That's a crazy number of Strat models Paul! The sheer output of Fender has amazed me in recent years. After seeing the RIC factory in person, I'd be very interested in seeing what Fender's U.S. facility is like. Has anyone around here ever had a tour?
My two cents on Fender NOS or Relics? Ridiculously overpriced!
FENDER AND THE BARNUM PHILOSOPHY
Moderator: jingle_jangle
-
steve_hershberger
- Member
- Posts: 341
- Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:37 pm
- Contact:
First, let me say that I've owned/played numerous Fenders since '67 and they'll most likely be my fave guitars ever. But I can say the same about various Gibsons and the Ric 12 I now own too. That said, I will also agree that this "relic" craze doesn't do anything for me at all. But some people want a replica of some famous guitar and are willing to pay to get one. The reasoning is up to them I guess. Personally, I could go buy whatever guitar I'd ever want right now, but I still think about prices. No way would I pay tens of thousands of dollars for ANY guitar of any brand, but that's just me. Some are into that though.
There's a lot of factors in play here, no matter what brand we're talking about. IMHO, Fender (in this case) is only responding to their customers. I'm talking about the Custom Shop stuff (which doesn't interest me either), the relics, the million models of Strats & Teles, etc... The main thing is - if all those things weren't selling, they wouldn't be making them. That's the bottom line, to supply the demand. Also, they try different combinations of features and see how they fly. If they don't sell, they get discontinued. Just like everybody else does.
OK, so let's forget the "relic" issue because that's a Fender and Gibson thing. Those who like relics can have 'em and that's fine with me.
Which brings me to Rickenbackers... Can anyone deny that some Ric fans haven't been rabid about wanting a "Custom Shop" or "true vintage" reissues made? Back in the days before the V series was started, a lot of people wanted guitars made "accurately" made replicas of Harrison's 360/12 and Lennon's 325. So Ric responds with the V series. Which cost more, btw.
That was all good - for a while... Then the complaints started. Headstock size/shape, fireglo finish, toaster pickups, etc. etc. were "wrong." Actually, IMO, it seemed like the general consensus was more like "We kind of like these and it's a nice try, but it's not 'accurate' enough for us." And yes, there were a million complaints about details like dots on the toasters (not to mention the ohm ratings) and philips vs. slotted head screws too. (I'm just including that to point out that such things aren't limited to Fender fans).
So Ric comes out with scatterwound pickups and the C series - more 'accurate' replicas of the V replicas they replace. Of course with a higher pricetag too.
Now, I haven't had the opportunity to put my 360/12V64 up against a C series equivilent, but I doubt there's hundreds of dollars worth of difference between them. At least not in terms of playability, sound, and overall quality. But believe me, if I find a C63 to A/B mine against and I like the C63 better, I'll buy it in a heartbeat. No matter what it costs. And I'd keep my V64 too.
I'm just saying that it's fine to bash Fender and Gibson all you want, and I don't care (I do it too). But don't think Rics and Ric fans are above the same kind of scrutiny. One + point for Ric though - at least they haven't made relics on purpose!
However, if any more of the clear coat on mine keeps falling off I might have to ammend that statement.
There's a lot of factors in play here, no matter what brand we're talking about. IMHO, Fender (in this case) is only responding to their customers. I'm talking about the Custom Shop stuff (which doesn't interest me either), the relics, the million models of Strats & Teles, etc... The main thing is - if all those things weren't selling, they wouldn't be making them. That's the bottom line, to supply the demand. Also, they try different combinations of features and see how they fly. If they don't sell, they get discontinued. Just like everybody else does.
OK, so let's forget the "relic" issue because that's a Fender and Gibson thing. Those who like relics can have 'em and that's fine with me.
Which brings me to Rickenbackers... Can anyone deny that some Ric fans haven't been rabid about wanting a "Custom Shop" or "true vintage" reissues made? Back in the days before the V series was started, a lot of people wanted guitars made "accurately" made replicas of Harrison's 360/12 and Lennon's 325. So Ric responds with the V series. Which cost more, btw.
That was all good - for a while... Then the complaints started. Headstock size/shape, fireglo finish, toaster pickups, etc. etc. were "wrong." Actually, IMO, it seemed like the general consensus was more like "We kind of like these and it's a nice try, but it's not 'accurate' enough for us." And yes, there were a million complaints about details like dots on the toasters (not to mention the ohm ratings) and philips vs. slotted head screws too. (I'm just including that to point out that such things aren't limited to Fender fans).
