Martin CEO on embracing radical change.

[abn556]

Originally Posted by Alan Carruth

martingitdave dave wote:
"Pretty difficult to be the historical benchmark, by which others are judged, and be the innovator the future needs."

One marketing book I read many years ago pointed out that anybody can claim to be the best, but only one can be the first. Chris based his resurrection strategy on that when he took over an ailing company, and it worked.

I don't see exploring the use of 'new' woods as an abrogation of that philosophy. Modern technology and measurement methods might well show ways in which those could be more intelligently integrated into the line without jumping on the the 'innovation' bandwagon.

If they were “exploring” and also capable of fixing some their issues with their “classic” lineup, no one would complain about Koa turntables or cherry wood guitars with weight relieved bracing. Unfortunately their focus does not seem to be on their existing customer base. Growth as a goal, without retention of existing clientele nets you no growth at all.

[Robin, Wales]

Originally Posted by jjbigfly

This is my own warped view of Martin (and applies to all manufacturers).


When I (anyone) pays, say, $4000 for a nice instrument from a manufacturer, part of that cost is for the “lifetime” warranty…ok?
Now, this is where it gets kinky (no, not THAT kind of kinky). To remain in the marketplace a manufacturer needs to be selling new instruments, as this is what generates profits. No way around that.
Now, let’s say I bought a new guitar from ABC Guitar Makers company (for that $4000) last year with a “lifetime” warranty. Fast forward one year and there is a person at a music store that wants to buy a similar instrument to the one I have. The ABC company is out of that model, so they need to get one built in order to take the $ from the new customer. ABC company is letting you know that for the $ you are spending they will deliver what they said they would- a nice instrument that sounds and plays well (with a warranty). Nothing strange here, this is the way it should go.
Now, let’s say I have an issue with MY instrument and it needs to go back to the manufacturer for warranty service. These things happen, but I have a warranty, so all is good. Maybe….
Is the ABC company going to focus on the new customer so they can make the $ needed to keep making instruments? They HAVE to, if they want to stay in business. But….. What about me? The issue I have is that ABC ALREADY HAS MY MONEY. Do they not owe me anything AFTER the sale? Like dealing with my instrument in a fair and timely manner?
There ARE companies that have struck a good balance with this warranty/sales issue. I understand this is a difficult issue with some manufacturers, but for myself, I have already PAID for the service when I made the original purchase.
As a footnote, I am wondering how long it takes the ABC company to manufacture a new instrument as opposed to taking care of mine? Tone and playability is the sought after goal with guitars, but it’s not everything.
Instruments are a passion for many of us, I hope the brands I buy feel the same…..

Your lifetime warrantee is priced in to your $4000 purchase. And the new customer may well be buying that brand because the lifetime warrantee tips the balance for them towards that brand.

Martin doesn't offer the lifetime warrantee in the UK or EU. But the pricing doesn't reflect this. So they are just very expensive foreign made imported guitars. Consequently, they don't sell that well as the competition is strong and the brand name has less value than perhaps it does in the US. Lets put it like this: if Martin was French company rather than a US company, how would you feel about their guitars? To us in the UK, it would make no difference.

[phavriluk]

I think there's two nearly-unrelated threads here:

The first is the factory production flow, it chugs along churning out money.

The second is the repair department. They might not even share a zip code with the production arm.

These two are areas of the same company (maybe) but don't interact except when shaking the corporate tree for resources. The repair workload won't be showing up on the factory floor and the repair shop won't be making new instruments.

Words from on high: Go do what you do, each of you.

I think.

[jjbigfly]

I think there's two nearly-unrelated threads here:
quoting here…
The first is the factory production flow, it chugs along churning out money.

The second is the repair department. They might not even share a zip code with the production arm.

These two are areas of the same company (maybe) but don't interact except when shaking the corporate tree for resources. The repair workload won't be showing up on the factory floor and the repair shop won't be making new instruments.

Words from on high: Go do what you do, each of you.

I think.
—————————————————————————————

I think this is exactly correct and well stated. On the other hand, combine the two departments and you get Martin Guitar Company. The end result is the same however.

[jjbigfly]

Oops. That post was a quote but I did it incorrectly. So I went back to try to fix the issue.
See how that works? I could have ignored the issue and saved the effort, but perhaps that would not been the proper approach.

[phavriluk]

Originally Posted by jjbigfly

Oops. That post was a quote but I did it incorrectly. So I went back to try to fix the issue.
See how that works? I could have ignored the issue and saved the effort, but perhaps that would not been the proper approach.

You done good!

