Comments

Seems the ad must be super expensive - $500K? What is the profit margin on their gueeeetars anyway - 35%? Do you play in a band?

Maybe they have a raft of baby boomer new products in the wings or do they just produce musical instruments? Nice that they reminded me, like Harley Davidson - that they are still around and maybe even thriving.

Trevor may know - he is an Eagles' fanatic.

Posted by Sean at June 3, 2005 10:30 AM

Steve, They have also been running a series of commercials on various national cable networks that give the same pitch. To their credit, it did make me take notice because I'd never seen an ad from them, other than in a music trade magazine, but I'm still not inclined to go out and buy one.

Posted by Andrew Hayden at June 3, 2005 10:43 AM

I bet Gibson have done their research on this one, though I think it would be a great idea if they threw in 'How to play the guitar in 5 easy lessons' or something on DVD. Or drew people into their website to access info. on nationwide guitar lessons via a zip code. Sell the whole package and take a commission on referrals to local and professional guitar teachers. Or maybe charge them a fee for featuring a short description of their service and their contact details on their website.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 3, 2005 11:01 AM

I think that they could get a better response from TIME magazine readers if they reverse the "child buying for the father" theme to a "father, give you child the gift of music" theme. Maybe it's time for Gibson to build brand loyalty amongst the younger generation??

Posted by andy skinstad at June 3, 2005 11:25 AM

It's no different than Steinway trying to sell pianos.

Posted by Gary Potter at June 3, 2005 11:27 AM

Great Idea! - Can someone send my son a copy of the ad before father's day please!

Angus Young is my Gibson exponant of choice

Posted by PaulH at June 3, 2005 11:35 AM

Wow, I wish I would get a Gibson Les Paul for fathers day. I'll get a home-made card and some Golf Balls.

Even better, just a hug from both my kids will do just fine.

Posted by Eric at June 3, 2005 11:36 AM

I think it's a brilliant idea. How many guys out there wish they could play the guitar? Lots. How many wives wish their husbands could play the guitar? Lots.

Posted by The Dude at June 3, 2005 11:50 AM

I'll bet Gibson did some research. We can second guess but without doing some ourselves that is exactly what it would be: a guess.

On the surface, I'd agree that it appears to be a shaky decision. However, Gibson has consistently made good strategic moves, especially when comparisoned with Fender who've pretty much destroyed the brand (IMHO).

Posted by Bruce DeBoer at June 3, 2005 12:34 PM

The more I think about it, the more I think it's a good move. There are lots of people who read Time who've got expensive corporate jobs, pining maybe for a little lost youth, with tuned-in kids who like the idea of their dads being cool, especially with their families. And very little beats sitting around your living-room or a camp fire in the summer and hauling your guitar out to strum a few songs with the family and friends.

I hope it works for them.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 3, 2005 1:23 PM

Wives too.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 3, 2005 1:41 PM

Maybe it has nothing to do with selling guitars. Why does ADM advertise on "Meet the Press"? To sell food? I think not. Could Gibson be positioning for an IPO or something like that?

Posted by Kraig Richardson at June 3, 2005 4:05 PM

I think it's brilliant. Maybe they'll sell more guitars, maybe they'll attract more talent to work for the company, maybe they'll have an IPO...many benefits to doing this, especially when their competitors are not.

I play acoustic guitar (Taylor guitars), and I'd love to see a commercial for Taylor guitars. It might spur me to buy another one (although my wife would object!)

Posted by Carlos N Velez at June 3, 2005 7:27 PM

My kids gave me a Fender Stratocaster for Father's Day two years ago.

Guitars for Father's Day to boomer dads? It happened to me.

Posted by Erick Blackwelder at June 3, 2005 10:11 PM

I think its to do with MORE OF BRANDING and feel that they are trying to catch up with a new segment. Probably a child might not buy a guitar but yes a father can do since he can afford to buy one for his kids. Since i am from india i dont know much about the audience of TIME magzine, if the readers of this magzines are highly paid professionals or its preferred only by the high income segment then its a good bet for GIBSON GUITARS, since the audience has the capability to buy a guitar if not for them then at least for their kids...... ( Question to be asked here is DO KIDS READ TIMES MAGZINE )

Posted by Kiran Jain at June 3, 2005 11:50 PM

Kiran, I don't know Time's readership stats - their online media kit doesn't provide detailed breakouts. What I do know is that they've got a 4 million circulation and only 170,000 or so copies are sold on newstands. I'm willing to bet they have a subscribed audience in the affluent younger segment; college students and management new-hires, and I'd also bet that lots of career women and wives read them too.