So Ric comes out with scatterwound pickups and the C series - more 'accurate' replicas of the V replicas they replace. Of course with a higher pricetag too.
Now, I haven't had the opportunity to put my 360/12V64 up against a C series equivilent, but I doubt there's hundreds of dollars worth of difference between them. At least not in terms of playability, sound, and overall quality. But believe me, if I find a C63 to A/B mine against and I like the C63 better, I'll buy it in a heartbeat. No matter what it costs. And I'd keep my V64 too.
I'm just saying that it's fine to bash Fender and Gibson all you want, and I don't care (I do it too). But don't think Rics and Ric fans are above the same kind of scrutiny. One + point for Ric though - at least they haven't made relics on purpose!
However, if any more of the clear coat on mine keeps falling off I might have to ammend that statement. -
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
My post that started this thread, said nothing about Gibson.
I think, Steve, that you have written a thoughtful and well-reasoned post.
But, it ignores one thing--a point that I have mentioned a few times on this Forum, and is exactly what my post illustrates to a "T"--which is the business philosophy which moves Fender, vs. the one which RIC holds dear and has operated with these last 75 years.
Make something in the USA of excellent quality, and sell it to your customers at a fair profit. (My oft-cited equation is: cost to produce + reasonable markup = selling price.
And, again, I'll say that RIC is one of the few companies in this overheated guitar market that continues to do things according to this business plan, which Fender's marketing people would no doubt term "quaint" and possibly "antiquated".
(Stop writing at this point to slip a copy of Steve Miller's "Take the Money and Run" onto the stereo.)
Compared to this way of doing business, Fender delivers a whiff of Enron-type profiteering tinged with cynicism.
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."--HLMencken
I think, Steve, that you have written a thoughtful and well-reasoned post.
But, it ignores one thing--a point that I have mentioned a few times on this Forum, and is exactly what my post illustrates to a "T"--which is the business philosophy which moves Fender, vs. the one which RIC holds dear and has operated with these last 75 years.
Make something in the USA of excellent quality, and sell it to your customers at a fair profit. (My oft-cited equation is: cost to produce + reasonable markup = selling price.
And, again, I'll say that RIC is one of the few companies in this overheated guitar market that continues to do things according to this business plan, which Fender's marketing people would no doubt term "quaint" and possibly "antiquated".
(Stop writing at this point to slip a copy of Steve Miller's "Take the Money and Run" onto the stereo.)
Compared to this way of doing business, Fender delivers a whiff of Enron-type profiteering tinged with cynicism.
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."--HLMencken
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
I drove to my office today, mulling this over, and what came to mind again was the few months I spent associated with a company that made "limited edition" collectors' plates, back in the mid-'70s.
The company would buy the rights to original artwork (from agents who repped people like Norman Rockwell and Andrew Wyeth, who were two artists whose art appeared on "our" plates).
They would then contract with a Chinese commercial plate factory to produce a large number of plates with this art on them, usually a minimum of 10,000, although numbers as high as 50,000 would be produced. This made them a "limited edition", and "our" company, for all intents and purposes, had cornered the market on a particular plate. We could call it a "limited edition", set our own prices, and call all of our own shots, as long as we had plates to sell.
Now what was left was to generate demand, which in those pre-internet days, meant a very well-written and well-photographed monthly newsletter/catalog. Besides promoting new "releases", it would feature fan letters written by "our" customers (mostly middle-aged women with a collecting bug), and "reviews" written by the company's owner--using his wife's name--of the increase in value of previous issues, and predictions about which of the company's products were "hot buys".
A plate that would cost us $1 landed and another 50 cents to pay the artist's licensing fee, would start out being sold for $20.00 as a "new release in extremely limited numbers". Orders would usually flood in.
As sales would begin to taper off, and fewer and fewer plates of a certain type would be left in the warehouse, would we put them on "closeout" at reduced prices to get rid of them? Heck NO! Instead, subsequent editions of the monthly newsletter would tout them as "only X number left", and every month the price would go UP.
The newsletter would then quote its own raise in prices to make a case that the plates that people bought early in the release, were actually increasing in value to the consumer. "Released to acclaim only 6 months ago at $20.00, now trading in the $150.00 range," and other such claims were common in the newsletter. This had the effect of creating a mirage market in things that never "traded", but were displayed in many dining rooms across the country as "investments".