[abn556]

Originally Posted by phavriluk

I think there's two nearly-unrelated threads here:

The first is the factory production flow, it chugs along churning out money.

The second is the repair department. They might not even share a zip code with the production arm.

These two are areas of the same company (maybe) but don't interact except when shaking the corporate tree for resources. The repair workload won't be showing up on the factory floor and the repair shop won't be making new instruments.

Words from on high: Go do what you do, each of you.

I think.

You’re probably right about the resources at the factory vs the warranty claims. However - how long has the binding glue issue been going on? More than a decade right? You would think in that length of a time that the warranty people and customer service people would have a series of very blunt meetings with the production side about the problems. Additionally, has there ever been a letter to customers from the CEO apologizing for the QC issues and insuring customers that the issues would be corrected? RCCA is one of the tried and true tools for fixing problems at companies. I would love to know how many root cause and corrective action meetings Martin has had on the binding issue.

[GCWaters]

Originally Posted by zoopeda

I believe it's only the more expensive made-in-Nazareth guitars that had/have the binding issue because of stricter environmental regulations restricting glue use in the US.

So why isn't every other US maker having the same problem?

[abn556]

Originally Posted by GCWaters

So why isn't every other US maker having the same problem?

Exactly. I have two guitars at the luthier right now for fret work and one for a setup. I asked how many Martin binding issues they were seeing. You already know what the answer was. I asked about other brands with binding issues and they said “almost none”.

[zoopeda]

Originally Posted by jjbigfly

This is my own warped view of Martin (and applies to all manufacturers).


When I (anyone) pays, say, $4000 for a nice instrument from a manufacturer, part of that cost is for the “lifetime” warranty…ok?
Now, this is where it gets kinky (no, not THAT kind of kinky). To remain in the marketplace a manufacturer needs to be selling new instruments, as this is what generates profits. No way around that.
Now, let’s say I bought a new guitar from ABC Guitar Makers company (for that $4000) last year with a “lifetime” warranty. Fast forward one year and there is a person at a music store that wants to buy a similar instrument to the one I have. The ABC company is out of that model, so they need to get one built in order to take the $ from the new customer. ABC company is letting you know that for the $ you are spending they will deliver what they said they would- a nice instrument that sounds and plays well (with a warranty). Nothing strange here, this is the way it should go.
Now, let’s say I have an issue with MY instrument and it needs to go back to the manufacturer for warranty service. These things happen, but I have a warranty, so all is good. Maybe….
Is the ABC company going to focus on the new customer so they can make the $ needed to keep making instruments? They HAVE to, if they want to stay in business. But….. What about me? The issue I have is that ABC ALREADY HAS MY MONEY. Do they not owe me anything AFTER the sale? Like dealing with my instrument in a fair and timely manner?
There ARE companies that have struck a good balance with this warranty/sales issue. I understand this is a difficult issue with some manufacturers, but for myself, I have already PAID for the service when I made the original purchase.
As a footnote, I am wondering how long it takes the ABC company to manufacture a new instrument as opposed to taking care of mine? Tone and playability is the sought after goal with guitars, but it’s not everything.
Instruments are a passion for many of us, I hope the brands I buy feel the same…..

If I'm understanding correctly, you seem to be presuming the vendor you bought the new Martin guitar from is also a Martin certified warranty repair center. Often, Martin vendors are not the ones who repair guitars, and, likewise, often certified Martin repairpeople are not vendors of new Martins. Sometimes they do both, but most of the time they're different businesses. So vendors keep on selling, and repair shops keep on repairing. Wait times for repair and cost to get the guitar to a credible repair shop are another issue entirely...

[phavriluk]

Originally Posted by abn556

You’re probably right about the resources at the factory vs the warranty claims. However - how long has the binding glue issue been going on? More than a decade right? You would think in that length of a time that the warranty people and customer service people would have a series of very blunt meetings with the production side about the problems. Additionally, has there ever been a letter to customers from the CEO apologizing for the QC issues and insuring customers that the issues would be corrected? RCCA is one of the tried and true tools for fixing problems at companies. I would love to know how many root cause and corrective action meetings Martin has had on the binding issue.

I think they'll never tell. No board of directors, the owner acts (or not) with very little hindrance.

[Truckjohn]

I'm sort of amazed by the anger directed at Martin for what is actually a customer/market problem.

I've built a dozen or so guitars. None for sale, and all but two from "Alternative" tonewoods because that's what intrigued me.

Here's what always happens....

