Guild's branding in the 1960s was hilariously inconsistent

[beatcomber]

As someone who does marketing graphics production for a living, I find it charming how inconsistent Guild's branding was.

These logos are all on my 1964 Starfire III and its case:

At least this matches the logo on the Guildsby:

This logo (really just a type treatment) is totally unique. And look at the amps' nameplate!

 

[GGJaguar]

Inconsistent branding makes it fun for us.

 

[DrumBob]

You're right. Guild's strength was building great guitars, not marketing. Al Dronge was exactly open-minded about stuff like that. Mark Dronge told me he was always fighting with his father about marketing and introducing new products. Al wanted no part of solidbody guitars, flattop acoustics, or electric basses. Mark had to prod him into it.

 

[beatcomber]

You're right. Guild's strength was building great guitars, not marketing. Al Dronge was exactly open-minded about stuff like that. Mark Dronge told me he was always fighting with his father about marketing and introducing new products. All wanted no part of solidbody guitars, flattop acoustics, or electric basses. Mark had to prod him into it.

I can't help but wonder if incoherent branding - and possibly a poor marketing strategy overall - might have contributed to Guild's failure to lead in the marketplace.

 

[Westerly Wood]

Chaos sells...

 

[chazmo]

I can't help but wonder if incoherent branding - and possibly a poor marketing strategy overall - might have contributed to Guild's failure to lead in the marketplace.

That's kind of an interesting point, beatcomber. Guild might not have led the marketplace, but it's a fair assessment to say that Guild was the value leader in the marketplace. At least through the '70s, and among the US brands, that is.

Brand identities do change over time, of course. And new players, like Taylor, come along and disrupt. But, I do think you're on to something regarding the inconsistent branding. There's certainly no one thing that shouts "Guild" to the guitar community that's common across the various lines over the years.

What I think is most responsible, though, would be the death of Al Dronge. It's hard to imagine what might've happened to/with Guild if he'd been around to stay with his company and weather the business changes that hurt Gibson, for example.

Having said all that, I think most of us are around this board and are Guild fans because Guild built great guitars for the money, and honestly never flagged in that purpose. Today's Guild is nothing like Guild of the '60s and '70s, but there is still a passion for building great guitars for the money...

 

[Rocky]

Al wanted no part of solidbody guitars, flattop acoustics, or electric basses. Mark had to prod him into it.

The irony of course, to your 'average guitar player,' Guild is probably best known for their flattops, mostly post-1973, and their 12-strings in particular, which Al probably saw as a folkie-fad.

 

[walrus]

Well, for better or worse, we've come full circle. Today it seems branding is more important than the product itself!

walrus

 

[GGJaguar]

Today it seems branding is more important than the product itself!

I wonder if social media had anything to do with that.

 

[adorshki]

Well, for better or worse, we've come full circle. Today it seems branding is more important than the product itself!

walrus

Yeah just ask Chuck Connors (caution earworm alert):

I wonder if social media had anything to do with that.

Hasn't Meta already branded the metaverse? Kinda like Kleenex and Duck Tape?

 

[bobouz]

The '70s were probably Guild's high water mark in terms of market presence. It was a low quality point in the history of both Martin & Gibson, even though they both continued to charge high end prices while Guild represented a much better value as part of the big-three in American made guitars. If Guild were ever to become a more dominant presence in the market, that would have been the time to strike. I bought four new Guilds during the decade, and they were easy to find at dealers in my area. But marketing was almost non-existent. Very few catalogs or targeted advertising were released during that time, and to my mind, model info seemed to barely trickle out to the public.

So who enters this vacuum at the right time? Taylor. I've never paid much attention to them, but in the days when I frequented guitar stores on a regular basis, it always seemed like truckloads of Taylor product info was available at dealerships. I would dare say that Taylor must have nailed how to market their product to a tee, based on where they are today. If only Guild could have had similarly skilled visionaries steering the ship.

 

[beatcomber]

I can't help but wonder if incoherent branding - and possibly a poor marketing strategy overall - might have contributed to Guild's failure to lead in the marketplace.

On another forum, someone commented, "Guild was never an innovator like Martin, Gibson or even Gretsch, and their models were derivative of those brands in one way or another. Few key players used them too, and that's what drives people to buy guitars."

I'd be curious to see if the folks here agree with that statement.

 

[GGJaguar]

Guild was never an innovator like Martin, Gibson or even Gretsch

What, no mention of Fender?! I'm offended.

 

[SFIV1967]

"...Few key players used them too, and that's what drives people to buy guitars."

Agreed. Nevertheless it's a big list of also big names, however many only used them for a period of time. We had this discussion recently with Taylor Swift (Baby Taylor guitar) and Ed Sheeran (Little Martin guitar).

Here's a list we compiled over time, it's 79 pages already!

Your favorite picture(s) of an artist playing a Guild?

here are my two favorites: xxx xxx (dead links removed by moderator)

letstalkguild.com

Ralf

 

[fronobulax]

On another forum, someone commented, "Guild was never an innovator like Martin, Gibson or even Gretsch, and their models were derivative of those brands in one way or another. Few key players used them too, and that's what drives people to buy guitars."

I'd be curious to see if the folks here agree with that statement.

Innovation is a squishy word and perhaps overused when talking about guitars that have a couple hundred years of history in refining designs and building techniques. If you look at things I might consider innovative today - side ports, relocated sound holes, asymmetric bodies - it's not the mainstream builders who are innovating and not the mainstream market that is buying.

