tint over the MOTS might look better (I have a strap with this treatment, which I use on my, you guessed it, MOTS Tele. The back of the guitar body is finished in black on my guitar, for a nice contrast. I wish I'd thought of having it done to my guitar; it would have contrasted with the BE maple neck on my guitar and made the neck grain stand out more. The effect of a darker contrast against the BE maple neck can be seen firsthand in the photo of the back side of the guitar:

Backside of MOTS Thinline Telecaster.JPG

Paul the MOTO again is another tongue in cheeck stab. When I was in John Pages design meeting along with the guys involved with this set, I thought MOTO was a Japanese term as they did a lot of guitars for Yamano Music, only to be informed much to everyones amusement that MOTO stood for Mother of Toilet Seat, hence the toilet roll holder.

[jingle_jangle]

MOther of TOilet seat= MOTO

Mother Of Toilet Seat= MOTS

Hey! I've got a toilet seat like that!

[collin]

Hey Mitch............why do you feel like you have to post instruments etc on the forum for the sole purpose of blasting them? How would you feel if we started criticizing your Smurfs plastic Ukuleles etc? (I'd rather have a MOTO strat than 1000 plastic ukes, mate). THAT wouldn't seem too cool, right?

Yet, because Fender Custom Shop decides to build a guitar that didn't meet your set of aesthetic criteria, Forum Members must "wash their hands" after viewing it? Seems petty, childish, and unnecessarily negative.

It might not be everyone's cuppa, but we're not here to argue our design opinions and slam the hard work of other people, even Fender Custom Shop.

It's one thing if you think it's cool, and are posting support for it, while others disagree....it's entirely different to purposely create a thread for tearing down things.

Just my $.02 ......

[octagon]

Hey Mitch............why do you feel like you have to post instruments etc on the forum for the sole purpose of blasting them? How would you feel if we started criticizing your Smurfs plastic Ukuleles etc? (I'd rather have a MOTO strat than 1000 plastic ukes, mate). THAT wouldn't seem too cool, right?

Yet, because Fender Custom Shop decides to build a guitar that didn't meet your set of aesthetic criteria, Forum Members must "wash their hands" after viewing it? Seems petty, childish, and unnecessarily negative.

It might not be everyone's cuppa, but we're not here to argue our design opinions and slam the hard work of other people, even Fender Custom Shop.

It's one thing if you think it's cool, and are posting support for it, while others disagree....it's entirely different to purposely create a thread for tearing down things.

Just my $.02 ......

Collin,I'm not blasting it at all.Personally I think it is awesome,just my style.I gave this post the title
"Forum Members Must Wash Hands After Viewing" as a tongue in cheek nod at the subject: a Fender Custom Shop guitar and amp set in glorious Mother Of Toilet Seat. It seems as thought the photographer staged the set to look like a washroom so I thought my title was appropriate.



It certainly was not my intention to denigrate these items or their owner and I am sorry if anyone felt slighted by my post.

In the words of a famous philosopher "It's a joke son!"

[jingle_jangle]

Hey Mitch............why do you feel like you have to post instruments etc on the forum for the sole purpose of blasting them? .

Maybe this should've gone into my "Knock-Off, Rip-Offs..." thread in "Reflections", where fun is made of silliness and ugliness in the name of profiteering, in quite an arbitrary manner.

Keep it mind for next time, Mitch.

[paologregorio]

MOther of TOilet seat= MOTO

Mother Of Toilet Seat= MOTS

Hey! I've got a toilet seat like that!

Thatnks for the explanation Paul. I did understood that from the get go, but MOTS still makes more sense. The last time "MOTO" came up in a thread people were asking me why I was calling it MOTO instead of MOTS.

I like the MOTO, even on the Strat.

[collin]

[Collin,I'm not blasting it at all.Personally I think it is awesome,just my style.I gave this post the title
"Forum Members Must Wash Hands After Viewing" as a tongue in cheek nod at the subject: a Fender Custom Shop guitar and amp set in glorious Mother Of Toilet Seat. It seems as thought the photographer staged the set to look like a washroom so I thought my title was appropriate.


It certainly was not my intention to denigrate these items or their owner and I am sorry if anyone felt slighted by my post.

In the words of a famous philosopher "It's a joke son!"