Somebody finds out you've got a Spruce/Osage orange or Oak or Cherry or Eucalyptus guitar. They play it, and love it, talk about it.... then they eye it suspiciously and hand it back.... "Oh, I love it. Sound, playability, blah blah.... But... Can you make one out of Rosewood/Mahogany?"

I'm talking every single time.

As an aside, many once-endangered woods are now plantation farmed. Indian rosewood has been plantation grown for 200 years b ow.

And so yeah, that's Martin's "problem." The problem isn't that Martin can't build A-1 Jam up guitars that blow your skirt up out of "Alternative" woods. They have offered Maple and Walnut and Cherry and (exotic stuff) wood guitars for
YEARS. The problem is that customers won't buy those. They want Mahogany and Rosewood... and they want Lacquer finishes... And the customers literally do not care about all the reasons other stuff is even better.

So yeah.. I totally sympathize.

[koine2002]

Originally Posted by Truckjohn

I'm sort of amazed by the anger directed at Martin for what is actually a customer/market problem.

I've built a dozen or so guitars. None for sale, and all but two from "Alternative" tonewoods because that's what intrigued me.

Here's what always happens....

Somebody finds out you've got a Spruce/Osage orange or Oak or Cherry or Eucalyptus guitar. They play it, and love it, talk about it.... then they eye it suspiciously and hand it back.... "Oh, I love it. Sound, playability, blah blah.... But... Can you make one out of Rosewood/Mahogany?"

I'm talking every single time.

And so yeah, that's Martin's "problem." The problem isn't that Martin can't build A-1 Jam up guitars that blow your skirt up out of "Alternative" woods. They have offered Maple and Walnut and Cherry and (exotic stuff) wood guitars for
YEARS. The problem is that customers won't buy those. They want Mahogany and Rosewood... and they want Lacquer finishes... And the customers literally do not care about all the reasons other stuff is even better.

So yeah.. I totally sympathize.

I used to ride a motorcycle (a Star by Yamaha). The reaction is almost always the same as whenever Harley-Davidson introduced something other than an air-cooled 45 degree v-twin with feet forward geometry. It’s either “Harley is no longer Harley” or it’s “see, they’re at the head of innovation” when they do things others have been doing for a while with the former being the more common response.

[Jeff Scott]

Originally Posted by zoopeda

...I bet players will see the satin finish as a downgrade on a $4k guitar.

Count me in on this, for the most part.

Originally Posted by Steve DeRosa

...(BTW I found that pic of the good Mr. Ripsam at the workbench, chisel in hand, unimpressive at best - kinda like "assisting in the construction of an HD-28 during summer vacation" )

Those pics are kinda cutesy, though.

Originally Posted by SFCRetired

Isn't that just about everybody? And what they produce themselves is harmful to the planet.

We can use what mother nature gave to us, we just have to make sure we replenish what we can. Tired of hearing all this doom and gloom stuff, when there are answers.

Originally Posted by zoopeda

FWIW that photo was taken during his first week or so there. Thomas has actually built guitars, start to finish, as a hobby prior to joining Martin.

Good to know, I just hope we don't start seeing his private workshop where he personally creates new concepts for Martin (think, Andy Powers, here).

[Shuksan]

Originally Posted by PineMarten

I worry a little about the thinned channels in the top on the pictures of the new bracing, it seems like a neat scored line to break along, or a stress riser for cracks to form, and it doesn't look like it would be easy to repair that cleanly.

I doubt those "Sonic Channels" would compromise the top. Taylor has been using that idea for years running a similar channel around the perimeter of the lower bout to increase mobility of the top at the edge to affect how the guitar sounds. What puzzles me is that Martin runs that channel around every feature on the underside of the top including north of the x-braces in an area of the top that is generally considered to be pretty much sonically inert. It looks as if someone just opened up a CNC CAD file of a braced top and simply had the program draw a routing path with a constant offset around every single object on the underside of the top and around the perimeter. And then did the same thing for the back, which also has "Sonic Channels", and called it a day. It doesn't look like any real thought went into it.

Based on Martin’s marketing-speak in their publicity around this new guitar, the channels and the braces with the holes in them look to me like “innovation” that was driven more by a desire for a product that they could differentiate from their competitors’ products, than by genuinely trying to innovate. Could be wrong, but that’s sure how it looks to me.

I give Martin credit for their focus on using sustainable North American woods for this guitar, but that effort is diminished in my view by their marketing for this guitar that perpetuates the myth that maple is a bad tonewood for the back and sides of flat top acoustic guitars and by claiming that they fixed this supposed problem by making the center wedge of the three-piece back out of walnut. Right.

[IMG][/IMG]