It had another effect of boosting initial sales as everyone bought in order to get in on the ground floor. "Our" company controlled everything: manufacturing, distribution, pricing, and appreciation. All a scam/sham/ whatever word you would care to use. All perfectly legal, but abysmally cynical and unethical.
And it made millions for "Our" company every year, to the tune of being bought by a major media conglomerate and then raided and folded.
We had a "Wall of Fame" outside the President's office, where letters from angry husbands would be posted. There were a lot, and a source of great humor among the staff. There was a ship's bell hanging next to it, which would be rung everytime a new letter would be pinned to the board.
What this whole long narrative addresses is the concept of intrinsic value, or the real worth of a manufactured item. RIC holds firmly to this concept, and the small additional amounts that they have charged for special models, pale in comparison to the profits that individuals, dealers, and speculators have made "flipping" these special editions.
When someone says to me that tremendously overvalued goods are being sold to "give the public what it wants", my radar goes up. So I ask: Would the public want relicked instruments ( a dubious concept at best, without its own added values, unless a demand could be created) in such quantities at such ridiculous prices, if there wasn't a concerted, unethical, cynical marketing effort going on to "educate" people about how cool relics are, and by setting silly prices, so that mere ownership of one conveys status to the chump who buys one?
So, if it's "cool" that you want, and if "status" is one of your goals, whip out that wallet and be prepared for a fleecing. What Fender has done is take the portion of the business which was previously the territory of the dealers and speculators, and moved it into their own profit column, by creating a buzz that is entirely illusion.
That's marketing, folks!
Last week I was in a second-hand shop browsing for old records, as I occasionally do when I have a bit of time. There, on a dusty shelf, was one of the Wyeth plates made by "our" company, which in July 1975, at "initial release" sold for $20.00, and which also in December of 1976, was "trading" at $149.00.
By rights, it should take a small mortgage to buy it, after 31 years of constant double-digit appreciation, right? But, it was priced at 69 cents.
I didn't buy it.
The company would buy the rights to original artwork (from agents who repped people like Norman Rockwell and Andrew Wyeth, who were two artists whose art appeared on "our" plates).
They would then contract with a Chinese commercial plate factory to produce a large number of plates with this art on them, usually a minimum of 10,000, although numbers as high as 50,000 would be produced. This made them a "limited edition", and "our" company, for all intents and purposes, had cornered the market on a particular plate. We could call it a "limited edition", set our own prices, and call all of our own shots, as long as we had plates to sell.
Now what was left was to generate demand, which in those pre-internet days, meant a very well-written and well-photographed monthly newsletter/catalog. Besides promoting new "releases", it would feature fan letters written by "our" customers (mostly middle-aged women with a collecting bug), and "reviews" written by the company's owner--using his wife's name--of the increase in value of previous issues, and predictions about which of the company's products were "hot buys".
A plate that would cost us $1 landed and another 50 cents to pay the artist's licensing fee, would start out being sold for $20.00 as a "new release in extremely limited numbers". Orders would usually flood in.
As sales would begin to taper off, and fewer and fewer plates of a certain type would be left in the warehouse, would we put them on "closeout" at reduced prices to get rid of them? Heck NO! Instead, subsequent editions of the monthly newsletter would tout them as "only X number left", and every month the price would go UP.
The newsletter would then quote its own raise in prices to make a case that the plates that people bought early in the release, were actually increasing in value to the consumer. "Released to acclaim only 6 months ago at $20.00, now trading in the $150.00 range," and other such claims were common in the newsletter. This had the effect of creating a mirage market in things that never "traded", but were displayed in many dining rooms across the country as "investments".
It had another effect of boosting initial sales as everyone bought in order to get in on the ground floor. "Our" company controlled everything: manufacturing, distribution, pricing, and appreciation. All a scam/sham/ whatever word you would care to use. All perfectly legal, but abysmally cynical and unethical.
And it made millions for "Our" company every year, to the tune of being bought by a major media conglomerate and then raided and folded.
We had a "Wall of Fame" outside the President's office, where letters from angry husbands would be posted. There were a lot, and a source of great humor among the staff. There was a ship's bell hanging next to it, which would be rung everytime a new letter would be pinned to the board.
What this whole long narrative addresses is the concept of intrinsic value, or the real worth of a manufactured item. RIC holds firmly to this concept, and the small additional amounts that they have charged for special models, pale in comparison to the profits that individuals, dealers, and speculators have made "flipping" these special editions.