Mitch, I'm a total dope and missed the joke! My apologies, I certainly see the joke from your side now

No intention to kick up a mess about it, so my apologies for sure. I was more than a bit irritated seeing the hard work of my friends and employers being torn apart on this thread, and I guess I took it out on you for posting it---sorry man!

[weemac]

Err. what about this one?
Eden.

[ozover50]

My auntie had a kitchen table just like it, Eden.

So that's what happened to it!!

[jingle_jangle]

No intention to kick up a mess about it, so my apologies for sure. I was more than a bit irritated seeing the hard work of my friends and employers being torn apart on this thread, and I guess I took it out on you for posting it---sorry man!

Collin, I can understand your sensitivity to this, but, as I explained to Robert, my issue is never with honest work for an honest buck, whether it be on the level of one individual, a small boutique business, or a corporation. The criteria would include quality work performed in good faith, or a quality product offered for sale to the public in good faith, at a reasonable price that's based upon work performed. There's nothing wrong with a decent markup to recapture a licensing fee or to amortize R & D expenses on a "special project" basis, either.

That leaves out personal taste and aesthetic considerations. And while it's true that matters of taste (or, conversely, tastlessness) are individual concerns and opinions, we still have three positions to reconcile--educated taste (which some people may consider pretentious, precious, or "snobbish", out of reaction to the often pretentious snobs that rule on this!), taste by consensus (where many people agree that something appeals to them, even though they may not be able to clearly verbalize the appeal), and the perceptions and preferences of those unaware that issues of taste exist, or those intimidated by the concept who would reject it out of hand for arbitrary and irrelevant reasons.

But--and here's the crux: The fun in critiquing (and most of its validity!) comes from the friction between these three factions. And, although we may express our revulsion, humor, acceptance, and even passionate advocacy, in everyday and sometimes coarse language, or possibly by simile or methaphor, this is because it is very difficult to capture our deeply-felt and very specific likes and dislikes in language, without the training in a design vocabulary and the historical perspective and exposure to techniques of formal critique. These are all attributes of a design education, and go beyond jargon into being able to verbalize what most people regard as exceedingly abstract and somewhat disquieting.

Why "disquieting"? Because people often want to better define for themselves or others (in conversation, for example) exactly what their reaction to something is (beyond expressing like or dislike), but, lacking the tools of critique and language, find themselves frustrated by the task. That's why it's important that design professionals speak and act for us. We need to trust that these people will not abuse their positions as arbiters, and that's difficult to do, given the media's presentation of designers who should know better than to swap their credibility for a place in the public consciousness and a devotion to the dollar/pound/franc/lira/mark. But it should be noted that, despite the risk, there are nuggets to be harvested from any discussion of this nature. Just as doctors understand the workings of our bodies and minds better than laymen, lawyers the law, and cable guys the ins and outs of converter boxes and 75-ohm cable, so designers have something to say about what they do, which in the end affects our perceptual landscape and often, by implication, our emotional well-being.

Back to your friends and boss. As far as I can see from the comments made concerning this product offering, there were no personal attacks made by anyone on the people involved in this project. There were strong opinions expressed, and as far as that goes, these opinions were expressed relatively gently (latest is the "kitchen table" simile).

By "friends", I'm not sure if you're referring to fellow employees at Robert's case manufacturing company, or to friends that you might have at Fenders "Custom Shop" factory facility, but, again, no one was singled out (though Robert did drop a name which its tempting to attach a face to and thus personalize) for any sort of abuse. And, the last thing we'd wish to do would be to attack Robert, because he's a well-liked member of this Forum and general all-around good guy as far as those of us who've corresponded with him, or posted opposite him, will attest.

So, I'm not sure where your sense of injury comes from, except that possibly you took a product critique as a critique of the humans making the product. They, as all of us do, are responsible for what people think of them as individuals, whether it be on the job or in a family or social setting. My own way of forming opinions, which I'm sure is most typical, is to be neutral-to-positive and let a person's actions build his "profile" and in this manner acquire a position somewhere on my own "personality line", ranging from "evil you know what" to "great saint".

Back to product critique: Anyone who has read my comments over the past few years, knows my opinion of the way Fender goes about its marketing efforts. By extrapolation, it also covers what I perceive as their marketing "philosophy". My perspective comes from being inside several different product-based industries and serving a couple of tours of duty on marketing "teams" defining, designing, and pitching new product.

