Any truth to changes at Martin Guitars.

[srick]

Originally Posted by FretBoy

If these changes are true, how long before quality and reputation (the ART/MYSTIC of Martin Guitars suffers.
What say you?

Ultimately, isn't it all about the individual guitar that you purchase and play? There are always variation among all builders\factories in build quality and sound production of an instrument. Plus, as a guitar ages, its sound will often blossom.

As a player, very rarely do we have to interact with a music company's corporate structure. And after all, to be profitable, certain decisions are made - for better or worse. You're painting with a fairly broad brush here. Not all corporations are 'bad' or 'anti-consumer'.

Looking forward to the future of C.F. Martin, who knows? It's a company with a great track record - it will likely stay that way.

As for myself, I would much rather buy a lightly used guitar with a few miles on it. I will have a much better idea of what kind of instrument it is and what, if any, structural issues it's going to encounter.

Rick

[Br1ck]

All I know is my small binding issue was dealt with quickly and without hassle by my dealer. I have no recollection of playing what I'd call a traditional Martin, that being 15, 18, 21, 28, 35, 41, 42, or 45 guitars, that was terrible. Not even close. I've liked some better than others, but there are brands some people love that have never produced one guitar I would consider owning.

Pricing issues come up when folks want guitars they can't afford. That isn't Martin's problem any more that it is Porsche's.

Had Martin not built the Mexico plant to make cheaper guitars and strings, they would not be in as good a position as they are now. That's a pretty good move for the company. I do not like plastic Martins, laminate Martins, and mortise and tenon Martins. I don't have to. Like I've said before, I can run Martin into the ground in five or ten years by doing exactly what I want.

Depending on one guy who may have an ax to grind, or a person with what they view as a warranty problem for information is not ever wise. Dealers are Martin's customers. Last time I looked, they are not dumping Martin.

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by Rev Roy

Actually, Chris made that announcement almost two years ago.
https://guitar.com/news/industry-new...in-guitar-ceo/

Thanks! I got on the Martin bandwagon last year and when the announcement came it included the info about Chris moving to EC, so I guess it was only the first I'd heard of it.

Bob

[srick]

All - I hope we can keep this thread on track and allow it to be informative and factual. If it veers further into a ‘brand bash’ or a becomes bash of the OP’s intentions, it will be closed.

Rick - Moderator

[martingitdave]

As far as I’m concerned their recent series of custom authentic guitars seems to prove that regardless of anything else, they are building some of the finest sounding and playing Martins with currently available woods. I love the sound of Martin guitars. I’m happy to play other brands. And I don’t care too much about changing business practices. I own a business. Stagnation is usually the kiss of death in a competitive market.

[ribsareyummy]

The only change at Martin I'm concerned with is when they announce they've found a way to keep their bindings on.

[Steve DeRosa]

The current Authentics unequivocally prove that they can build world-class guitars, second to none, if they so choose...

Whether or not they so choose will depend on a complex interplay of factors - financial, sociopolitical, familial, economic, and demographic - which will determine the ultimate future of the company...

IMO we'll see Martin following the precedent of several of their competitors: maintaining the Authentics as a Nazareth-built flagship line of high-quality/high-dollar, traditional instruments for the professional player/collector and serious enthusiast (read typical AGF member), while increasingly shifting bread-&-butter production to their Mexican facility and/or a Pac-Rim operation[s] yet to be established (viz. Guild, Breedlove, Bourgeois, Ovation, Taylor to a lesser extent, as well as Fender in the electric arena); let's also not forget the massive warehouse facility built shortly before the shutdown (one well beyond the production capacity of the current Nazareth factory), which would lend itself ideally to a largely import-based operation...

The Martin family owns the assets, goodwill, and intellectual property (the last increasingly disrespected in recent years, but that's a story for another day), ultimately it's theirs to dispose of as they choose - and, unfortunately, unprecedented times often spawn unprecedented and unforeseen actions...

We all wish for the best - but only time will tell...

[Robin, Wales]

It is always interesting to read threads such as this from outside the "bubble" of the USA. In Europe, we have very different marketing and competition laws. MAP is effectively illegal, manufacturers cannot control the advertised price for their product in the retail market. And the way they deal with distributors and retailers is also controlled by competition regulations, as Fender found out recently to great cost.