When someone says to me that tremendously overvalued goods are being sold to "give the public what it wants", my radar goes up. So I ask: Would the public want relicked instruments ( a dubious concept at best, without its own added values, unless a demand could be created) in such quantities at such ridiculous prices, if there wasn't a concerted, unethical, cynical marketing effort going on to "educate" people about how cool relics are, and by setting silly prices, so that mere ownership of one conveys status to the chump who buys one?
So, if it's "cool" that you want, and if "status" is one of your goals, whip out that wallet and be prepared for a fleecing. What Fender has done is take the portion of the business which was previously the territory of the dealers and speculators, and moved it into their own profit column, by creating a buzz that is entirely illusion.
That's marketing, folks!
Last week I was in a second-hand shop browsing for old records, as I occasionally do when I have a bit of time. There, on a dusty shelf, was one of the Wyeth plates made by "our" company, which in July 1975, at "initial release" sold for $20.00, and which also in December of 1976, was "trading" at $149.00.
By rights, it should take a small mortgage to buy it, after 31 years of constant double-digit appreciation, right? But, it was priced at 69 cents.
I didn't buy it.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
There's no slight of hand or 'sucker born every minute' going on here. As we all likely know, the market for old Fender instruments is out of hand.
Fender came out with the Time Machine series to address the public's desire for so-called 'vintage' instruments without the vintage price tag. And for the most part, they've hit that target quite nicely. Few people I know who own a Time Machine series instrument are unhappy with it.
One also has to remember that Fender and Rickenbacker have a fundamental difference that has _allowed_ Rickenbacker to continue to do business as they have for so many years.
Fender has always had to deal with other companies making 'strats' and 'teles' or whatever and has had to find more ways to differentiate and add percieved value to their products.
Ric, OTOH, due to it's diligent pursual of infringers, has been, to a large degree, been able to simply focus on making great instruments.
Apples and Oranges, IMNSHO.
The way I see it is, buy 'em or don't buy 'em. But don't tacitly imply that people who do are 'suckers' or simply want status symbols or want to look 'cool'
Fender came out with the Time Machine series to address the public's desire for so-called 'vintage' instruments without the vintage price tag. And for the most part, they've hit that target quite nicely. Few people I know who own a Time Machine series instrument are unhappy with it.
One also has to remember that Fender and Rickenbacker have a fundamental difference that has _allowed_ Rickenbacker to continue to do business as they have for so many years.
Fender has always had to deal with other companies making 'strats' and 'teles' or whatever and has had to find more ways to differentiate and add percieved value to their products.
Ric, OTOH, due to it's diligent pursual of infringers, has been, to a large degree, been able to simply focus on making great instruments.
Apples and Oranges, IMNSHO.
The way I see it is, buy 'em or don't buy 'em. But don't tacitly imply that people who do are 'suckers' or simply want status symbols or want to look 'cool'
-
bassduke49
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6580
- Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 5:00 am
Hey Paul, was that "Edwin M. Knowles" of Newell W. Virginia? We were "gifted" a plate years ago, maybe for our wedding, I don't remember exactly. We have the Rockwell "Serious Business" "Second Issue in A Mind of Her Own: Rockwell's Studies of Girlhood." Very official-looking printing on the back with two "authenticated" and "official" stamps. It's dated 1987, though.
Yeah, marketers, what a bunch.
Don't forget, everyone, to purchase my "Rickenbacker Basses - 50 Years as Rock's Bottom" when it is released in 2008!!! Be the first in your band to have this book for your very own!!! They'll be going quick, so get your order in now!!!
Oops.
Yeah, marketers, what a bunch.
Don't forget, everyone, to purchase my "Rickenbacker Basses - 50 Years as Rock's Bottom" when it is released in 2008!!! Be the first in your band to have this book for your very own!!! They'll be going quick, so get your order in now!!!
Oops.
Author: "The Rickenbacker Electric Bass - 50 Years As Rock's Bottom"
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
Paul, I want the book. It has REAL value. Your plate was marketed by whoever picked up the Rockwell license after "my" company's contract ran out.
"Without the vintage price tag?" You mean the ridiculously inflated monetary "value" of vintage Strats caused Fender to see a way of giving anybody with three to twenty times the price of the actual manufactured stock instrument, the "opportunity to acquire" (love the snake oil terminology) a Relic simply by paying their price? Still, the purchaser wouldn't have to bid at a competitive auction for Beck's Esquire--and end up paying perhaps $250K (insane). Nope. It can be had for a mere $15K. Wow. Everybody comes out ahead! Charging/paying $15K for a $1K guitar becomes a win-win!