All aside from legions of dads, some of whom are bound to see Gibson's ad and decide to order one, or not too subtly drop a hint to their families that that's exactly what they'd like for Father's Day!

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 4, 2005 10:20 AM

Here's my take ... Gibson is paying to reach a lot of wasted circulation with Time magazine. They are making the classic mistake of confusing awareness wtih business building. The chances of this being a good investment for Gibson - even counting the long term brand value - are close to zero. Companies frequently make the mistake of spreading themselves to thin, getting their name out to too many people, when a more focused strategy could get the "right" people to not just hear the name but come to understand the deep motivating meaning behind it.

Bruce - why do you think Fender destroyed their brand?

Posted by Steve Yastrow at June 4, 2005 2:07 PM

I thought Fender was still enjoying solid growth but maybe I'm out of touch. Anecdotally I hear good things about Fender from the folks in the guitar repair biz. Side note: at the recent Cream reunion at the Royal Albert Hall Eric Clapton played a Fender Stratocaster instead of the Gibson SG he used in his legendary Cream days. A sign of maturity?

Posted by John O'Leary at June 4, 2005 8:33 PM

Steve, I've taken a look at the ad and think Gibson are primarily looking to make sales with it. Secondary to that purpose is to get their name out to people. Whether they'll succeed in recouping the investment in Time depends I think on how often they advertise there or anywhere else and I suspect they've planned a series of ads. I don't think this is a flamboyant one-shot splash.

P.T. Barnum, who attributed much of his success to his techniques of advertising, liked to quote a nameless French writer about the power of advertising:

“The reader of a newspaper does not see the first insertion of an ordinary advertisement; the second insertion he sees but does not read; the third insertion he reads; the fourth insertion, he looks at the price; the fifth insertion, he speaks of it to his wife; the sixth insertion, he is ready to purchase; and the seventh insertion, he purchases.”

Although the connection between the circus and guitars may seem obscure, the principles of every business are the same.

Of course, John could be right and Gibson is losing market share and their ad campaign is a sign of desperation. And maybe you are right, and Gibson would do better to look at other forms of sponsorship, maybe, rather than traditional methods of advertising.

When you say “more focused strategy”, what do you have in mind?

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 5, 2005 3:41 AM

Reread the comments and see that Andrew says he's seen cable TV ads with the same theme so it's obviously not a one-shot splash. I am interested to know how Gibson could do a better job bringing in new business, outside of their core markets, perhaps from customers who don't even know how to play the guitar, since it could help me in my business.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 5, 2005 4:14 AM

Not having seen the research that went into this decision, ...

Unless the competition in the electric guitar market is "pie-enlarging" rather than "pie-rearranging", I think this is a dumb idea. Electric guitarists are a rabid subculture, and typically the way to market to a rabid subculture is not through a print ad in a mass publication like Time. Time is tame. But Gibson guitarist wanna-bes (like Harley owner wanna-bes) are anti-tame.

Prediction: Not only will Gibson's Time ad have a poor ROI, but it will be dilutive to the brand (as dilutive as one single inoffensive ad can be).

Harry Joiner

Posted by Proven Ways to Get New Customers at June 5, 2005 6:42 AM

Just a reminder that Gibson has always made quality acoustic guitars too. Was this promoted in the Time ad? In the 60s (sorry to date myself) Gibson made the most popular non-electric guitar. The Beatles & Dylan used Gibsons as well as half the folk/blues/country guitarists. I believe Gibson lost most of its acoustic guitar market share to Martin over subsequent decades, but I don't have the numbers. For what it's worth, I'd bet that the majority of the most popular rock songs over the years (as featured on "classic rock" or "oldies" radio) have been written on either Gibson or Martin acoustic guitars.

Posted by John O'Leary at June 5, 2005 10:15 AM

Thanks Harry. Took a look at your blog and found some nuggets. You're bookmarked.

I don't know how anti-tame either the Gibson or Harley set is, in reality. It's the image they promote and it's an attractive one, but from what I’ve seen, lots of Gibson and Harley customers are anti-tame wannabes with plenty of disposable income, and I bet lots of them read Time.

What really interests me about this one is what is the best way to go about stimulating new business orders for something like guitars?

