Fair enough. I'll concede that understanding (although it has not been my personal experience). But I don't mean it as an attitude, I just mean it as a matter of a discussion of marketing. Who knows? Maybe I do carry an inflated sense of ego tied to my guitar because of their quality and sticking to the one-factory, keep-it-in-the-family, USA-only plan. But I'm just glad that I spent that kind of money (which I saved for years) on a high-quality instrument where the manufacturing process justifies the price somewhat.Grey wrote:Perhaps, but with that attitude you have to concede to understanding why people view Rickenbacker players as elitist.Rickissippi wrote:You're actually making collin's point for him. He's not getting into a global economy debate -- all that discussion may be missing the point. He's just saying RIC chose not to make entry-level (high-volume, low-quality) products. They only make high-end, professional-grade instruments.
When a company introduces a budget line, it does dilute the brand, like it or not. The PRS example is a really good one - the SE models diluted their brand, and now many folks are shying away from them as a result.
To go with perhaps an obvious example, there are a lot of great bolt-on Tele-style guitars out there that I'm sure are wonderful (I love Teles), but the process doesn't justify a $1,000-plus pricetag, IMHO. The whole point to a Tele, at least to me, is the working-man's guitar - a slab of wood, a stick bolted on, relatively simple parts, and sometimes no separate fingerboard. That's its beauty. That exact same guitar now can sometimes cost upwards of $2k. Nuts.