Tom, what other reason would any sane person have for plunking down so much cash for a FAKED beat-up old guitar, other than to gain status (at a high price) or look cool or acquire bragging rights? It's not a thing of beauty, nor is it an example of superb craftsmanship.
Oh, of course, it's just like Jeff Beck's. (And the various guitar forums are already discussing its inaccuracies!)
If I were to build an exact replica of Jeff's Esquire, could I sell it for $15K? Absolutely not...I don't have the Fender name and history. So Fender is prostituting what was once a proud name. (BTW, Leo Fender's business model was the same as RIC's--until CBS took over. And through all the owners since, it's been "get it while you can" shark boardroom talk.)
If Fender were to build a limited run of Harold Minster Strats, with the exact same scratches that Harold put on it through 40 years of playing in bars and clubs, could they even sell it for the price of a standard American Issue Strat? No, again. Why? Because no one ever heard of Harold Minster. I made him up.
So we have a proud old brand name trading on the fame of a famous rocker in order to charge exhorbitant prices for something that has reduced intrinsic value over the originally-manufactured item.
I ask you, what's the difference between Fender and the collectors' plate companies in this case? Well...you can't play "Smoke on the Water" on a dish...
"Without the vintage price tag?" You mean the ridiculously inflated monetary "value" of vintage Strats caused Fender to see a way of giving anybody with three to twenty times the price of the actual manufactured stock instrument, the "opportunity to acquire" (love the snake oil terminology) a Relic simply by paying their price? Still, the purchaser wouldn't have to bid at a competitive auction for Beck's Esquire--and end up paying perhaps $250K (insane). Nope. It can be had for a mere $15K. Wow. Everybody comes out ahead! Charging/paying $15K for a $1K guitar becomes a win-win!
Tom, what other reason would any sane person have for plunking down so much cash for a FAKED beat-up old guitar, other than to gain status (at a high price) or look cool or acquire bragging rights? It's not a thing of beauty, nor is it an example of superb craftsmanship.
Oh, of course, it's just like Jeff Beck's. (And the various guitar forums are already discussing its inaccuracies!)
If I were to build an exact replica of Jeff's Esquire, could I sell it for $15K? Absolutely not...I don't have the Fender name and history. So Fender is prostituting what was once a proud name. (BTW, Leo Fender's business model was the same as RIC's--until CBS took over. And through all the owners since, it's been "get it while you can" shark boardroom talk.)
If Fender were to build a limited run of Harold Minster Strats, with the exact same scratches that Harold put on it through 40 years of playing in bars and clubs, could they even sell it for the price of a standard American Issue Strat? No, again. Why? Because no one ever heard of Harold Minster. I made him up.
So we have a proud old brand name trading on the fame of a famous rocker in order to charge exhorbitant prices for something that has reduced intrinsic value over the originally-manufactured item.
I ask you, what's the difference between Fender and the collectors' plate companies in this case? Well...you can't play "Smoke on the Water" on a dish...
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
The $15k Beck Telecaster is an abberation. Fender does one of these maybe every few years. Limited run, reproduction. It is specifically designed to appeal to collectors. And it's was done with Jeff Beck's approval (and I'm sure with some financial
compensation to Beck).
Whether it's worth $15k is an exercise for the reader. I personally think someone would be nuts to spend that kinda dough on an instrument they'd be afraid to take out of the climate controlled vault.
"It's not a thing of beauty, nor is it an example of superb craftsmanship"
Both of these are completely subjective. Who are we to say that someone who wants one of these doesn't see an intrinsic beauty in it. And I can see the craftsmanship and care in making a reasonably accurate reproduction.
"So we have a proud old brand name trading on the fame of a famous rocker in order to charge exhorbitant prices for something that has reduced intrinsic value over the originally-manufactured item."
No. What we have is a for-profit company doing what it feels it needs to do to make a profit. I don't see anything wrong with it.
At any rate, I wasn't talking about the $15k 'collector' guitar in my original post.
I was talking about Fender's Time Machine instruments, which are reasonable reproductions of vintage instruments. Regardless of why the Fender Vintage market is out of control, the fact remains that most players can't _afford_ a real 1957 Strat or a '62 Precision Bass (for example).
So Fender makes guitars that are pretty good examples of what was made back then, charges a premium (a bit too much of a premium, but I digress) for 'em. Fender makes money, people get guitars they want. Everyody wins.