John, I wondered about that too - how come they didn't promote the acoustics. There's gotta be a reason - higher mark-up on electrics? Sexier? Would love to hear Gibson contribute here.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 5, 2005 10:57 AM

Yes, it has to do with the boomers, appeal, life experience, i.e., classic rock, Porsche, Bose, Minis, cool. It beats Viagra and Celebrex. For you to tell a guitar apart from listening to the Allmans? Bell tone or bright? Try Jeff Beck, listen to Sleepwalk and Walk Don't Run. It's a strat, not a Mosrite or lap steel. Does it really matter? I don't play, yet there is a Les Paul and Fender Strat displayed on my wall as works of art.

Posted by Myron Wong at June 5, 2005 12:53 PM

If Gibson has a historic record of increased sales in the day of the father, I think the advertiseing decision is correct. You should consider then what has to be the most correct magazine or newspaper. Perhaps Time magazine is too generalist. I love the Allman Brothers, Jeff Beck and John Mc Laughlin but I am sure I will never try to learn to play the guitar. Perhaps Gibson should focus their ads in a magazine bought by guitar players.

Posted by felix gerena at June 5, 2005 1:25 PM

Harry, I like your idea. There are probably multiple niches for Gibson, two of them being the older, anti-tame market wanting to re-live a little youth, and the other being the genuine young rebels looking to play or currently playing in bands. I'm sure there're others. The Time and cable TV ads may be pitched more at the former audience, the affluent anti-tame wannabes.

The thing is Gibson have got to generate new business somehow, to reach out beyond those people who already have guitars - what we could call the core niche - to picking up enquiries from people they can persuade to buy anew. I'm pretty sure Gibson very closely analyzed Time's readership (and the cable TV audience as well as everywhere else they're pitching) before advertising and felt confident they'd bring in enough enquiries to convert into new business orders to justify the cost of the ad campaign. The Time and cable TV 'Father's Day' ad in my view is aimed at existing 'mature' guitar owners (Gibson upgrades or competitive users) and affluent new prospects. I can't see the drawback to doing this.

What I want to know is what would Steve specificaly suggest here as an alternative to traditional TV and print ads and specifically to Time for marketing Gibson guitars. Maybe there are innovative alternatives we're overlooking.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 5, 2005 3:26 PM

I've actually asked for a guitar for my birthday! I'm 42 years old, used to play in a band and haven't put my hands on a Gibson electric for over 20 years. I think these guys know exactly what they are doing. Just like Harley Davidson - Go after the aging boomers looking to tap into nostalgia, their creativity and their wild side.

Posted by sdet at June 6, 2005 12:32 AM

In the "good old days" guitar makers also promoted their products by generously outfitting up-and-coming bands. I was in a relatively obscure folk-rock band in the late 60s that was completely equipped with Guild guitars and Guild amplifiers - at no cost to us. The VP of Guild - a patron of the arts as well as a businessman - even bought us a bus to get us and our gear from NY to the Berkeley Folk Festival in 1968. THAT'S sponsorship. But I don't know that this promotional strategy really helped guitar makers sell their products.

Posted by John O'Leary at June 6, 2005 9:15 AM

I recently saw the Gibson TV commercial with the dad drilling his daughter on various Gibsons so that she could accompany mom to the music store and inform her on what to get dad for his birthday. It's a shame that in order to appeal to middle-aged male boomers, Gibson chose to portray their wives as know-nothings when it comes to purchasing electric guitars. Then again, this is why I took up producing electronic music: it's more egalitarian.

Posted by femmebot at June 6, 2005 3:09 PM

I contacted someone at Gibson who will hopefully join this discussion and give us his perspective on things.

Posted by John O'Leary at June 6, 2005 3:28 PM

Great! It will be interesting to see how s/he deals with so many armchair marketers!

Harry

Posted by Proven Ways to Get New Customers at June 6, 2005 5:18 PM

I'm interested to hear what Gibson would say. I'm hoping they'll have a credible story about how they believe it is a good return on investment, and not just corporate whim. I remember when the president of Hyatt and I debated whether one of our small resorts should advertise in Time. (Guess what side I was on? Also, guess if the ad agency - BBDO - loved him.)

Posted by Steve Yastrow at June 7, 2005 9:38 AM

real generic viagra

While it may be expensive to run an ad in Time magazine, the number of people who can now afford to buy one of the company's guitars has grown dramatically over the years with millions of baby boomers trying to relive their youth. In the 1960's Gibson and Fender guitars were the choice of every great rock guitar player. Today's affluent baby boomers are buying Gibson guitars and new Ford Mustangs because they can!

Posted by George Whalin at June 7, 2005 10:41 AM

Steve, what did you suggest as an alternative and what would you suggest for Gibson? I'm not out to nit-pick. I'm interested.