But if innovation is defined as something moderately trivial such as a different tone wood or sourcing rosewood from somewhere besides Brazil then there is some truth to the statement. But then what some call "innovation" others call "lack of focus".

 

[beatcomber]

Innovation is a squishy word and perhaps overused when talking about guitars that have a couple hundred years of history in refining designs and building techniques. If you look at things I might consider innovative today - side ports, relocated sound holes, asymmetric bodies - it's not the mainstream builders who are innovating and not the mainstream market that is buying.

But if innovation is defined as something moderately trivial such as a different tone wood or sourcing rosewood from somewhere besides Brazil then there is some truth to the statement. But then what some call "innovation" others call "lack of focus".

That's a very good point. I mean, how many premium builders nowadays are merely doing their own take on Strats, Teles, Les Pauls, etc.?

 

[DrumBob]

I can't help but wonder if incoherent branding - and possibly a poor marketing strategy overall - might have contributed to Guild's failure to lead in the marketplace.

I think there's truth to that. I work in advertising, and one cardinal rule is consistency.

I know when I was at Guild, we grew unhappy with the fancy NYC ad agency we were tied to, and Lilien finally fired them. They were the ones responsible for the solidbody ads that featured guys with bad hair and goofy bell bottom jeans. And it seems like all the ads were in black & white, which made no sense to me. When Mark Dronge replaced Lilien, he had a new ad agency that came up with better ads, including the one showing the dispirited guy sitting on a bed with the Les Paul he no longer wanted. I thought that was a great ad.

 

[johnreardon]

I can't help but wonder if incoherent branding - and possibly a poor marketing strategy overall - might have contributed to Guild's failure to lead in the marketplace.

As someone who started playing in the UK, in the late 50s, i can assure you we weren’t at all interested in marketing or branding. It was all about availability.

In the post war years, US imports, including musical instruments and records, were very difficult to get hold off. Even if they did appear, they were, and still are to a certain extent, quite rare.

Guitar wise, most of us in the UK started with guitars from the like of Broadway, Hofner or East European imports, such as the Selmer Futurama.

When US made guitars became more available in the UK, the majority were models from Fender, Gibson & Gretsch. The first Guild I remember seeing in my music shop was the one I eventually ended up buying, the Slim Jim below:



As this 60s brochure page shows it was quite expensive



Ok it was a Cherry Red when I bought it brand new, in 65. I took an electric sander to turn it natural, but that’s another story.

Back then I was the only one in the numerous groups in South Wales using a Guild. All the other groups, using US guitars, were mainly using Fender, Gibson or the occasional Rickenbacker.

Yes obviously we were interested in playability, how it sounded etc, but the last thing we would have been interested in were ‘inconsistent branding’ of products.

As I said it was all about availability of US guitars. To be honest I wanted a Strat or Les Paul, but they were out of my price range. In a way I’m glad as the Slim Jim sounded great and I became to be known as ‘the bloke with a Guild’.

BTW I did eventually replace the Slim Jim with a pre CBS secondhand Strat in 1969/70. I stupidly sold that in 1980.

I now have a 93 Strat and various LPs as well as the closest I can get to my old Slim Jim, a modern Starfire III.

 

[fronobulax]

As someone who started playing in the UK, in the late 50s, i can assure you we weren’t at all interested in marketing or branding. It was all about availability.

In the post war years, US imports, including musical instruments and records, were very difficult to get hold off. Even if they did appear, they were, and still are to a certain extent, quite rare.

Guitar wise, most of us in the UK started with guitars from the like of Broadway, Hofner or East European imports, such as the Selmer Futurama.

When US made guitars became more available in the UK, the majority were models from Fender, Gibson & Gretsch. The first Guild I remember seeing in my music shop was the one I eventually ended up buying, the Slim Jim below:



As this 60s brochure page shows it was quite expensive



Ok it was a Cherry Red when I bought it brand new, in 65. I took an electric sander to turn it natural, but that’s another story.

Back then I was the only one in the numerous groups in South Wales using a Guild. All the other groups, using US guitars, were mainly using Fender, Gibson or the occasional Rickenbacker.

Yes obviously we were interested in playability, how it sounded etc, but the last thing we would have been interested in were ‘inconsistent branding’ of products.

As I said it was all about availability of US guitars. To be honest I wanted a Strat or Les Paul, but they were out of my price range. In a way I’m glad as the Slim Jim sounded great and I became to be known as ‘the bloke with a Guild’.

BTW I did eventually replace the Slim Jim with a pre CBS secondhand Strat in 1969/70. I stupidly sold that in 1980.

I now have a 93 Strat and various LPs as well as the closest I can get to my old Slim Jim, a modern Starfire III.

The British Guitar Embargo: When Brits Were Banned from Buying American

From World War II through the birth of rock 'n' roll, trade restrictions kept UK players from Fenders, Gibsons, and more U.S. brands.

reverb.com

Embargo lifted in 1959 but it seems like it shaped your experience.

 

[johnreardon]

The British Guitar Embargo: When Brits Were Banned from Buying American

From World War II through the birth of rock 'n' roll, trade restrictions kept UK players from Fenders, Gibsons, and more U.S. brands.

reverb.com

Embargo lifted in 1959 but it seems like it shaped your experience.

Yes it was lifted, but not many made their way over here until early 60s and those that did ended up in London to be bought by a select few.

I can’t remember exactly when I saw a Fender for the first time in my hometown music shop, but it was probably 63/64. They were way out of my price range.

In 63 I was playing a Broadway Plectric 1922. I’m the one next to the drummer