Martin/Taylor line-up diversification

[Bearclaw Spruce]

I think having a separate brand, model and significantly different price point creates all the separation needed. When a company offers 27 mahogany dreads, with small steps between each, I think it only confuses the buyer and can cut into the upper reaches of the product line. IMO Martin has too many models and Taylor did themselves a disservice by going all the way down to the 100 series in such minor steps. But I do not see their sales numbers. Lower priced instruments can be delivered to more hands. Maybe it is best for business. The beginner picks up the 100, upgrades to a 400 and retires with an 800 custom.

Agree, disagree?

http://collingsforum.com/eve/forums/...376#3230051376

[MikeBmusic]

Ridiculous. Having different body styles and different woods gives a diverse lineup so any player can find what they like best.
On the other hand, Gibson having 50 different Les Paul models does seem like overkill!

[Long Jon]

Originally Posted by MikeBmusic

Ridiculous. Having different body styles and different woods gives a diverse lineup so any player can find what they like best.
On the other hand, Gibson having 50 different Les Paul models does seem like overkill!

Surely a lot of the L.P variants will only be colour choice ?

[Treenewt]

I disagree.

If you can't hear/see/feel the difference as you go from a 1 series Martin up to a 15, then a 16, then an 18, then a GE, then an Authentic...well, I think you're not listening!

I, personally, think both Martin and Taylor do a good job at offering different things at different price points. Does a 1 series in either one sound like the top end? Not usually (there are those "gems" out there that we hear about, but not usually).

A 1 series is definitely not going to sound like an Authentic. Different animals. An x series is going to sound way different than a 16 series.

And they are going after different groups with each. Most of the Ed Sheeran fans are not looking at an OM-18 Authentic as their first guitar. They want to play like Ed, look like Ed, so they buy the LX. It's marketing, and it obviously works.

I love the variety myself. I love going up through the line and hearing the differences, subtle though they may be as you rise in number (both series and price) but they're there.

I say "keep the variety coming!"

[Jim]

More models means more sales. Cars are similar where there are cars made by the same factory with the only difference being the name plate and a couple of bits of plastic trim being different.

What I think is the bigger problem is how Taylor and Martin have cheapened their brand name by putting their name and logo on inexpensive laminated guitars after having built their reputations on their high quality all solid wood guitars. To me, a Martin worth the name of Martin starts at the -18 level and a Taylor worth the name of Taylor starts at the 500 level. They should sell their lower end guitars under a difference name in the way that Gibson has done. Gibson branded guitars are for their better quality ones on which their name means quality, while Epiphone is the name they put on their affordable guitars. Fender used to do this with their Fender vs. Squier brands but they have mixed things up over the years.

[Dru Edwards]

I like Taylor's differentiation between their series. 100 through 900 series and also the Koa and Presentation series. Throw in the GS Mini/Baby/Big Baby. Now that they merged their acoustic series (GA / DN / GC / etc) into their main "ce" series it's even easier.

[rmyAddison]

Originally Posted by Jim

More models means more sales. Cars are similar where there are cars made by the same factory with the only difference being the name plate and a couple of bits of plastic trim being different.

What I think is the bigger problem is how Taylor and Martin have cheapened their brand name by putting their name and logo on inexpensive laminated guitars after having built their reputations on their high quality all solid wood guitars. To me, a Martin worth the name of Martin starts at the -18 level and a Taylor worth the name of Taylor starts at the 500 level. They should sell their lower end guitars under a difference name in the way that Gibson has done. Gibson branded guitars are for their better quality ones on which their name means quality, while Epiphone is the name they put on their affordable guitars. Fender used to do this with their Fender vs. Squier brands but they have mixed things up over the years.

Martin is a family owned business, they have some employees that are third and forth generation. When times got tough Chris Martin had to make a decision, expand the line down into entry level or lay people off, he chose to keep people working.

A lot of Martin fans wish the line didn't go down into laminates and entry level instruments, but it is what it is, hey even BMW and Mercedes and Audi are going down market to get sales, it's just business.

By the same token with the Authentics Martin has chosen to make incredible guitar based on pre-war models, so they certainly haven't abandoned the "good stuff", choice is good................

[fazool]

I like a very logical breakdown of choices.

I imagine a three-axis matrix. You can enter in by choosing your body wood first or by choosing your shape or by choosing your top wood.

That would give you the three big combinations, then you can add variants and options to that.

Taylor sort of organizes that way so it makes sense in my engineering way of thinking. But I think Taylor has too many options. I never understood the 200-series Taylors. If you want a laminate, entry level Taylor, go with a 100-series. I also never understood their 900 series. It was top of the line but not the top of the line because of the PS series. The 800 was the flagship they really sell. I think they should combine 900 & PS.

Current Taylors:

Entry
100
200

Mid
300
400
500
600
700

High
800
900
PS
BTO

It seems like too many "levels" to me. And sometimes their levels indicates a quality jump, other times its the same quality/cost but just a wood selection.





Gibson's Les Paul offerings are nothing short of bewildering to me.

