Question of the Week For BP

[cky4ever]

Are most of the woods used at Ernieball american? I assume that the majority of the costs are labor related... Wood isnt that expensive actually.

 

[Old_Guy]

Are most of the woods used at Ernieball american? I assume that the majority of the costs are labor related... Wood isnt that expensive actually.

I would imagine you're correct sir. Labor is undoubtedly the major cost driver. Heck, the US exports huge chunks of forrest products to the Japanese who turn them into chopsticks (true fact). One of the pride in ownership points in owning an EBMM is (as I've read) the company's comittment to providing a 'living wage.' As BP's pointed out though, the whole thing is QC. US companies used to tout that their targeted defect rate was "X%" Japanese, trained by Demming, countered with a targeted defect rate of 0%. I doubt we'll ever see an EBMM "factory second" with the headstock painted over in an outlet mall along I-95. Back to the original question, how does Mr. Ball keep from getting ripped off?
A completely divergent approach would be cross-marketing and design work. Even old Kalishnikov (of AK-47 fame) has a design shop (as of course does BMW!) that does outside work. I don't know what a pair of sunglasses designed by EB would look like, but I'm sure I'd buy a pair.

 

[cky4ever]

As far as boristhespiders comment, some people despite how much they save will never be able to buy a real MM. 1500 2000 $$$ for an instrument is a lot of money for most people.

As far as namebrand value goes, I think anyone who´s going to shed that amount of money (1500 or more for a real MM or any other reAl instrument for that matter be it mia fender over squire, gibson over epiphone, warwick over rockbass) has a very clear idea of what hes buying what he can expect. A company shoould not worry over a misconceptions created by having a mid level or entry level instrument. Any kind of buyer that does not know the difference when about to spend that amount of money between the real deal and alternatives for those who arent as lucky is basing his decision on points that arent marketable in the first place. The same goes for a buyer who is buying the less expensive alternative and whose expecting the same kind of quality as the high end $$$ counterpart. Im sure anyone whos been playing for a year or two... like myself... can tell the diffrence between the real deal and cheaper alternatives. There will always be uninformed buyers and reaching every single potential buyer will never be possible. How many musicians actually buy a bassplayer magazine...


Should Ernieball then decide to make mid level or entry level basses... the only thing that can answer that is what kind of company they want to be because from a business standpoint it can be done. Do they want to remain working one side of the market, do they want to give more people the chance to play their kind of instruments, its more of a direction and ideological constraint than a business one.

Just my two cents.

 

[Big Poppa]

I like these questions of the week to me. Boris so let me get this right. I should not address the market that exisists and ignore the consumer demand? SHould I leave that area to others to fill the need without any quality or input standards from us? Remember if there is a market for something people will produce it regardless of how you feel.

 

[bovinehost]

I think there should be NO other lower-end or entry level version of the genuine MM product whether it be a SUB, OLP, or a new model called "Mongoose." Quite frankly, every time I see an IMITATION Stingray or Sterling, it makes me cringe.

Perhaps you're not seeing this from all angles. You may have read that I had anal shrivelage the first time I saw an OLP? So it's not like I don't understand your point of view - I do. We hold our basses sacred and all that.

But listen to what BP is saying.

1. There is money on the table. No one doubts that. Money WILL be spent on entry-level instruments.

2. If MM doesn't take some action in that market, there are X amount of crapola copy monkeys who will fill the niche. (It's not only nature that abhors a vacuum.)

3. Given items 1 and 2 above, wouldn't you rather see that action go to the "real" manufacturer? Because that way, there is some assurance of quality for the entry-level consumer...plus, maybe our non-entry-level Straplocks are partially funded!

4. Okay, just kidding about funding the straplocks.

5. Get your mouth off my SUB, podner!

A genuine MM should be what young bass players strive for. If you can't afford it now, TOO BAD!

It doesn't happen that way - which is GOOD, really. If I didn't have a Bongo to play, I'd play a Stingray. No Stingray? A SUB, then. No SUB? Dang, where's that Jazz bass? No Jazz - okay, you see what I mean. We will play SOMETHING, even if it isn't exactly what we desire.

So that young bass player with 250 dollars of mom's money? He's going to spend it. You betcha. He ain't waiting. We don't DO that in America.

