How Gibson Flushed Les Paul Down The Toilet
February 2nd, 2010 by Lior ShamirOwning a Gibson guitar is like owning a BMW.
It’s a statement.
For BMW, the “German Engineering” stamp is impervious to Lexus.
For Gibson, “Made In The USA” is just as sacred.
It takes decades to establish the reputation that Gibson has achieved.
Yet only minutes to flush it down the toilet.
Gibson, like many heritage brands, engaged itself with a young spunky marketing consultant that dazzled its management team with social media catchwords like “viral”, “buzz” and “tweet”.
How the conversation went down:
Spunky Consultant: “You’re doing everything wrong. Everything!”
Gibson Management: “We are? Sales are up. Overhead is down. What do you mean?”
Spunky Consultant: “Sales Shmales. It’s not about the money, it’s about your brand equity!”
Gibson Management: “Sales Shmales?”
Spunky Consultant: “You want to connect with your fans, engage with your customers and create a conversation around you, see?”
Gibson Management: “Will that increase sales?”
Spunky Consultant: “Forget sales already. I’m going to get you buzz. You do want buzz, don’t you?”
Gibson Management: “Does buzz increase sales?”
Spunky Consultant: “Look, do you want followers or not?”
Gibson Management: “I… guess… that… we… do…”
Spunky Consultant: “Great! Make the check out to…”
So what happened the next day?
Gibson launched a new website that displays each of its exquisite instruments in the light that they deserve. Best of all, on every page of the website, beneath the featured instrument, they included threaded comments (like on YouTube) where visitors can comment on the featured guitar and the community can vote the comment up or down.
This is spunky, dynamic, web 2.0-ish online social media marketing at its finest!
Except for one thing…
The most popular comments, those that received the largest number of votes, make Gibson look like a Buick, not a luxury premium.
One comment in particular, truly struck a chord with me. Here it is at No. 1 with 452 votes for the Gibson Les Paul Dusk Tiger:
I can see the salesmen at Guitar Center now: Salesman: “Hey man check out the new Gibson Dusk Tiger! It’s got all of these amazing features!” Customer: “It looks kinda stupid.” Salesman: “Yeah but it tunes itself! You can dial in any tone you want on this baby!” Customer: “Can you dial in a less stupid looking finish? My band will laugh at me if I turn up to a gig with that thing” Salesman: “It only comes in the one color, but it’s LIMITED EDITION! There’s only gonna be 1000 of these made!” Customer: “I think it’s a limited edition because there’s a limited market for these things. Even then I doubt that there are enough guys out there wearing the leather pants, wolf t-shirt and eye makeup necessary to look as stupid as this guitar. And those guys usually don’t have $4000 to waste on what is basically a gimmicky Les Paul dressed as a gay tiger, so you’re going to have a hard time selling these, aren’t you?” Salesman: “Like you would not believe”
Where do you think Gibson went wrong with its online marketing strategy?
Leave me your thoughts please.
February 3rd, 2010 at 7:16 am
would have to see the post and any photos they put out with the guitar but it sounds like they may have put out some out dated imagery with the ad campagn.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:43 pm
I don’t really get this post. Ever since they started making acoustic guitars again in Bozeman, MT (instead of Taiwan or wherever they were making stuff for a while in the mid-70s to mid-80s?) anyway, now the quality has gone way up since at least 1992 (Bozemn factory began making ‘em). They’re still not comparable to say, a Collings, but they are fine guitars for the most part. I am not familiar with where they are making the electric guitars. Do those still suck (or such again)? I have a friend who’s been very happy with some recent Gibson electrics including custom models, he’s even purchased online (which we all swore we’d never do — buy a guitar without playing it first). Reputable dealers will let you return a guitar you don’t like (Exception – Eddie’s Guitars!! Watch out!!) but in general I don’t get the “Buick” analogy. Maybe there was an online catalog entry with a gross-looking guitar, if so I didn’t see it. Online I mostly look at Ebay (just to see what’s around) and Gbase. Gbase seems very reputable and you can search for a given make or model (any guitar), contact the individual dealers and see what else they’ve go, even whether you can negotiate, etc. I haven’t had any problems with what I’ve seen, or what I’ve bought. FWIW. Mandy
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:45 pm
mmm, they could have moderated what users put on their site…
Lior Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Yes, but the problem is that they would have to delete most of them to save face!
Stephen carmichael Reply:
February 4th, 2010 at 1:36 am
of course they would have. that’s the point. then they wouldn’t have this dilemma. if this was your company or even your music profile or whatever, wouldn’t you moderate comments to try and control your image. if someone came along and posted a nasty comment about your music on myspace, would you deleted or keep it there???
