1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Gibson files for bankruptcy

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by willie45, May 1, 2018.

  1. willie45

    willie45 Well-Known Member

    EightBitTony and Craig20264 like this.
  2. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member

    Very sad. PE houses winning at the experience of other owners?
     
  3. frank1

    frank1 Well-Known Member

    You'd think someone might have been able to pull a few strings.
     
    willie45 and Zou like this.
  4. Craig20264

    Craig20264 Well-Known Member

    My SG is getting further away :(
     
  5. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Sounds like they will be restructured and survive OK. But they are not the first to find the consumer electronics sector too competitive for a company their size.Where are Amstrad and Psion today?
     
  6. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    Poor management decisions. To enter a market they knew nothing about.
     
  7. willie45

    willie45 Well-Known Member

    Well, rightly or wrongly, the CEO has been vilified on forums by Gibson fans for some years now.

    In possibly an internet first, I will admit that I don't know enough about it to comment. What I do know is that I like their guitars but their QC is absolutely abysmal.
     
  8. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Generally driven by contraction of their core business. Any consultant will advise them to diversify. There are two ways to do that: by line-extension of what you already make (not good if it is still within the declining sector) and brand extension into new product areas. That requires both that you can compete with the biggies, or find a viable niche, but mostly that your brand would have credibility and even cachet in those areas. If the products sell to people who don't know or use your core product, the answer is often that the brand can't carry you there.
    Sony and Panasonic only succeeded with brand extensions into cameras because the big influx of snappers brought into the market by digital, then phones related strongly to consumer electronics brands, but either didn't know, or feared, camera brands. Did a project for Nikon on that years ago.
     
  9. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    Organisations follow the same life cycle as complex organisms: birth; growth; stagnation; death. Turning them into zombies by "diversification" may keep them going a bit longer but they do start to smell bad. :cool:
     
  10. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Actually not true, though it was once thought to be so. Saw a stat recently that showed, apart from arrival of digital age companies, the makeup of global and international corporations is remarkably steady over last 50 years or so. Mainly due to ability to diversify and adapt. The companies that remain with a single focus are most vulnerable to forces of change and get bought, or die.
    Products are far more subject to lifecycle issues than diversified companies, but these do need re-focus from time to time, as Unilever and P&G have done, when they become so extended that they can't defend all their product areas.
     
  11. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

  12. GeoffR

    GeoffR Well-Known Member

    Researchers at Credit Suisse I might trust but economists? I regard economics as about as scientific as reading entrails.
     
  13. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    There are economists and there are economists. I worked with some in banks who seemed to know whereof they spoke. Anyway this isn't about prediction but just adding up the numbers to show the trends.
     
  14. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Birth and initial growth are inevitable; stagnation and death are not. Death is often provoked by "diversification", or by the appointment of "professional managers" who know nothing at all about the business. My understanding is that many Mittelstand companies have survived for far a very long time, and continue to survive today, by concentrating on making a good product; avoiding a growth-at-all-costs philosophy; concentrating on long term development instead of short-term profits; and avoiding "consultants" with MBAs who think that if they understand the marketing of (say) ladies' underwear this also gives them unique insights into manufacturing and selling (say) motor cars. The death of Kodak was precipitated by the appointment of marketing men over people like Carl Kohrt who actually understood the business.
     
  15. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Interesting. Have to say I didn't know that. What I saw only recently said totally opposite. Will peruse.
     
  16. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Hmm, one says 15 years, the other says 20. There are a few statistical fallacies in there, eg averaging short-term failures against the long survivors. Actually they seem to be creating a soundbite that isn't quite what it seems. New tech behemoths have come into the 500, but not all that have dropped out have died. On the other hand there have been waves of mergers in all sectors. Whether one classes that as dying is moot. Why would anyone merge with something that is moribund? Surely they live on another way. Changing name and / or ownership is not same as going under. Is Opel more alive or dead within PSA than within GM? If PSA change the Vauxhall name to Opel (they swear they won't) will Vaux then have died as a company? Or did they die in 1925 when they sold to GM?
    Did Rowntree die? Vastly more KitKat is sold in the world now under the Nestle brand than ever was under Rowntree. Ditto Nabisco, which resides rather more successfully within General Mills and Nestle as Cereal Partners, still flogging Shredded Wheat, Shreddies and a lot of newer things. Only the name changed and investment in NPD.

    Did Saga fail? All things now branded Saga are operated by completely different companies than the original Saga brand.

    Just musing..
     
  17. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    The word we were discussing was "organisation". Brands are quite a different thing. In biological terms you could talk about humans living and dying while their religions go on indefinitely.
     
  18. RovingMike

    RovingMike Crucifixion's a doddle...

    Not really, I think you're confusing brands with products. Organisations are brands too, unless they have no public face whatsoever (eg Acromas who underwrite Saga and AA insurance brands).
    The original Saga was an organisation called Saga. Now it is a bunch of brands called Saga but the organisation didn't die, they flogged it off at massive profit. So is that a company that suffered life-cycle effects? Certainly not, but those guys would count it. Of course Saga sold products, but they all still exist too I think.
    At one level the Unilever organisation is a brand too, that's why they have been trying to slap the logo on everything unrecognisably Unilever for 20 years, eg ice cream. Took them time to realise it, but it is why they created the U logo.
     
  19. MJB

    MJB Well-Known Member

    Surely Gibson's problem is no one desires a 2018 model. Everyone wants one from the 1960s.
     
  20. Andrew Flannigan

    Andrew Flannigan Well-Known Member

    This could easily deteriorate into arguments about angels on pinheads or discussions about axe handles and heads. Perhaps the best solution is to ask Companies House what their definition is.
     

Share This Page