Jack

 

[Sweat]

OK my two cents without reading every post (insert tired head here), I work with a guy who I have turned on to Music Man, he is a bass player and not bad but does not have the funds to buy a MM, I showed him the OLP and explained the deal, I helped him buy the OLP new and by the way not bad, nice trans red, he likes it and has him playing again and now he has his sights set on a Bongo, he is saving up to get one, so it works well for all, not everyone can afford the real deal but it does come around once you can, it is good business for all.

 

[boristhespider7]

Well yes, I guess I am taking a hard line. I am looking at it from an owner's perspective, not BP's. I do not have money on the table. I know that when I was a young player I did not have a MM, but eventually wanted one and got it. I started with a cheap Ibanez. It not endear me to the brand at all even though it was a decent quality instrument. Instead, when I could afford it, I bought an American Standard Jazz Bass because that was the holy grail to me. I never owned a Squier. When I wanted something even better, I saved money again to buy a MM. Now I can buy what I want and I want Sterlings.

I would just rather see the niche of lower-end basses filled by Squiers and Ibanez rather than MM knock-offs with MM "licenses." I understand that another brand may try to make them and MM would have no control over the quality, but consumers are plenty smart and would recognize that it's not a MM bass. However, when MM has its hand in it and the quality is still lackluster, that sticks with the consumer more. It also cheapens the MM brand by association. There's also nothing wrong with "elitism" in this field. I think MM should be in a certain tier and stay there. It's the same reason Porsche or BMW owners get ticked when the brand tries to make an affordable or entry level car "because the market is there." It cheapens the brand and takes some of the cache out of ownership of the real thing.

Hey, it's BP's company and his call, this is just my two cents. I would rather have young kids drool over a real Stingray or Sterling than buy a OLP or SUB. That may not be economically rational, but it does make sense.

 

[Big Poppa]

boris how about the olps helping subsidize the usa factory that helps us deal with the increases in everything all of the time?

 

[Beth]

this is a really good discussion, thank you to everyone for your input!

I don't feel that responding to the market's needs and wants is going to, in any way, dilute the brand equity of Music Man in the United States or worldwide. I would be much more worried about us getting tagged as an "elitist" brand than being viewed as a brand that is branching out and offering options for people with pursestrings that aren't so long.

 

[boristhespider7]

boris how about the olps helping subsidize the usa factory that helps us deal with the increases in everything all of the time?

I appreciate that. As I said, I'm looking at it from a consumer's perspective (or at least "this" consumer's perspective) not from the economically rational postion you have to take. And I don't think MM will ever be considered and "elitist" brand simply because it doesn't produce entry level basses. That's silly.

All I know is that when I go into GC and see the OLPs etc., sitting on the floor with the Squier, Ibanez and Epiphone SG "bass packs," it makes my stomach churn a bit. The same way as if I were a Porsche owner (oh to dream) and they came out with a model to compete at the Ford Mustang price point. I would find it disappointing no matter what the economic justification on the part of the manufacturer (there actually was a significant uproar when Porsche came out with the more "affordable" Boxter model for these very reasons).

 

[oli@bass]

oli what the heck are you talkng about.....

old guy and boris have rephrased pretty good what I meant in my earlier post.

What else to add... how cheap should it go?

Maybe these instruments should not be available in all parts of the world, because it does not make sense for all markets. And the prices would have to be kept at the same level relative to the competition. Which was obviously not the case everywhere, e.g. the OLPs were going roughly at double the price of a Squire or Peavey or Washburn, the SUBs were above the Fender Highway One... I can get a good deal of more interesting instruments within that price range than an overpriced low quality EBMM copy...

IMO, the SUBs were a cool idea, but the street prices should have been lower. And even at the price level they had, EBMM wasn't making money on these instruments. How to compete then in an even lower paying market... low price means also low profit margin...

However, what I do not understand is: EBMM tried with the Japanese SX series and it failed qualitiatively. EBMM tried it with the SUB and it failed financially. EBMM tried it with OPL and it failed qualitatively (and probably financially). Why try so hard to get into an already overcrowded highly competitive market?

 

[oli@bass]

I would be much more worried about us getting tagged as an "elitist" brand than being viewed as a brand that is branching out and offering options for people with pursestrings that aren't so long.

I don't fully understand this. Musical instruments are generally expensive and luxury items. To spend money on musical instruments is elitist by definition, sort of. And electric guitars are already cheap compared to classical instruments. Try to find a decent piano for $200. Or a flute, a horn, an oboe. It's impossible.

The question remains: What is the target market. The SUB was internationally not really entry level priced, neither were the OLPs.