Rickenbacker does the exact same thing. They make vintage reproductions and charge a premium for it. A significant premium over similar models in the regular catalog.
Fender just happens to make NOS, Closet Classic and Relic versions of the instruments to satisfy more people.
compensation to Beck).
Whether it's worth $15k is an exercise for the reader. I personally think someone would be nuts to spend that kinda dough on an instrument they'd be afraid to take out of the climate controlled vault.
"It's not a thing of beauty, nor is it an example of superb craftsmanship"
Both of these are completely subjective. Who are we to say that someone who wants one of these doesn't see an intrinsic beauty in it. And I can see the craftsmanship and care in making a reasonably accurate reproduction.
"So we have a proud old brand name trading on the fame of a famous rocker in order to charge exhorbitant prices for something that has reduced intrinsic value over the originally-manufactured item."
No. What we have is a for-profit company doing what it feels it needs to do to make a profit. I don't see anything wrong with it.
At any rate, I wasn't talking about the $15k 'collector' guitar in my original post.
I was talking about Fender's Time Machine instruments, which are reasonable reproductions of vintage instruments. Regardless of why the Fender Vintage market is out of control, the fact remains that most players can't _afford_ a real 1957 Strat or a '62 Precision Bass (for example).
So Fender makes guitars that are pretty good examples of what was made back then, charges a premium (a bit too much of a premium, but I digress) for 'em. Fender makes money, people get guitars they want. Everyody wins.
Rickenbacker does the exact same thing. They make vintage reproductions and charge a premium for it. A significant premium over similar models in the regular catalog.
Fender just happens to make NOS, Closet Classic and Relic versions of the instruments to satisfy more people.
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
Tom, you persist in ignoring my points and apologizing for Fender's cynical exploitation of their grand old name to overcharge customers for fake worn-out instruments.
"A bit too much of a premium" is EXACTLY my point, but to you it's a digression.
If beauty is completely subjective, then why do we have art museums? Why are there design competitions? Why do certain designs and standards of craft become timeless and classic (in the absolute sense, not meaningless marketspeak)? It's because some things resonate through the ages. It is entirely possible that the designs of the Strat and the Tele (and the 330 and 360 and...) will remain at the top of universally-recognized ideals of beautiful product design. But the faking of age and the taking of a several-hundred-percent markup will never be seen as contributing to this beauty, and are recognized by ethicists as shady business practices, despite your apologist's dismissal of a company doing "what it feels it needs to do in order to make a profit". What they do is unethical. Enron did "what it felt it had to do to make a profit". Thanks, Jeff Skilling, for being such an upstanding guy, just doing your job, uh-huh. Why do we need the SEC and Attorneys General, when businesses can just determine for themselves what they need to do to make a profit?
Regardless of why the Fender market is out of control? That's EXACTLY what I'm trying to address. Not "regardless", but "regarding".
Both have to do with the current business model at Fender and the majority of guitar companies.
Yeah, everybody wins. Fender sells smoke, people buy smoke. That's capitalism. In its worst form, that is. But WINNING? So you think there's nothing askew about a $1299.00 guitar selling for $2479.00 because it's been beat up deliberately to "create" old out of new? That's twice the price for half the instrument.
Fender doesn't "just happen" to do anything. Their business strategies are obviously finely-honed.
"Time Machine" is Fender "Marketspeak" for exactly the guitars and pricing tactics I'm talking about--just in the lower end of the hype department.
"Time Machine" refers to NOS, Closet Classics, and Relics. From new to third degree rug burns...When a new concept gets accepted, the introduction pricing expands in both directions until the market is saturated with price points. Fender market research has determined that there is only room in the marketplace for a high-end destruction derby every couple of years, so the Time Machines are there to pull some more consistent bucks out of an adoring public.
Didn't you read my paragraphs about RIC's business model? Seems like you missed something here. RIC charges premium prices for limited editions, sure, but these prices are STILL based upon the same cost-to-build-plus-reasonable-markup model. RIC sets MSRP. What dealers charge for them is another matter entirely. That's why the recent bump in prices at dealer level for the 75th specials can't be laid at RIC's feet. The MSRP was set at $500.00 above non-75th versions of the same instruments--look at RIC's price list. Dealers, of course, saw an opportunity for a bit of extra profit (seriously, with only 300 instruments, and RIC's markup being only a couple of hundred on each instrument, their profits are hardly exhorbitant.