Also warrantees are seen with a pinch of salt as consumers are covered under sale of goods acts that basically state that a product must be fit for purpose. For example, if your Martin needed a neck reset after two years or the binding fell off then you could claim that the product was not fit for purpose and it would be up to Martin (or the distributor or retailer) to prove to trading standards that it is normal for an acoustic guitar to need a neck reset after two years of use and that binding falling off was a regular event throughout the acoustic guitar industry. Trading standards would then decide if this was fair or not. Some consumer goods have a statutory warrantee under legislation.

We also have a higher degree of consumer protection for distance selling than buying face to face. To the point where a trading standards regulator told me that if she was buying a high value item she would reserve it in the shop and then go home and buy it over the phone because her consumer rights were far tougher.

USA goods, including guitars, are comparatively very expensive in Europe compared to the relative cost to wage prices you pay in the USA. From my personal experience, I would say that USA Martin, Taylor, Gibson etc do not build for export - export is a side line to the domestic market. In contrast, a company like Yamaha is purely export focussed and takes care to understand and support its sales chain in different countries (this is NOT a statement about who's guitars are better, just about company approaches).

I think that you could probably sum it up in two phrases "buyer beware" and "seller beware". In Europe we definitely lean more towards "seller beware", and that cultural shift is possibly a hard model for some companies to adapt towards.

[zoopeda]

Two martin certified repairmen told me the same thing recently: “Martin has become very corporate over the past few years.” When I asked what this meant, they both said Martin is taking on less warranty repair work themselves while, at the same time, paying less to certified repair people for warranty work while simultaneously narrowing what qualifies under the warranty.

Neck resets (after 18 months or so) never should have been covered under warranty (as a manufacturing defect), but the rest of these changes really hurt those who spend top dollar on a new warrantied Martin. That only makes the used martin market that much more appealing.

The pricing changes make a lot of sense and are more in line with how other companies price guitars. There was always a minimum advertised price, and vendors can still discount whatever they want, privately, beyond that. Just because 40% off is no longer tenable for vendors is just a reflection that the MAP pricing had actually come down. I don’t believe there is any truth to the claim that martin sets a minimum discount price for vendors. They typically just need to sell some % above wholesale to turn a profit.

Chris’ stepping down was a long time coming, and it seems that the transition is going smoothly. For this, we are all glad.

[Dru Edwards]

Originally Posted by Osage

Make no mistake, Martin is already a large modern company. They like to keep it folksy but they are one of the premier manufacturers of one of the most popular instruments in the world.

Corporate type Hugh Bloom took over a seriously declining Martin in 1982 and it was one of the best things that has happened to the company in recent memory. He started turning things around and laid the groundwork for Chris Martin to step in and run the company. He even stayed with the company, working with Chris on the business side of things, for over a decade after Chris became CEO.

Could the new guy run the company into the ground? I guess it's possible but I seriously doubt it. Martin is still family owned so they are not beholden to the whims of outside investors.

You make a great point. Martin can leverage their great history with their marketing but ultimately they also need to compete in a corporate world that has more competition now.

[bufflehead]

Martin's "new" CEO is not merely a finance guy. He happens to be an avid guitarist whose first guitar was a Martin, as well as a guitar collector. A few years back he took a sabbatical from the finance firm where he was a partner, and used the time to develop luthier skills and build his own guitar.

We should be happy that Martin found someone to run the company who is one of us. How many of us can scallop our own braces?

[Dirk Hofman]

Originally Posted by bufflehead

Martin's "new" CEO is not merely a finance guy. He happens to be an avid guitarist whose first guitar was a Martin, as well as a guitar collector. A few years back he took a sabbatical from the finance firm where he was a partner, and used the time to develop luthier skills and build his own guitar.

We should be happy that Martin found someone to run the company who is one of us. How many of us can scallop our own braces?

Great perspective.

[zmf]

Originally Posted by bufflehead

Martin's "new" CEO is not merely a finance guy.

Off topic, but anyone know what the "CEO" in, for instance, the CEO-7, stands for? Are they the brainchildren of the Chief Executive Officer?

[blakey]

Never regretted any Martin I've ever bought. Can't say the same about any other makes. They are the benchmark IMO.

[cc132]

Originally Posted by zoopeda

Neck resets (after 18 months or so) never should have been covered under warranty (as a manufacturing defect)

Wait, what? A guitar should be able to function as intended for more than 18 months without needing major repair. If it can't, then it was manufactured incorrectly.