What I've seen in industry over the last three decades is a growing cynicism by marketing managers toward their customers, which usually filters down to the people doing the actual "in the trenches" R & D work as "directives" or "game plans", having been stripped of negativity and veneered instead with terms like "progress" and "profit". Motivating this cynicism is the focus by both publicly- and privately-held companies on profits, in order to please stockholders and increase company worth. Taken by itself, this is pure capitalism. It's the tactics used by corporate entities to entice product purchases, that come up for critique most often in my world, when my radar detects customer manipulation. [The reference here is The Subliminal Man, J.G.Ballard.]

The most obvious insight into these manipulations are the products themselves and the pitch that is meant to "sell" the consumer on their intrinsic worth. And this is where I have the most to ***** about. To me, there's no question at all that Fender marketing have lost sight of product value and have embraced a philosophy that ignores design legitimacy and issues of taste, in favor of profit (and oftentimes excessive profit).

In other words, they're selling **** at obscene markups.

Note that I'm not attacking any individuals, but certainly coming down hard on corporate culture here. They, I'm sure could care less about my bleatings and are laughing all the way to the bank. (I can be cynical, too...it comes from my above-referenced tour of duty with some great people who, taken together, built an entity and philosophy that preyed on consumers.) My reaction to this is not positive, as my words show.

Now, what about the people caught up in this process? Again, individuals who are using their skills to make a living. Nothing to knock there. Good people. Salt of the earth, etc. These folks, to a man and woman, are either unaware of the implications of what they do for their daily bread, or have suspended belief and ethics at the point where they find themselves in conflict, so that they can feel like what they do is of value, not only to them and their families, but to their customers. I suspect there's a third group here: Those who never come to grips with these market implications, and are either unhappy but unable to being change about, or sociopathic to the point where they enjoy pushing ugliness on the consumer for silly money.

Anyone who perceives American business in general as tending toward cynicism need only look as far as the self-deluded poster boys in the earliest warnings we got about this cynicism and customer abuse--Charles Keating, and over a decade later Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling [ref: The Smartest Guys in the Room, McClean and Elkind]. Currently, we're all paying the piper for a major meltdown in the real estate and auto sectors, brought about by the cynical manipulations of financiers absent any meaningful checks and balances.

I only say this because it appears that the common factor here is a disrespect of, and cynicism toward, the person who makes it all tick--the customer who lays down his cash. Fender marketing (at least where the cynically-mislabeled "Custom Shop" factory is concerned) lost touch with this guy or gal a couple of decades ago, and have built success upon success and profit upon profit, on selling stuff of dubious value (except as land-fill) to people who have been manipulated into purchasing it as a ticket to social superiority. As Jonathan Swift said a couple of centuries back, "A wise man should have money in his head, but not in his heart."

This is, of course, the MadAve method, and it drives our economy. So I suppose if there's going to be a friction here in this discussion, it's going to be based upon just where the line should be drawn between good product/bad product (from the viewpoint of personal aesthetics) and legitimate profit/excessive profiteering.

Notice here I haven't anywhere in this long post criticized any individuals for being who they are. There are good people and not so good people, and I've been fortunate enough to meet mostly good and be able to build relationships on mutual trust and respect. That's where most of us live our lives. It has nothing to do with product validity and our personal likes and dislikes, so let's continue to have a spirited discussion on this sort of thing.

BTW, I evolved a methodology years ago, when I made a living licensing original toy concepts to manufacturers. It was based upon the idea of "never build a GOOD model of a LOUSY idea". To do so would be a waste--it burned up resources and time, and in the end would not sell. Fender seems to have gotten around this by creating a demand for stuff with a lot of flash, but no intrinsic value beyond "playable instrument". And a Squier Strat, at $300.00, is a "playable instrument".

"Collectibility", in and of itself, is largely bulls**t, exclusive of the intrinsic value of the artifact in question, be it rarity (supply and demand) or exquisite craftsmanship (respect for beauty and craft).

Anyway, the above post captures and distills about 50% of my thinking on the matters of marketing, product value and consumer manipulation, and I'm happy that I finally had the time to set it down in writing. I sincerely hope that there are a minimum of wasted words above to take up your valuable time.

Discussion invited, but please be clear in your talking points.

