Gibson considering making ukes after bankruptcy reorg

While I hope Gibson will make some great ukes, I wonder about the financial wisdom of that decision. We've seen Collings, Breedlove, Santa Cruz, Larrivee bring ukes into their production, only to stop when there are more profitable uses of their production resources. I'm afraid the same would be true for Gibson.
 
Although it would be cool to see high end Gibson ukuleles in the market, it doesn't make sense for Gibson to delve into the market at this point. They have a cash flow problem and need an influx of capital. Ukuleles represent a small market and high-end ukulele sales would be an even smaller market. That said, if Gibson knew what they were doing, they wouldn't be in this spot.
 
Thus far, Gibson is traditionally made in the USA. They use the Epiphone line for imports. I don't think they would want to muddy the waters and dilute their flagship any further by crossing the streams.
 
Thus far, Gibson is traditionally made in the USA. They use the Epiphone line for imports. I don't think they would want to muddy the waters and dilute their flagship any further by crossing the streams.

I would never have thought Martin would muddy their reputation with mid-grade unremarkable imports, but they did.
 
I would never have thought Martin would muddy their reputation with mid-grade unremarkable imports, but they did.

That's exactly the point. Martin confused customers by producing budget lines under their historically-beloved brand name. Up to that point, you could always expect Nazareth quality if it said Martin on the headstock. Now, you have to do a bit more legwork to see where it was made , especially if that means something to you as a consumer. That said, if Gibson produced an $600 import Les Paul, it would slash Epiphone's market of those sales. They would be cannibalizing their own market share. I guess we will see what they end up doing... Hopefully, they can keep their head above water.
 
I have to wonder...1. how much did the wood raid under the previous administration cost them legally and did that contribute to this bankruptcy? 2. Demographics....just how many actual players are there vs. collectors? If collecting slows, the market slows. And young people are not as big of collectors as the boomers. Plus I don't see that many young players in my area. Lots of aging baby boomer bands but not that many young guitar players. 3. The influx of imports is huge...guitars might be saturated?
That said, I might try to buy a gibson uke, but not a epiphone uke. I don't have a made in usa ukes, except my vintage martins that I got great deals on from kind and generous forum member.
I will be paying that forward some day too. smile.
 
Last edited:
Although it would be cool to see high end Gibson ukuleles in the market, it doesn't make sense for Gibson to delve into the market at this point.

I agree. They should concentrate on what they do best - where they made their reputation. If they make ukes, they will probably be high end. You have to wonder if people will pay a lot for a newly-produced ukulele from a company that might not be around next year.
 
"considering capitalizing on an industry-wide boom in sales of ukuleles" To me, that sounds like they are thinking it's a way to turn a quick buck, not continuing a legacy.
 
I have to wonder...1. how much did the wood raid under the previous administration cost them legally and did that contribute to this bankruptcy? 2. Demographics....just how many actual players are there vs. collectors? If collecting slows, the market slows. And young people are not as big of collectors as the boomers. Plus I don't see that many young players in my area. Lots of aging baby boomer bands but not that many young guitar players. 3. The influx of imports is huge...guitars might be saturated?

I agree. They should concentrate on what they do best - where they made their reputation. If they make ukes, they will probably be high end. You have to wonder if people will pay a lot for a newly-produced ukulele from a company that might not be around next year.

I certainly don't know the full ins and outs of the Gibson situation, but I am a master speculator! Gibson has over-extended itself. Over the years, they bought up various guitar companies, such as Kramer and Steinberger, and practically removed them from the marketplace. On top of that they also expanded and bought up companies, like Philips, TEAC Corporation, Onkyo, Baldwin Piano, and Cakewalk - to just name a few. Most of these companies have been drains financially. That said, Gibson Guitars is still showing as profitable. As a result, I don't believe that Gibson itself is going away any time soon. They have been through this before (Orville, CMI, Norlin, etc etc).

The biggest problem that Gibson has going forward is competition with itself. Unlike younger companies, they have decades upon decades worth of used instruments all over the secondary marketplace. That means you have to continue to deliver a high quality new product that people want, because the consumer can always under-cut you and buy used. You can find a used Les Paul everywhere you look at guitar stores, web-shops, yard sales, etc. Kamaka is in the same boat in regards to the secondary markets. Anyway, the best thing would be for the board to remove Henry J from any and all decision making going forward. He was the one that believed (or wanted to believe) that guitar players wanted robot-controlled headstocks and the like. Always listen to the consumer and see what they want rather than force it upon them.

Are Gibson customers demanding high-end ukuleles? Dunno, but I speculate that they do not.
 
