Recent FB post from Dana Bourgeouis regarding Bourgeois + Eastman

[Acoustic Wolf]

Originally Posted by jklotz

https://bourgeoisguitars.net/our-new...ration-update/

It's interesting that he says we should not be concerned because he is "still the CEO of Bourgeois". The CEO of a company is appointed by the shareholders as one of the officers (together with CFO, COO, etc.) to run the company, i.e., an employee of the company. The owners are the actual shareholders, who call the shots. He further states:

"In addition, our two-year development plan calls for acquisition of new light and heavy equipment, all to be purchased exclusively from American suppliers. Plans are also underway to expand our Lewiston facility. I can assure you that such developments unambiguously benefit both the local and US economies. I can also assure you that this level of growth would not be possible without Eastman’s collaboration."

Which would imply that Eastman has invested money into Bourgeois to become a shareholder, allowing Bourgeois the capital to expand, and thus Eastman is an owner of Bourgeois (although what percentage shareholding they own is unknown).

Anyway, it's none of our business, if Dana's happy to be a CEO under Eastman as shareholders then that's cool, our role as consumers is to decide whether or not we still wish to purchase Bourgeois / Eastman guitars.

If what the article I posted earlier states is true, that in US-Chinese joint ventures, by virtue of Chinese regulations, US companies are required to hand over their intellectual property over to Chinese companies if they wish to partner with them, then like many US companies before Bourgeois, it is possible that the Chinese company will simply take the US company's intellectual property and go on to effectively make copies (and their own brands) using that intellectual property, as has happened with a lot of US high-tech and automobile companies. I would guess guitar building isn't as advanced and secretive as those industries and require as much protected intellectual property, so it's not too much of a big deal.

This doesn't hurt the consumer, because at the end of the day it allows consumers to buy the same quality of goods at much cheaper prices, and if the shareholders of the US companies get a large payout from it (and are happy to give their intellectual property to the Chinese companies), they're happy too.

[JayBee1404]

Originally Posted by Acoustic Wolf

Anyway, it's none of our business, if Dana's happy to be a CEO under Eastman as shareholders then that's cool, our role as consumers is to decide whether or not we still wish to purchase Bourgeois / Eastman guitars.

And that is the plain, simple fact - especially the part which I emboldened.

Ain’t nobody’s business but Dana’s.

The usual disclaimers apply......IMHO, YMMV etc.

[jaycal]

It’s “none of our business,” I suppose, although it will certainly have an impact on whether people continue to keep buying Bourgeois guitars