Can you imagine, in light of what happened to the Lemmy, what Fender would've charged for the same instrument? And the Lemmy took genuine craft to build--each and every one. The body wings were hand-carved on each instrument. In RIC's own shop. In America.
So RIC does most certainly NOT do "exactly the same thing".
RIC's philosophy, and its management's integrity, are the bulwarks of the brand and uphold the tradition that makes its 75th worth celebrating.
Fender is just another shark in the pond. Leo would not be proud.
"A bit too much of a premium" is EXACTLY my point, but to you it's a digression.
If beauty is completely subjective, then why do we have art museums? Why are there design competitions? Why do certain designs and standards of craft become timeless and classic (in the absolute sense, not meaningless marketspeak)? It's because some things resonate through the ages. It is entirely possible that the designs of the Strat and the Tele (and the 330 and 360 and...) will remain at the top of universally-recognized ideals of beautiful product design. But the faking of age and the taking of a several-hundred-percent markup will never be seen as contributing to this beauty, and are recognized by ethicists as shady business practices, despite your apologist's dismissal of a company doing "what it feels it needs to do in order to make a profit". What they do is unethical. Enron did "what it felt it had to do to make a profit". Thanks, Jeff Skilling, for being such an upstanding guy, just doing your job, uh-huh. Why do we need the SEC and Attorneys General, when businesses can just determine for themselves what they need to do to make a profit?
Regardless of why the Fender market is out of control? That's EXACTLY what I'm trying to address. Not "regardless", but "regarding".
Both have to do with the current business model at Fender and the majority of guitar companies.
Yeah, everybody wins. Fender sells smoke, people buy smoke. That's capitalism. In its worst form, that is. But WINNING? So you think there's nothing askew about a $1299.00 guitar selling for $2479.00 because it's been beat up deliberately to "create" old out of new? That's twice the price for half the instrument.
Fender doesn't "just happen" to do anything. Their business strategies are obviously finely-honed.
"Time Machine" is Fender "Marketspeak" for exactly the guitars and pricing tactics I'm talking about--just in the lower end of the hype department.
"Time Machine" refers to NOS, Closet Classics, and Relics. From new to third degree rug burns...When a new concept gets accepted, the introduction pricing expands in both directions until the market is saturated with price points. Fender market research has determined that there is only room in the marketplace for a high-end destruction derby every couple of years, so the Time Machines are there to pull some more consistent bucks out of an adoring public.
Didn't you read my paragraphs about RIC's business model? Seems like you missed something here. RIC charges premium prices for limited editions, sure, but these prices are STILL based upon the same cost-to-build-plus-reasonable-markup model. RIC sets MSRP. What dealers charge for them is another matter entirely. That's why the recent bump in prices at dealer level for the 75th specials can't be laid at RIC's feet. The MSRP was set at $500.00 above non-75th versions of the same instruments--look at RIC's price list. Dealers, of course, saw an opportunity for a bit of extra profit (seriously, with only 300 instruments, and RIC's markup being only a couple of hundred on each instrument, their profits are hardly exhorbitant.
Can you imagine, in light of what happened to the Lemmy, what Fender would've charged for the same instrument? And the Lemmy took genuine craft to build--each and every one. The body wings were hand-carved on each instrument. In RIC's own shop. In America.
So RIC does most certainly NOT do "exactly the same thing".
RIC's philosophy, and its management's integrity, are the bulwarks of the brand and uphold the tradition that makes its 75th worth celebrating.
Fender is just another shark in the pond. Leo would not be proud.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
Let me preface by saying I do have a Fender custom shop NOS 59 P-Bass that I love. Not nearly as pricey as the other stuff in this thread(less than 2K).
With that said, it seems Fender is to guitars what Topps is to the trading card industry. The idea is if you make more lines of product, you take up more shelf space, and therefore make more sales.
With that said, it seems Fender is to guitars what Topps is to the trading card industry. The idea is if you make more lines of product, you take up more shelf space, and therefore make more sales.
" It's not where you are, it's who you're with.".
I read all of your rant, Paul. Every word of it. If I didn't respect your opinion on so many things I'd have dismissed it as I do so many similar rants by people on the internet.
My comments will be brief. I'm sure you'll just rip into them again and claim I'm just an apologist instead of a rational thinking person.
1. Ethics
It is not, in any way, unethical for any musical instrument company to set any price they see fit. Potential customers have the choice to make the purchase or not. The fact that thousands of Fender customers are willing to pay the premium (and would, I think pay even more) says that Fender is exactly correct.