I don't know if a Gibson LPJ, Gibson Les Paul Studio, Gibson Les Paul Studio Special, Gibson Les Paul Jr, Gibson Les Paul Special, Gibson Les Paul Junior Special, Epiphone Les Paul Jr, Epiphone Les Paul Special, Epiphone Paul Junior Studio, Epiphone Les Paul Studio Special is the low-end model.

It's like someone in their marketing department wants to keep the investor-owner happy and just plays Yahtzee with a bunch of guitar name words to make up another model.

None of it makes any sense to me.

Oh, and related to a recent AGF topic on "low end is the new high end", I think the performance-vs-cost factor of guitars is much more credible with acoustic guitars, whose performance is based on construction as much (or more) than the components.

For example,

I believe a $4000 Gibson acoustic will sound way better than a $1000 Gibson acoustic.

I have a fantastically hard time believing that a $4000 Gibson Les Paul will sound that much better than a $1000 Gibson Les Paul. Or, I think with a little upgrade in the electronics I think you could make a $1000 LP sound as good as a $4000 LP with well under $1000 additional investment.

Originally Posted by Jim

More models means more sales. Cars are similar where there are cars made by the same factory with the only difference being the name plate and a couple of bits of plastic trim being different.

What I think is the bigger problem is how Taylor and Martin have cheapened their brand name by putting their name and logo on inexpensive laminated guitars after having built their reputations on their high quality all solid wood guitars. To me, a Martin worth the name of Martin starts at the -18 level and a Taylor worth the name of Taylor starts at the 500 level. They should sell their lower end guitars under a difference name in the way that Gibson has done. Gibson branded guitars are for their better quality ones on which their name means quality, while Epiphone is the name they put on their affordable guitars. Fender used to do this with their Fender vs. Squier brands but they have mixed things up over the years.

I like the more inexpensive (sometimes laminated) Martins and Taylors. The few times I've played these at my local GC left me impressed. Mind you, I don't think they were anywhere near the sound and quality of my Yairi or Gibson, or the more expensive Martins and Taylors in the shop , but they were very good guitars. I'm thinking that when someone is just starting out and learning their cowboy chords, this is a great option - a high-quality instrument with a brand name that they will be proud to play. Seems like a winner to me.

[fazool]

Originally Posted by Jim

...To me, a Martin worth the name of Martin starts at the -18 level and a Taylor worth the name of Taylor starts at the 500 level. They should sell their lower end guitars under a difference name in the way that Gibson has done. Gibson branded guitars are for their better quality ones on which their name means quality, while Epiphone is the name they put on their affordable guitars. Fender used to do this with their Fender vs. Squier brands but they have mixed things up over the years.

I agree with this, in principle. I think the Taylors should include all their solid woods, starting at the 300's.

Personally, I think they cheapen their brand by selling Baby, and Big Baby Taylors. Similarly, I think D15(M) Martins are nice solid wood guitars. I think everything below that cheapens the brand.

I know they want to get the higher volume (lower margin) sales at the low end and big attraction is using the company name.

As for Gibson, see my post up above, I think they are the poster child for doing the separation between brands all wrong.

[DjFuzzyMcPickle]

Originally Posted by Dru Edwards

I like Taylor's differentiation between their series. 100 through 900 series and also the Koa and Presentation series. Throw in the GS Mini/Baby/Big Baby. Now that they merged their acoustic series (GA / DN / GC / etc) into their main "ce" series it's even easier.

Originally Posted by fazool

I like a very logical breakdown of choices.

That would give you the three big combinations, then you can add variants and options to that.

Taylor sort of organizes that way so it makes sense in my engineering way of thinking. But I think Taylor has too many options. I never understood the 200-series Taylors. If you want a laminate, entry level Taylor, go with a 100-series. I also never understood their 900 series. It was top of the line but not the top of the line because of the PS series. The 800 was the flagship they really sell. I think they should combine 900 & PS.

It seems like too many "levels" to me. And sometimes their levels indicates a quality jump, other times its the same quality/cost but just a wood selection.

Gibson's Les Paul offerings are nothing short of bewildering to me.

I don't know if a Gibson LPJ, Gibson Les Paul Studio, Gibson Les Paul Studio Special, Gibson Les Paul Jr, Gibson Les Paul Special, Gibson Les Paul Junior Special, Epiphone Les Paul Jr, Epiphone Les Paul Special, Epiphone Paul Junior Studio, Epiphone Les Paul Studio Special is the low-end model.

It's like someone in their marketing department wants to keep the investor-owner happy and just plays Yahtzee with a bunch of guitar name words to make up another model.

None of it makes any sense to me.

Oh, and related to a recent AGF topic on "low end is the new high end", I think the performance-vs-cost factor of guitars is much more credible with acoustic guitars, whose performance is based on construction as much (or more) than the components.

For example,

I believe a $4000 Gibson acoustic will sound way better than a $1000 Gibson acoustic.

I have a fantastically hard time believing that a $4000 Gibson Les Paul will sound that much better than a $1000 Gibson Les Paul. Or, I think with a little upgrade in the electronics I think you could make a $1000 LP sound as good as a $4000 LP with well under $1000 additional investment.

Couldn't agree more with both. I have a 914CE and I still agree with that one!

