Question of the Week For BP

[bovinehost]

Greetings, Biff.

I've read and heard that GH and Co no longer have the license for OLP and are no longer producing the instruments.

I think people are curious about what comes next. The SUB was (is) clearly a great idea and has a cult-like following amongst their owners. The quality and workmanship was of course much higher than on the OLPs, but of course that was also reflected in the price difference.

Will you look to have the OLP line continued by another company?

What are your thoughts on producing a SUB-like instrument outside the US?

Jack

PS to peanut gallery: EBMM and the Hanser Group, which built the OLPs, have a very close personal relationship. If you're thinking about asking certain other questions in addition to mine above, please do, but keep the personal relationship in mind.

 

[mynan]

It was a licensing deal with the Hanser group (Kustom, BC Rich) that expired. We are in the process of stating over with a new company

Just thought I would throw that quote in here, since it has been touched on elsewhere.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing an OLP made by Cort.

 

[Frankie5Angels]

Not to be obtuse or anything, but I don't see the point (at least from a buyer's perspective. From EBMM's perspective I can understand it.) of an OLP-type bass. I'd much rather have a "real" MM like the SUB if I was looking for a "lower end" MusicMan than an imitation like an OLP. I'd rather pay a bit more for the real SUB, rather than pay $200 for something that looks like an MM but has nothing in common with the real thing.

Or am I just missing something here?

 

[jaylegroove]

I have to second Frankie on that point.

Please bring the SUB back !

 

[jlepre]

I have to second Frankie on that point.

Please bring the SUB back !

+100

 

[T-bone]

I'd rather pay a bit more for the real SUB, rather than pay $200 for something that looks like an MM but has nothing in common with the real thing.

I think most people here would agree. However, Fender seems to have done quite well with their Squire series. So purely from a marketing point of view, does it make sense to start the addiction with milk, then graduate to the best drug you've ever had?

tbone

 

[Big Poppa]

Here it is.....

I have zero interest in sourcing, importing, warehousing and marketing cheap copies or entry level instruments. I get a F from the biz school guys. It isnt my focus or passion. I guess if we didnt have the strength of 40+ years of profitable business I would have to behave differently. On the other hand who says that it doesnt make sense to find and develop a niche product line at attack it with all you have got?

Here is the rub......

All of you that would like to see the Sub back I take this as a compliment. It was fabulous but instead of my giving myself and the team carpel tunell patting our own selves on the back I should have just put a hundred dollar bill in the case and called it good because that was how much upside down we were on it. The SUB also ate up factory production space....HMmmmm lets lee....I can only make so many instrukments so should I make a line that I lose money on and one that impacts my ability to add new stuff or should I re-focus and stay true to our original mission statement and make top quality ergonmically sound guitars and basses?

SO those of you who want the SUB back also want .50 cent gas and a red head with amnesia. It just aint gonna hapen.....

Now I can get pissed off at people ripping me off with cheap copies, but in the end if I dont address the demand and market for people who want a similar thing as I make and dont have the dough, then by not addressing the market that is there I am creating an oppurtunity for others to reap the rewards that Im creating but leaving on the table. Wow what a long and bad sentence.....but you get my drift.

We are in the process of selecting a new partner.........Ill keep you posted.

 

[Soul Man]

Well stated BP, that really explains things.

 

[carpedebass]

So I suppose no more SUBs...oh well...moving on now...

 

[jaylegroove]

SO those of you who want the SUB back also want .50 cent gas and a red head with amnesia.

Respectfully, BP, that's not what we implied. What was written here would say "why not make licenced SUBs, even more pricey than the OLPs, instead of licenced copies that have the look and strictly nothing else similar to any EBMM".

My "bring back the SUB" was written in that context. I know the good reasons why they were discontinued (and that you just explained again) and fully understand you won't step back on this. Sorry if I have been misunderstood.

 

[SteveB]

jaylegroove,

I get what you're saying, but the reason the SUBs were so good was that they were made in SLO at the MM factory. If that's a money-losing proposition for MM, it would be difficult to impossible to find a company that could do as good a job and not lose money on it, too (with the additional overhead of licensing).

BP,

Are you sure the redhead is completely out of the question?

 

[Beth]

BP,

Are you sure the redhead is completely out of the question?

Not entirely... I heard he does appearances at parties for a small fee

 

[Dr Stankface]

Very well stated BP.

Beth, I'm now going to go burn my retinas.

 

[jaylegroove]

I get what you're saying, but the reason the SUBs were so good was that they were made in SLO at the MM factory. If that's a money-losing proposition for MM, it would be difficult to impossible to find a company that could do as good a job and not lose money on it, too (with the additional overhead of licensing).

Sure, but we were implying the making of a "cheap SUB", not a "real one". I mean, Mexico instead of Colorado, or South Korea instead of Chicago, etc. It obviously wouldn't be as good as the real SUB, but it would take a better step towards what a real EBMM is.

Just IMO, of course.

 

[kirkm24]

I wouldn't have an issue with MusicMan licensing to a well respected Korean manufacturer. There are two other high end bass companies that I won't mention who have Korean copies of their American counterparts and have still been able to manufacture a high quality instrument at an affordable cost. I personally can afford to buy the nice American made instruments but I understand that a lot of guys have to consider other alternatives because of financial constraints. Some might see it as selling out but I see it as allowing everyone the opportunity to get a taste of something good and at the same time a business can make a profit which is not a bad thing.

 

[mynan]

Sure, but we were implying the making of a "cheap SUB", not a "real one". I mean, Mexico instead of Colorado, or South Korea instead of Chicago, etc. It obviously wouldn't be as good as the real SUB, but it would take a better step towards what a real EBMM is.

Just IMO, of course.

I see what you're saying, but then EBMM would have to monitor the QC of another company in a different country and probably handle the logistics of distributing the product line...not that it can't be done, but it sounds more like a distraction from where BP is trying to take EBMM.

 

[jlepre]

SO those of you who want the SUB back also want .50 cent gas and a red head with amnesia. It just aint gonna hapen.....

Now that was funny!

I can totally understand now that you gave us the skinny on the SUB. I just want my Sterling 5!

 

[jaylegroove]

but it sounds more like a distraction from where BP is trying to take EBMM.

I fully agree there. BP wishes to focus on the heart of his business and we can't blame him for that. And monitoring the QC of another production unit (or manufacturer) would reflect a negative way on the "regular" EBMM series if that was not profitable.

Oh well, I guess the inside thought behind "bring the SUB back" was something like : licencing EBMM instruments deserve much better quality than what OLP used to offer. Even if the price has to rise. One more time, just IMO.

 

[jlepre]

Very well stated BP.

Beth, I'm now going to go burn my retinas.

I'm BLIND!!

 

[bovinehost]

I guess the inside thought behind "bring the SUB back" was something like : licencing EBMM instruments deserve much better quality than what OLP used to offer. Even if the price has to rise. One more time, just IMO.

I don't know anything about OLP quality except what I heard anecdotally here and there. Larry had (or still has) one and it far surpassed in quality the "cheap" basses we had available when I was young(er).

As with any instrument, there has been bitching, too, but I'm not entirely sure what the expectations were for an instrument that sold for two bills, three bills.

I suppose that I was curious about some sort of middle ground, too. The OLP was a budget, entry-level instrument; the SUB was way beyond that. After reading BP's response and thinking about it a bit, maybe the only way to get there - the middle ground between OLP and SUB - is outsourcing. We can all understand BP's reticence to go that route.

Interesting discussion.

Thanks, BP, and thanks to the Forumites for adding to it.

Jack