Hi folks,
I'm offering up a few thoughts from my addled brain as I started to see some of you touching on this subject in another thread. I don't really have an agenda other than to get some open dialogue going on the subject. Maybe we can arrive at some common expectations or perhaps we can get some better, direct information from those who might know.
I recognize that there are folks on the board who have been directly impacted by Fender's actions since their ownership of Guild began in the mid-'90s. This basically puts "Fender bashing" into a personal category. For me, and most of us I guess, it's more of an armchair debate. All I can say is that I think we can all agree that it's *good* if we can talk openly and hopefully objectively with each other about the things that have happened to Guild since Fender took the reins.
Fender, though privately owned, seems to me to behave like a profit-motivated, public company. I haven't seen anything that contradicts this premise. They don't have to behave this way, but they do. They take action to cut costs, and they deal with their brand portfolio in such a way as to be profitable. Their corporate behavior does not seem to me to be motivated by pride or history. Outward perception is that this is a somewhat cold process, and not conducive to growing a brand or creative development.
On the other hand, by chance (not design) the Tacoma folks became creative stewards (acting like parents, if you will) of the brand for a while. They introduced new models and they made lots of incremental changes to the traditional ones. And, now, the Kaman folks are in a similar situation. This is all under the umbrella of Fender, of course, but when we talk about the the people who actually develop and build the guitars, we move further away from the corporate motives.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this diatribe. I *wish* Guild was an independent company, like Taylor, but that hasn't been true for many years and I see no reason to expect that we'll ever see that again. We can expect Fender to support the products only in so far as profit is made. This leaves some room for creativity, but perhaps is a little tricky when you look at Kaman who, themselves, own several brands.
My personal wish is that we don't see any deterioration and defections in the product line. As fans of the brand, we all agree Guilds are too good to fade out. But, we lost electrics a few years ago, and now the DVs are being made in Ensenada. If that becomes very profitable, you'll be sure Fender will put pressure on Kaman to move others over there.
What can we do? Well, we should remain open about our discussions of the products (like frosty was when reviewing the new D-55 he tried), and express our likes and dislikes. This is not a form of bashing, this is open critique. Also, we need to be very vocal with the Kaman and Fender execs when we can. I, for one, want to see a factory tour in the near future.
Well, so there you have it. A soapbox discussion without a soapbox. Have a nice day!
I'm offering up a few thoughts from my addled brain as I started to see some of you touching on this subject in another thread. I don't really have an agenda other than to get some open dialogue going on the subject. Maybe we can arrive at some common expectations or perhaps we can get some better, direct information from those who might know.
I recognize that there are folks on the board who have been directly impacted by Fender's actions since their ownership of Guild began in the mid-'90s. This basically puts "Fender bashing" into a personal category. For me, and most of us I guess, it's more of an armchair debate. All I can say is that I think we can all agree that it's *good* if we can talk openly and hopefully objectively with each other about the things that have happened to Guild since Fender took the reins.
Fender, though privately owned, seems to me to behave like a profit-motivated, public company. I haven't seen anything that contradicts this premise. They don't have to behave this way, but they do. They take action to cut costs, and they deal with their brand portfolio in such a way as to be profitable. Their corporate behavior does not seem to me to be motivated by pride or history. Outward perception is that this is a somewhat cold process, and not conducive to growing a brand or creative development.
On the other hand, by chance (not design) the Tacoma folks became creative stewards (acting like parents, if you will) of the brand for a while. They introduced new models and they made lots of incremental changes to the traditional ones. And, now, the Kaman folks are in a similar situation. This is all under the umbrella of Fender, of course, but when we talk about the the people who actually develop and build the guitars, we move further away from the corporate motives.
I'm not sure where I'm going with this diatribe. I *wish* Guild was an independent company, like Taylor, but that hasn't been true for many years and I see no reason to expect that we'll ever see that again. We can expect Fender to support the products only in so far as profit is made. This leaves some room for creativity, but perhaps is a little tricky when you look at Kaman who, themselves, own several brands.
My personal wish is that we don't see any deterioration and defections in the product line. As fans of the brand, we all agree Guilds are too good to fade out. But, we lost electrics a few years ago, and now the DVs are being made in Ensenada. If that becomes very profitable, you'll be sure Fender will put pressure on Kaman to move others over there.
What can we do? Well, we should remain open about our discussions of the products (like frosty was when reviewing the new D-55 he tried), and express our likes and dislikes. This is not a form of bashing, this is open critique. Also, we need to be very vocal with the Kaman and Fender execs when we can. I, for one, want to see a factory tour in the near future.
Well, so there you have it. A soapbox discussion without a soapbox. Have a nice day!