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 7, 2005 10:43 AM

Wow. We jumped on this one.

Are we overthinking? What if they got their hands on some remnant space as a result of some Time-Warner promotional tie in and slugged in the spot?

As a former Warner Bros. guy, the remnant/friends and family price is pretty good. If Time needed to fill a hole because someone didn't make a deadline and Gibson/Warner Music had the right relationship...

That said, I like the market, product, audience, media theorizing. I hope O'Leary comes back with some scoop.

Posted by Mike Wokosin at June 7, 2005 2:36 PM

Mike Wokosin has a good point. Perhaps they did get a good deal on ad space -- and that's all there is to it. Any word from Gibson?

Enquiring minds want to know!

Harry

Posted by Proven Ways to Get New Customers at June 7, 2005 7:53 PM

Yes, where´s the Gibson guy? C´mon, we´re waiting...

Posted by felix gerena at June 8, 2005 8:53 AM

While we're waiting for Gibson, you might want to check out another influential blog: http://music.for-robots.com/ who people are saying represent the wave of the future in the music industry. They've released a CD featuring 19 unsigned and independent-label bands that's getting good reviews. They're also getting 8,000 unique hits a day and making sales. I think it's great - the record companies are suddenly going to have to compete with talent. Out with the boy and girl bands! In with real music! canadian pharmacy for viagra

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 8, 2005 8:58 AM

Noel, I like it. There are so few "real" bands now...

Posted by felix gerena at June 8, 2005 9:04 AM

Sorry that Gibson is a no-show. I also invited Martin (my choice for acoustic guitars) to respond also. These guitar makers might want to include maintaining a presence in blogs and chatrooms as part of their marketing strategy. But maybe they're too busy to check out a blog page that only gets 11,000 hits a day.

herbal viagra Posted by John O'Leary at June 8, 2005 9:48 AM

John, I think it already is a part of lots of companies marketing strategies, at least on paper. They just have to adjust to having no freaking control over the conversation. Gibson may not have the temerity to show up, but I bet they're reading!

Posted by Noel Guinane at June 8, 2005 10:33 AM

Yes, that might be the reason, John. But i wonder, what can they lose showing up?

Posted by felix gerena at June 8, 2005 12:40 PM

I gotta say that this has been a fun thread, Steve. Let's do more music-related stuff!

Posted by John O'Leary at June 9, 2005 10:30 AM

Noel and Harry, and most of the commentators above are right. An ad (haven't seen Time's ad) is not enough marketing. Even the website is very institutional (that's "inane"). For example, I bought a Paracho guitar in Guadalajara, but it is there, in a corner, untouched BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW how to play it. Could that tell Gibson something. They should throw a video or DVD course, like those sold in the infommercials (I am flying blind because this form does not allow me to scrooll). Or better, sell the course and give away the guitar. (At least direct marketing has a better experience with this approach).
Armando Ortega
http://marketing-in-mexico.blogspot.com

Posted by Armando Ortega at June 12, 2005 7:45 PM

My husband plays the guitar. I would NEVER buy a guitar for him without him being aware of it and giving me every specific detail of what he wanted. Most of guitar players that I know are very particular about what they want in their guitar and very loyal to whatever brand they use. I don't think something that personal should be a gift. Too many ways to spend a bunch of money for something the person isn't going to be happy with. But you have to admit, their ads got us all talking about it. Just my 2 cents.

Posted by Sheri at June 15, 2005 3:29 PM

Let's not lose sight of what we're really talking about here: Gibson made a marketing decision (one that probably cost them a hefty chunk of coin) to advertise in TIME. Think logically about it--why would a traditional guitarmaking company take such a unique approach to advertising their product? Chances are they aren't going to immediately sell a gazillion new guitars just because they took out an ad in a news magazine, but I'm thinking that their goal might have been to try a new strategy in broadening the public's awareness of their product/brand so as to create a new market niche. Was it a good investment for Gibson? Only time will tell, but it seems like it might become a worthwhile long-term marketing approach to me. If nothing else, they can always write off the ad as an advertising expense. My guess is that more than a few people will become curious enough about Gibson guitars to at least check them out, which can only be a good thing for Gibson, TIME, the guitar industry and, ultimately, music in general. However, I happen to be a dyed-in-the-wool Fender Telecaster guy myself, so what do I know? (Now if Fender were to start advertising in Newsweek or Fortune or some other nontraditional place, THAT would be something! Are you listening, Fender?)

Posted by Randy at June 16, 2005 3:21 PM