[jps]

Collin, I can understand your sensitivity to this, but, as I explained to Robert, my issue is never with honest work for an honest buck, whether it be on the level of one individual, a small boutique business, or a corporation. The criteria would include quality work performed in good faith, or a quality product offered for sale to the public in good faith, at a reasonable price that's based upon work performed. There's nothing wrong with a decent markup to recapture a licensing fee or to amortize R & D expenses on a "special project" basis, either.

That leaves out personal taste and aesthetic considerations. And while it's true that matters of taste (or, conversely, tastlessness) are individual concerns and opinions, we still have three positions to reconcile--educated taste (which some people may consider pretentious, precious, or "snobbish", out of reaction to the often pretentious snobs that rule on this!), taste by consensus (where many people agree that something appeals to them, even though they may not be able to clearly verbalize the appeal), and the perceptions and preferences of those unaware that issues of taste exist, or those intimidated by the concept who would reject it out of hand for arbitrary and irrelevant reasons.

But--and here's the crux: The fun in critiquing (and most of its validity!) comes from the friction between these three factions. And, although we may express our revulsion, humor, acceptance, and even passionate advocacy, in everyday and sometimes coarse language, or possibly by simile or methaphor, this is because it is very difficult to capture our deeply-felt and very specific likes and dislikes in language, without the training in a design vocabulary and the historical perspective and exposure to techniques of formal critique. These are all attributes of a design education, and go beyond jargon into being able to verbalize what most people regard as exceedingly abstract and somewhat disquieting.

Why "disquieting"? Because people often want to better define for themselves or others (in conversation, for example) exactly what their reaction to something is (beyond expressing like or dislike), but, lacking the tools of critique and language, find themselves frustrated by the task. That's why it's important that design professionals speak and act for us. We need to trust that these people will not abuse their positions as arbiters, and that's difficult to do, given the media's presentation of designers who should know better than to swap their credibility for a place in the public consciousness and a devotion to the dollar/pound/franc/lira/mark. But it should be noted that, despite the risk, there are nuggets to be harvested from any discussion of this nature. Just as doctors understand the workings of our bodies and minds better than laymen, lawyers the law, and cable guys the ins and outs of converter boxes and 75-ohm cable, so designers have something to say about what they do, which in the end affects our perceptual landscape and often, by implication, our emotional well-being.

Back to your friends and boss. As far as I can see from the comments made concerning this product offering, there were no personal attacks made by anyone on the people involved in this project. There were strong opinions expressed, and as far as that goes, these opinions were expressed relatively gently (latest is the "kitchen table" simile).

By "friends", I'm not sure if you're referring to fellow employees at Robert's case manufacturing company, or to friends that you might have at Fenders "Custom Shop" factory facility, but, again, no one was singled out (though Robert did drop a name which its tempting to attach a face to and thus personalize) for any sort of abuse. And, the last thing we'd wish to do would be to attack Robert, because he's a well-liked member of this Forum and general all-around good guy as far as those of us who've corresponded with him, or posted opposite him, will attest.

So, I'm not sure where your sense of injury comes from, except that possibly you took a product critique as a critique of the humans making the product. They, as all of us do, are responsible for what people think of them as individuals, whether it be on the job or in a family or social setting. My own way of forming opinions, which I'm sure is most typical, is to be neutral-to-positive and let a person's actions build his "profile" and in this manner acquire a position somewhere on my own "personality line", ranging from "evil you know what" to "great saint".

Back to product critique: Anyone who has read my comments over the past few years, knows my opinion of the way Fender goes about its marketing efforts. By extrapolation, it also covers what I perceive as their marketing "philosophy". My perspective comes from being inside several different product-based industries and serving a couple of tours of duty on marketing "teams" defining, designing, and pitching new product.

What I've seen in industry over the last three decades is a growing cynicism by marketing managers toward their customers, which usually filters down to the people doing the actual "in the trenches" R & D work as "directives" or "game plans", having been stripped of negativity and veneered instead with terms like "progress" and "profit". Motivating this cynicism is the focus by both publicly- and privately-held companies on profits, in order to please stockholders and increase company worth. Taken by itself, this is pure capitalism. It's the tactics used by corporate entities to entice product purchases, that come up for critique most often in my world, when my radar detects customer manipulation. [The reference here is The Subliminal Man, J.G.Ballard.]