[devellis]

The link in the original post was specifically about Collings going into production with its Waterloo brand, so I'll speak to that. I think it's a great idea and will do no harm at all to the Collings brand.

What this guitar is, is an attempt to recreate something along the lines of the Kalamazoo brand that Gibson built during the Depression. The reason, I believe, for Collings making this call is less to come up with a "budget line" (and they're still not budget guitars at just below $2000) but to recapture the great tone and vibe of those old guitars. Their tone is unusual and, by many standards, doesn't fit the description of a "great sounding guitar." It's a specialty instrument, with a strong midrange and neither bass nor trebles that excel. So, building a high-quality version of a guitar that has certain limitations built into it entails some risk. On the other hand, those "limitations" result in a tone that many players seek (in the same way, but not to the same degree, that many people seek the imbalance inherent in a Martin dread).

So, if you're a major company with a stellar reputation, and you'd like to build a guitar that captures the historic tone and vibe of an instrument that was pretty down-scale, what do you do? Option A is to build something suggestive of the original but that would still have broad appeal to modern guitar tastes -- that would "outperform" the originals by having some of the latter's tonal limitations removed. Option B is to just build exactly the way the originals were constructed, with less-than-meticulous attention to materials or construction. Build it cheaply and sell it cheaply. The problem there is that Option B might make it tough to recoup the initial investment of research into what aspects of the originals gave them their distinctive character. And the guitar might be perceived as "just a cheap guitar" intended to compete with lower-end imports rather than an attempt to capture a vintage tone. Option C is to build a really great guitar that takes the risk of constraining tone in the ways that the original guitars did but that builds to a higher standard of materials, construction, and durability.

I'm thinking that Collings has gone for Option C. If they have succeeded, I don't think it will be perceived the same way as all-laminate, entry-level guitars from other companies. The latter are clearly aimed at new players who want the brand and are willing to give up some quality. The Waterloo, on the other hand, doesn't involve surrendering quality but choosing a different tone profile intentionally. A more appropriate analogy to the Waterloo may be high-quality, small-bodied, all-mahogany guitars form other builders. These don't have "all the tone" of comparable models with, say spruce and rosewood, and they're not supposed to. They often are priced less than their Adirondack-over-EIR brethren but that isn't seen as because they're inferior but just because they're inherently less expensive to build.

So, in the case of Collings introducing these Waterloo guitars with T-bar neck reinforcement and either ladder- or -bracing, I don't see any diminution in the company's reputation as a builder of fine, premium-quality guitars. I see it as their effort to recreate a classic, albeit down-market, style of guitar that retains the virtues of the originals but is built to a higher standard as is appropriate for Collings.

I haven't played one. I might think differently if I do and feel that they've missed the mark by a mile. Also, my analysis of how the market will react may be naive or misinformed. But I'm guessing that the Waterloo will do very well and will enhance rather than diminish the Collings brand reputation. Of course, only time will tell.

[kcnbys]

The only things that "cheapen" a brand, IMHO, is poor craftsmanship (a "cheap" product) and lousy customer service. I don't believe Martin or Taylor to be guilty of either of these. Building a variety of guitars in order to allow a broader spectrum of the market to own and enjoy a quality instrument (regardless of whether it is solid, laminate, or whatever) doesn't cheapen the brand at all. A Taylor 100 or 200 series guitar is not a "cheap" guitar by any stretch of the imagination. They are, generally, very fine instruments that happen to be made in a less expensive fashion. They, however, in spite of that, sound and play the way you'd expect a Taylor to sound and play. I've played plenty of laminate guitars, even with solid tops, and they aren't even in the same stratosphere as a 100 or 200 series Taylor, OR an X series Martin for that matter. I love the fact that truly excellent guitar men like Bob Taylor and Chris Martin are doing business in such a way that helps young people, as well as those of us "not as young" people, who don't have the financial ability to buy a $2000+ guitar, be able own a high quality instrument we can own and enjoy for a very long time. To me, that doesn't "cheapen" the brand, but enhances it!

[Ted @ LA Guitar Sales]

Originally Posted by rmyAddison

Martin is a family owned business, they have some employees that are third and forth generation. When times got tough Chris Martin had to make a decision, expand the line down into entry level or lay people off, he chose to keep people working.

A lot of Martin fans wish the line didn't go down into laminates and entry level instruments, but it is what it is, hey even BMW and Mercedes and Audi are going down market to get sales, it's just business.

By the same token with the Authentics Martin has chosen to make incredible guitar based on pre-war models, so they certainly haven't abandoned the "good stuff", choice is good................

While a lot Martin fans do not like Martin building less expensive models a lot more do, and in the end it has to be about business. When the Mercedes 300 series came out folks here in Beverly Hills thought that would be the end of company, bot were they ever wrong.

[duff beer]

kcnbys:

I agree. Not everyone wants or needs a high end guitar. They may not have the cash, don't want to spend the cash, or they simply have other things in their life that are higher on the priority list. Someone who rarely plays and just wants to noodle for a few hours a month may not want to break the bank to do so...but they still want a brand name. It only makes good business sense to tap into that market share.