Last edited:
They have a factory in my town. For that reason alone I would consider buying one, if it were made here. But, I actually don't have UAS and the three, I mean four, ukes I already have are enough. Honest.
 
... That said, if Gibson knew what they were doing, they wouldn't be in this spot.
Gibson's financial woes were due to non-instrument investments.

Their guitar/musical instrument business, based on articles I've seen about their financial woes, is sound.

It was their investments in numerous accessory companies that buried them.

Gibson may actually be making a sound financial decision if they expand the one business they own that was actually turning a profit while they shed themselves of their money losing subsidiaries like KRK, Cerwin Vega and Stanton as well as their majority ownership in TEAC. Not sure if they should also keep Baldwin Piano, Gibson Pro Audio and Wurlitzer. They make 170,000 guitars each year and dominate the over $2000 guitar market with a market share that is at 40% or more.
 
Gibson's financial woes were due to non-instrument investments.

Their guitar/musical instrument business, based on articles I've seen about their financial woes, is sound.

It was their investments in numerous accessory companies that buried them.

Gibson may actually be making a sound financial decision if they expand the one business they own that was actually turning a profit while they shed themselves of their money losing subsidiaries like KRK, Cerwin Vega and Stanton as well as their majority ownership in TEAC. Not sure if they should also keep Baldwin Piano, Gibson Pro Audio and Wurlitzer. They make 170,000 guitars each year and dominate the over $2000 guitar market with a market share that is at 40% or more.

I mention all of that in Post #12. That said, it was Gibson that put themselves into this situation and that is why I teasingly mentioned that they don't know what they were doing. I love Gibson and wish them well. They will come out fine on the other side of this, but I don't think they will be able to get there until they cut the dead weight at the top of the food chain.
 
I would love to see them produce a nicely made ukulele.
 
Thus far, Gibson is traditionally made in the USA. They use the Epiphone line for imports. I don't think they would want to muddy the waters and dilute their flagship any further by crossing the streams.

Thus far, Gibson has diluted their reputation seriously. Not by moving abroad, but by moving around within the US, almost randomly saking the cream its workforce, making design modifications without much market research and by putting pressure on music shops. Branching out into other markets wasn't the only cause of Gibson's problems.

As a fan of old Gibson ukuleles (the tenors especially!), I'm not very reassured if they want to go back to building ukuleles after some 50 years (save for a handful prototypes and custom models): they don't have the woods, the models, the experience at hand.

In the article, the CEO says they haven't made Gibson ukuleles since the 1930s. That's 30 years off the mark, and doesn't install much confidence in how well they know their own history, and can attain a production of similar quality.
 
Last edited:
I would hope that Gibson would do what they do best and deliver a plug in ukulele that delivers a real dialable punch with a sweet tone and still be a ukulele not a small guitar.
 
Thus far, Gibson has diluted their reputation seriously.

I'm with you on that one. My one and only Gibson was built in 1935 so I am not really their target audience. All the reasons that you listed are valid reasons for why their reputation is tarnished in many corners of the market. That said, they are a legacy brand. The list of jazz players, rock players, bluegrass players, etc etc and on and on that have played Gibsons over the years are etched into the collective fabric of our musical history. People often want to play the instrument of their idols and many of them are Gibson players. Tradition still molds the modern player's tastes: the Les Paul, the L-5 archtop, the F-5 mandolin. As a result, Gibson can continue to make weird and even terrible choices and still make a boat load of sales. Why? Because they are Gibson - right or wrong.
 
Wish all the best to Gibson on their reorganization. They should stick to what they do well. While they have the guitar reputation I think it would take 5 to 10 years to build a new ukulele reputation. People aren't going to spend high end on a new build, regardless of what big name makes it. There will be early adopters and people who will try them out and give reviews.....but a bad review or two and the uke making end of the business would be done....

My brother is a guitar player/collector somewhere between 25 and 30 guitars maybe more. He has several Gibson guitars, none bought new. I'm not sure he has ever bought a brand new guitar??? The used market is huge.

My son a 10 year violinist is branching out into other instruments, other than the electric keyboard grandma bought, two of the guitars he's been noodling around on have belonged to mom for some time and my brother just lent him an electric frankenFender. If sonny boy wan'ts a Gibson he'll likely have to inherit it from my brother or buy one on his own when he is older. New quality big name Guitars aren't going to be in his budget for a long long time.

I just received a new KoAloha Tenor so I'm out of new uke money myself.......

Gibson is behind the uke curve I'm afraid....
 
Top Bottom