The most obvious insight into these manipulations are the products themselves and the pitch that is meant to "sell" the consumer on their intrinsic worth. And this is where I have the most to ***** about. To me, there's no question at all that Fender marketing have lost sight of product value and have embraced a philosophy that ignores design legitimacy and issues of taste, in favor of profit (and oftentimes excessive profit).

In other words, they're selling **** at obscene markups.

Note that I'm not attacking any individuals, but certainly coming down hard on corporate culture here. They, I'm sure could care less about my bleatings and are laughing all the way to the bank. (I can be cynical, too...it comes from my above-referenced tour of duty with some great people who, taken together, built an entity and philosophy that preyed on consumers.) My reaction to this is not positive, as my words show.

Now, what about the people caught up in this process? Again, individuals who are using their skills to make a living. Nothing to knock there. Good people. Salt of the earth, etc. These folks, to a man and woman, are either unaware of the implications of what they do for their daily bread, or have suspended belief and ethics at the point where they find themselves in conflict, so that they can feel like what they do is of value, not only to them and their families, but to their customers. I suspect there's a third group here: Those who never come to grips with these market implications, and are either unhappy but unable to being change about, or sociopathic to the point where they enjoy pushing ugliness on the consumer for silly money.

Anyone who perceives American business in general as tending toward cynicism need only look as far as the self-deluded poster boys in the earliest warnings we got about this cynicism and customer abuse--Charles Keating, and over a decade later Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling [ref: The Smartest Guys in the Room, McClean and Elkind]. Currently, we're all paying the piper for a major meltdown in the real estate and auto sectors, brought about by the cynical manipulations of financiers absent any meaningful checks and balances.

I only say this because it appears that the common factor here is a disrespect of, and cynicism toward, the person who makes it all tick--the customer who lays down his cash. Fender marketing (at least where the cynically-mislabeled "Custom Shop" factory is concerned) lost touch with this guy or gal a couple of decades ago, and have built success upon success and profit upon profit, on selling stuff of dubious value (except as land-fill) to people who have been manipulated into purchasing it as a ticket to social superiority. As Jonathan Swift said a couple of centuries back, "A wise man should have money in his head, but not in his heart."

This is, of course, the MadAve method, and it drives our economy. So I suppose if there's going to be a friction here in this discussion, it's going to be based upon just where the line should be drawn between good product/bad product (from the viewpoint of personal aesthetics) and legitimate profit/excessive profiteering.

Notice here I haven't anywhere in this long post criticized any individuals for being who they are. There are good people and not so good people, and I've been fortunate enough to meet mostly good and be able to build relationships on mutual trust and respect. That's where most of us live our lives. It has nothing to do with product validity and our personal likes and dislikes, so let's continue to have a spirited discussion on this sort of thing.

BTW, I evolved a methodology years ago, when I made a living licensing original toy concepts to manufacturers. It was based upon the idea of "never build a GOOD model of a LOUSY idea". To do so would be a waste--it burned up resources and time, and in the end would not sell. Fender seems to have gotten around this by creating a demand for stuff with a lot of flash, but no intrinsic value beyond "playable instrument". And a Squier Strat, at $300.00, is a "playable instrument".

"Collectibility", in and of itself, is largely bulls**t, exclusive of the intrinsic value of the artifact in question, be it rarity (supply and demand) or exquisite craftsmanship (respect for beauty and craft).

Anyway, the above post captures and distills about 50% of my thinking on the matters of marketing, product value and consumer manipulation, and I'm happy that I finally had the time to set it down in writing. I sincerely hope that there are a minimum of wasted words above to take up your valuable time.

Discussion invited, but please be clear in your talking points.

Paul, I think if you were to divide this up you would have over 18,000 post by now!

[jingle_jangle]

Jeez, Jeff, you quoted the whole thing?

If there was a way to further distill it, I would've, believe me, knowing how our attention spans have been destroyed by the so-called "hot" media...

Anyway, the above is not only the rack on which I hang my professional hat, but it goes to the heart of the matter at hand as well as the reason for this 62-page thread. Critique should be neither personal nor mean-spirited.

Unless you're a charlatan known as "Dr. Phil".

Oh, shoot, that was personal and mean-spirited, wasn't it?