February 3rd, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Interesting. Seems like the simple solution would be to have admin control over what you allow to be posted. Heck, I do this on my lil’ ol blog. http://jcazmusic.blogspot.com/
I would think a big company like Gibson would certainly filter comments…
J
February 3rd, 2010 at 8:07 pm
I get your point. And sarcasm is hilarious. When you’re right, you’re right. Here’s the problem: if you want buzz, and you want it to help, you have to screen it. Don’t allow a message sounding board to create negative threads if what you really are going for is a “props” and “shout outs” section. If you are looking for positive reenforcement, don’t make way for negative mudslinging. Pull in the reigns. Control your messaging. Don’t hope. Brand.
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:08 pm
Lior, I totally disagree with your post, though I confess that Gibson’s web changes might have come from someone younger. Here’s the thing with social: you can convene but not control. Now that Gibson has convened some folks, it needs to listen and act on the comments that have merit, both positive and negative. This is where most companies fail. They hear only what they want to hear, or worse, have no process for taking legitimate praise and criticism and improving things. Personally, I think Gibson won’t make this mistake.
Jeff
Lior Reply:
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:17 pm
I like your thinking Jeff.
I like that you disagree with me.
I like your alliterated term (Convene vs. Control) describing the conflict in Gibson’s actions. I will remember that… and, perhaps, use it if I may?
February 5th, 2010 at 11:58 am
I say they went wrong when they didn’t believe in their own strategy. Ive sold everything from lighters, to light your smokes, to stuff monkeys they look stupid but parents were sold on the silly cuteness to get a smile from their child or someone elses. Making a brand is just another form of sales, once a marketing firm leader coached me and a group of sales rep befor we left the office. People will by a rock with a ribbon on it if you believe in your picth. And its true hence (chia pet,). the point is when we went out to sale people were so happy to see someone with a fire for what they were doing it made them by that person not the item they were selling, Its like a visit on a lonely day, the milkman, the poolboy, all these guys sleeping with hardworking mans wives while there out paying for the house that being enjoyed. Hint Call home stop by visit your wife your husband sale your self the brand is confidece. Dawolfdawg howls owwwwwl!
February 7th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
If Gibson receives 10,000 comments but only 500 get past a moderation, then they are not creating a buzz or brand managing….they are performing a cover up operation…deluding the customers!
Best thing a company can do is develop (or re-develop) a good product. The fact you can market or brand manage a bad product good is one of the foulest smells on the planet these days.
February 8th, 2010 at 12:59 am
Nothing wrong with the strategy from what you’ve revealed so far. I guess you’re implying that the company shouldn’t encourage public conversation about its products because there might be negative comments. Negative comments are not a bad thing, it’s all in how well you handle ‘em. Deleting the negative commments and keeping those that are positive would be a horrible mistake… like customers won’t see that their commetns were deleted, and have their own conversations about that?
I hate to say “studies have shown…” when I can’t quote the study, but I know that there has been research that shows that a customer conversation with positive comments only is less trusted than a conversation that has some negative commments.
Getting customers engaged is a good thing; so is showing that you’re listening… like funneling the negative comments to operations so they can assess whether something needs to change.
Lior Reply:
February 8th, 2010 at 11:34 am
I wasn’t implying that a public conversation is a bad thing. On the contrary, I think it’s a great thing.
However, creating a free-for-all forum is chaos. The conversation needs to be moderated and guided, otherwise all you’re left with is noise, regardless of whether the comments are positive or negative.
February 16th, 2010 at 8:00 am
I thought you might appreciate my input, seeing as that I am the writer of the scathing review that you quoted.
In my opinion, Gibson’s biggest problem isn’t their poorly moderated website design, it’s their R&D department.
In their heyday of the 50’s-60’s they created some of the most important, influential and original guitar designs of all time, and this is the reason Gibson has so many fans all over the world. They don’t need to create ‘buzz’, because they’ve had many decades of hugely respected artists playing their instruments.
These days, all Gibson seems to do is create gimmicky versions of their flagship models, with seemingly no thought towards improving the many shortcomings of using a 50-60 year old guitar design:
“Ok guys, we need a new Les Paul model, any ideas?”
“Let’s put a weird paintjob on it!”
“We can use cheaper wood and call it ‘eco-friendly’!”
“The cheap wood is too heavy! Cut some stylized holes in it!”
“Yeah! We’re designing guitars!”
“What about the fragile headstock design? Can’t we remove the sharp edge of the body where your arm rests? And the big heel on the neck that makes it very hard to play the upper frets of a Les Paul. Why don’t we do something about those?”
“Uhh Tony, we can’t change those things, it wouldn’t be a Les Paul. Duh…”
Gibson can’t seem to realize that in trying to pander to both traditionalist and progressive-thinking musicians, all they are doing is making instruments that neither party would want to own. Just have a look at the Dusk Tiger. It’s embarrassing…