 

[Smallmouth_Bass]

I can see how some people would not want to spend over $1000 on a new instrument, especially a starter instrument. Imagine being a parent and your 9 year old wants to start playing guitar. You don't know if they'll like it or stick with it. So are you going to spend $1000 or more to find out? Of course not.

However, I can understand some of the logic behind keeping things at the highest standard. That's where I am at as a consumer right now and I am willing to save the money to buy something that is top notch. I am fortunate enough to be in that position financially. Not everyone is fortunate enough to be in that position but would still like to have something that resembles a EBMM. Should they be denied? I don't think so. If the market is there, I do not see it as a bad thing to try and get in on it.

I think the challenge lies in trying to get a respectable product out there that can serve that need.

 

[Aussie Mark]

it makes my stomach churn a bit. The same way as if I were a Porsche owner (oh to dream) and they came out with a model to compete at the Ford Mustang price point.

 

[bovinehost]

I don't feel that responding to the market's needs and wants is going to, in any way, dilute the brand equity of Music Man in the United States or worldwide. I would be much more worried about us getting tagged as an "elitist" brand than being viewed as a brand that is branching out and offering options for people with pursestrings that aren't so long.

I certainly never would have considered the "elitist" tag for Music Man players.

(Sure, maybe for some of us with nine or ten or way more, but we're old and have had time to amass our herds.)

But I was - really - called an 'elitist' this very week on The Other Forum Which Shall Remain Nameless But Is Secretly Talkbass.

I guess I always considered EBMM a working bass. Not a Squier in price but certainly not as spendy as some of the boutique brands....a good, solid instrument at a decent price, backed by a company that cares.

But it's probably a good idea to remember that we are (I'm going to say it again) not exactly representative. That Other Forum has a large population of boutique players, but they're seriously outnumbered by the younger guys playing basses that cost less than, say, five hundred dollars.

Think about it and you know what that means - it's pretty obvious.

So while I may not - and you may not - think of us (EBMM players) as elitist, one hell of a lot of Ibanez players very well might.

Don't mean to single out Ibanez as a 'cheaper' brand, but you know what I mean.

Anyhoo, my mouth hurts, I just had PERIODONTAL SURGERY so I may need to be ignored for a bit.

Jack

 

[SteveB]

Perhaps if the next company to license the MM stuff just invested in a PLEK machine, eh? At least they'd all have decent fretwork. And then BP could contractually obligate the licensee to ship them with his proposed standards for action height etc. That would ensure a fairly decent instrument as far as the feel goes. And if they're copying MM body designs, you'll have ergonomic contours on most models.

I don't pretend to know.

I never thought of Fender the same way after they started making Squire, same with when Gibson made Epiphone models of all their classics designs. It did seem to cheapen the brand somehow.. and the market had already churned out plenty of low cost copies. Hell, I had a Hondo II Les Paul copy when I was a teenager.

So, I can see both sides of the discussion. Obviously, EBMM deserves to earn money if other companies cop their R&D. But maybe a private licensing agreement to allow the cloners to use the headstock shape or body style is sufficient? Why have any hand in the quality of the clone, or even mention EBMM on the product? Let the absence of legal action be the only clue that the cloner has inked a deal with EBMM. Just playing devil's advocate there.

 

[mynan]

I don't fully understand this. Musical instruments are generally expensive and luxury items. To spend money on musical instruments is elitist by definition, sort of. And electric guitars are already cheap compared to classical instruments. Try to find a decent piano for $200. Or a flute, a horn, an oboe. It's impossible.

The question remains: What is the target market. The SUB was internationally not really entry level priced, neither were the OLPs.

From your market's perspective, you may be right...but what you just posted here certainly does not reflect the North American market's perspective. Not saying that the North American market is THE market, but it's something to consider.

 

[kevin]

what a great great post!

 

[RMS]

Great discussion. I am in the camp that it makes business sense to make a quality import entry level MM and that this can likely be done without significantly compromising the EBMM brand.

I think the key is quality. I played 10-12 OLPs when I worked at a music store. One was great but most of them were lacking (even at that price point).

 

[DrKev]

As Sterling mentioned, I seem to remember more posts from people who bought OLPs moving up to MMs rather than upgrading from SUBs. Even if the numbers were about the same, SUBs losing money = no brainer for the OLPs.

Are there any plans to re-brand them as "Music Man OLPs" or something similar? I guess I'm asking, where should the association with EBMM start or finish?