We're not talking about precious commodities we're talking about guitars.
Your attempt to link what Fender does with their pricing to the Enron situation speaks volumes about your entire argument.
2. Marketspeak
Fender has a strong, persistent and effective marketing team. More power to them. I'm sure that
some are seduced by Fender's marketing. But at the same time, Fender players are not stupid sheep brainwashed by Fender's hypnotists. We Fender fans love our Fenders and buy them because we love them not because some maketing whiz says we should
Yes, Paul, as unlikely as it seems, I buy Fenders for the same reason I buy Rickenbackers. Because I think they're great. In fact, everyone I know does that as well. And I don't hear a single "baa baa" from any of 'em.
My comments will be brief. I'm sure you'll just rip into them again and claim I'm just an apologist instead of a rational thinking person.
1. Ethics
It is not, in any way, unethical for any musical instrument company to set any price they see fit. Potential customers have the choice to make the purchase or not. The fact that thousands of Fender customers are willing to pay the premium (and would, I think pay even more) says that Fender is exactly correct.
We're not talking about precious commodities we're talking about guitars.
Your attempt to link what Fender does with their pricing to the Enron situation speaks volumes about your entire argument.
2. Marketspeak
Fender has a strong, persistent and effective marketing team. More power to them. I'm sure that
some are seduced by Fender's marketing. But at the same time, Fender players are not stupid sheep brainwashed by Fender's hypnotists. We Fender fans love our Fenders and buy them because we love them not because some maketing whiz says we should
Yes, Paul, as unlikely as it seems, I buy Fenders for the same reason I buy Rickenbackers. Because I think they're great. In fact, everyone I know does that as well. And I don't hear a single "baa baa" from any of 'em.
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
A good example of the proliferation of smokey products--trading cards. Just the idea of a trading card "industry" makes me shake my head in wonderment (and I've done several projects for Upper Deck in another life...).
Something with absolutely no intrinsic value beyond a half-cent's worth of coated chipboard stock and a milli-cent's worth of ink...inflated to huge prices and profits by supply and demand. But there the resemblance ends, because trading cards are meant to be mass-produced items, so debates about "craft" are supplanted by debates on die-cutting and color registration. Closer to philately than guitar-building. Guitars were hand-crafted until our friend Leo worked out a way to make them buildable like Erector sets--by bolting them together. A stroke of genius, hard work, customer service, incomparable design and quality, and the Peoples' Guitars were born.
I love my Jaguars, Mustang, Duo-Sonic, and Jazzmaster. Oh, yes. Despite their design faults, they are not replaceable by anything else for their purpose. and that certain sound.
But Ricks--there is that indefinable something that keeps me connected.
Something with absolutely no intrinsic value beyond a half-cent's worth of coated chipboard stock and a milli-cent's worth of ink...inflated to huge prices and profits by supply and demand. But there the resemblance ends, because trading cards are meant to be mass-produced items, so debates about "craft" are supplanted by debates on die-cutting and color registration. Closer to philately than guitar-building. Guitars were hand-crafted until our friend Leo worked out a way to make them buildable like Erector sets--by bolting them together. A stroke of genius, hard work, customer service, incomparable design and quality, and the Peoples' Guitars were born.
I love my Jaguars, Mustang, Duo-Sonic, and Jazzmaster. Oh, yes. Despite their design faults, they are not replaceable by anything else for their purpose. and that certain sound.
But Ricks--there is that indefinable something that keeps me connected.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut
-
jingle_jangle
- RRF Moderator
- Posts: 22679
- Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 6:00 am
- Contact:
See my above post about Fender-Love, Tom. And I'm letting you have the last word on this, because all my points are exhausted, have been restated, and still have not met their mark.
But my connecting Fender with Enron speaks volumes about my argument? I guess you're attempting to suggest hysteria...but instead it's skepticism and doubt, brought on by participating for thirty-five years in the cauldron of American business and finally being happy devoting my life to pursuing craft.
But my connecting Fender with Enron speaks volumes about my argument? I guess you're attempting to suggest hysteria...but instead it's skepticism and doubt, brought on by participating for thirty-five years in the cauldron of American business and finally being happy devoting my life to pursuing craft.
“I say in speeches that a plausible mission of artists is to make people appreciate being alive at least a little bit. I am then asked if I know of any artists who pulled that off. I reply, 'The Beatles did.”
― Kurt Vonnegut
― Kurt Vonnegut