Reflections on underdogs...
[WARNING - Really, really looooong-winded]
In the mid-1980's, as the 'personal' computer industry (a unique concept back then, as business folks were connected to 'mainframe' behemoths via terminals) was taking shape, a well-known arcade game company entered the arena. With IBM (and it's clones) still delivering green and orange textual-driven experiences, Atari introduced an Apple Macintosh-like computer for a fraction of the price. The company's tag line was "Power Without the Price". The concept was simple: do what a Mac does and more, but do it for less cost. The computers were very well designed and inexpensive. They would sell well. They quickly garnered a loyal following - no - a cult-like following would be a better description. Atari ST owners loved their computers. As the company continued to deliver very cool technology, they appeared to make every marketing misstep possible. There was nothing wrong with the computers they produced, but they remained the underdog and eventually abandoned the product, much to the chagrin of a loyal band of devotees that persisted for decades after the product line was gone. 'Power without the Price' was an awesome concept until the product was no longer available.
Apple proved that just building a 'better' product and relying upon the masses to appreciate it does not always guaranteed market share. In head-to-head user comparisons from Apple's beginning, there have been many cases where the Mac experience was superior to a comparable alternative, and many times where that was not the case. Regardless, the alternatives maintained market share over the Mac. For years Apple remained the underdog. At the end of the '90's Apple introduced candy-colored Mac's and once again jolted the personal computer industry. Apple then introduced the iPod into an already existing mp3 market. Apple did not pioneer a technology but rather redefined it and, subsequently, dominated it. Cell phones were already a de facto communication commodity when Apple introduced the iPhone and, again, changed the game. Tablet PCs have been available for years and have remained largely marginal. Enter the iPad, and another market was redefined. Today, if you want one of the best computers money can buy you buy an Apple. To play off Atari's slogan, 'Power, and worth the price' would be apropos for Apple.
My experience with Guild only dates back to the beginning of the 1970's. I have no personal experience with the brand prior to that, other than what I hear and read. I visited my local music store and ordered my first Guild, an F50R, directly from the factory, sight unseen, from this catalog page:
Back then John Denver played a Guild. I loved how a mic'd Guild guitar sounded on his albums, and I saw and heard a mic'd Guild guitar in his concerts. That was good enough for me! I obtained a loan from my credit union and purchased the guitar. I had to wait for my guitar to be completed but, when it finally arrived, I was so very proud. It sounded exactly as I had hoped and dreamed it would. I took my Guild with me nearly everywhere I went and introduced it to everyone I met. I performed with that guitar up and down the West Coast of the USA from Alaska to Hawaii, and into Mexico. Over the years I played and owned other guitars (Martin, Gibson, Epiphone, Ovation, Yamaha, Mossman, Alvarez-Yairi, T-Haruo, Fender, Taylor, etc.). I played and owned other Guilds. Curiously, in all my travels I only met a handful of players who also owned Guilds. But I never heard from anyone, player or listener, who did not comment favorably on how well a Guild guitar SOUNDED.
To me, *that* is the driving factor behind a half-century old guitar brand, namely; Guild guitars consistently sound GOOD! Martin has that reputation, and so they should. Gibson (acoustics) do NOT consistently sound good across models and years. Some sound great and others are duds! Fender acoustics certainly do not have that reputation! Taylor guitars, though relatively consistent, are such an acquired taste (when describing Taylors, I prefer the moniker 'brittle'), as are a myriad of other brands. Some are fantastic, others are so-so. Yet Guild remains consistent.
But Guild remains an underdog, a marginal consideration. I don't believe this is simply for the lack of marketing effort(s), however well or ill-timed those may have been. Marketing is a very complex issue. 'Build it and they will come' is as meaningful as 'Throw a bunch of money at our latest campaign'. In the end, the public judges your efforts with their dollars. The current 'Made to be Played' is a clever marketing slogan, really clever, and I like it. But I think it is missing a fundamental element; the tangible tonal quality of the brand! I would wish it possible to re-address the audience with a 'Now Hear This...' campaign. At this point one would almost conclude that if only the masses could be introduced to the *sound* of a Guild guitar, that could be sufficient to significantly increase public awareness and demand for the brand. After all, it was for me, wasn't it. Or was it?.
Consider the 'power' of perception:
Install a 'quacky' piezo pickup under the saddle of nearly any acoustic guitar, run it through a quality preamp with a notch filter, crank up the volume and blast the crowd's favorite song(s) accompanied by that same crowd's favorite star. My hypothesis: For the budding guitarists in the crowd, the takeaway message will be, 'I LOVE and HAVE TO BUY that {brand} guitar'.
Frankly, to generate purchasing mass hysteria you *have* to put a Guild in the hands of your buying public's favorite artists. That is obviously not the FMIC marketing department's objective.
Does the company wish to target those discerning ears that only value high-quality instruments? Those ears are usually paying hefty sums for their acoustic guitars, whether the makers are well-known or boutique builders. Yet Guilds remain very inexpensive, by comparison. There is a simple price-point phenomenon at work, here. While some brag about their ability to pick up a guitar in a pawn shop for $158, this crowd is beating their chest over dropping $17k for an instrument. It is difficult to sell into snobbery, and that comes with it's own price.
FMIC's recent decision to diversify the line, with the higher-cost 'Traditional' models being distinguished from the lower-cost 'Standard' ones is interesting to me. Is the brand demonstrating schizophrenia, or desperation, or is it reaching out to a broader audience as other well-regarded / well-loved brands have done?
Will Guild remain the underdog? Will it go the way of Atari? Will it alter course, perhaps re-define a niche, and take on the mystique of Apple?
Whichever way it goes, I am proud to say I am a Guild owner for 35 years and am still investing in a brand that consistently delivers. May Guild live forever!
Christopher
.jpg)
...Steffan
