Fender, In trouble?

[Billy Apple]

[quote name='tauzero' timestamp='1420257707' post='2647296']
[1] It's not "Squire", no matter how many times you dullards try to spell it like that. You really should have it tattooed in mirror writing on your foreheads.
[/quote]

Pardon me, Squire?

[tauzero]

[quote name='Mornats' timestamp='1420287309' post='2647510']
It's an easy typo and one that auto-correct loves to use. And "dullards"? C'mon, don't start that!
[/quote]

I should have put a big smiley there really...

[Mornats]

[quote name='tauzero' timestamp='1420289234' post='2647529']
I should have put a big smiley there really...
[/quote]

[Twincam]

Ok played a 2 and a half odd grand fender roadworn thing today. Just briefly but i gave it a good look over too and it played nice for sure, sounded good. But looked sh*t! well it looked nice from a distance like on old bass but get closer and my lord i was disappointed.
Also i tested and bought a active peavey for 200 quid i certainly didn't think the fender played any better, though it felt better built of course in that way its hard to describe, i think solid is the word im looking for. And no way did it sound 13 times better, i could argue the peavey sounded better.

And that fake finish again was a joke im not even saying that to be funny, its first time i seen and handled one and i was not impressed!. Also battered body and control knobs etc but new chrome?.

However the other and mostly cheaper Fenders were much nicer so much nicer!, some of the ones half the price were better instruments.

As said i like Fender but there pricing to quality ratio on the models are not right. Im thinking a fender should not cost more than 2k. Im thinking there's builders in Britain that could really build you something much nicer for the money.

[icastle]

IMO, there's no easy solution to this for them.

They get slated for not 'moving with the times', but when they do take a faltering step in that direction they get slated for it.

When CBS took them over the products were derided as 'cr*p', but now everyone's scrambling to get hold of those same 70's instruments.

They've brought out numerous variations of the basic models but the chances of a corporation doing that without researching the market first are very slim.
The chances of them being able to reduce the range without generating more criticism is probably also very slim.

How the hell can you steer a business through a minefield like that?

Yes, QC issues have been a thorn in their side for decades now, but perhaps our expectations from a 60 year old design have become a little distorted by more modern designs that can throw away the rulebook without criticism?
Something that rarely seems to be mentioned is that there were some real pre-CBS dogs as well.

Seems to me that they're a bit [i]'damned if they do, damned if they don't'[/i] and I for one can't help but feeling just a little bit sorry for this historic brand.

And no, I'm not a habitual Fender user.

[Woodinblack]

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1420307954' post='2647918']The chances of them being able to reduce the range without generating more criticism is probably also very slim.

How the hell can you steer a business through a minefield like that?
[/quote]

By realising that it doesn't matter what criticism you face, what matters is making your company profitable and under control. If you are worried about the criticism them you are probably the wrong person to be running the company.

[Twincam]

[quote name='Woodinblack' timestamp='1420323769' post='2648170']
By realising that it doesn't matter what criticism you face, what matters is making your company profitable and under control. If you are worried about the criticism them you are probably the wrong person to be running the company.
[/quote]

Yeah i must agree with Woodinblack here. Not forgetting that profitable doesn't mean crap products though

[icastle]

[quote name='Woodinblack' timestamp='1420323769' post='2648170']
By realising that it doesn't matter what criticism you face, what matters is making your company profitable and under control. If you are worried about the criticism them you are probably the wrong person to be running the company.
[/quote]

Hmm.
Not quite that simple when you take the preceding paragraphs into consideration instead of just grabbing the last line of the last paragraph.

[Twincam]

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1420324210' post='2648176']
Hmm.
Not quite that simple when you take the preceding paragraphs into consideration instead of just grabbing the last line of the last paragraph.
[/quote]

What? lol. ive not kept fully up with topic so i don't know what this means think of me as a slow child. But im sure who you were talking to got it.

[Prime_BASS]

Regardless of what they do, it'll be some years before they as a company become profitable again.

[Woodinblack]

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1420324210' post='2648176']
Hmm.
Not quite that simple when you take the preceding paragraphs into consideration instead of just grabbing the last line of the last paragraph.
[/quote]

I took the preceding paragraphs into consideration - I wasn't going to quote your whole post, but that doesn't mean I didn't read it.

And no, I didn't say simple either, its a big company and the change would hurt (quite a few people), as it would have to be restructured, but that is as far as i see what they need to do. I suspect they won't do it, and they will probably flounder a bit, or lose parts of their company and be sold of through other companies.
Fender the brand will survive, and hobble along until they find a decent MD who can do what needs to be done.

[Lozz196]

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1420307954' post='2647918']
IMO, there's no easy solution to this for them.

They get slated for not 'moving with the times', but when they do take a faltering step in that direction they get slated for it.

Seems to me that they're a bit [i]'damned if they do, damned if they don't'[/i] and I for one can't help but feeling just a little bit sorry for this historic brand.
[/quote]

Pretty much spot on there, methinks.

[tauzero]

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1420307954' post='2647918']
IMO, there's no easy solution to this for them.

They get slated for not 'moving with the times', but when they do take a faltering step in that direction they get slated for it.
[/quote]

They don't really commit themselves to it, though.

They don't have to stop making Ps and Js to bring out something newer. What they do need to do is show some sort of commitment to doing it. And if people really don't want anything other than Ps and Js from Fender, then maybe they could use one of the myriad other brands that they own to demonstrate that they can innovate.

[icastle]

[quote name='tauzero' timestamp='1420379545' post='2648540']
And if people really don't want anything other than Ps and Js from Fender, then maybe they could use one of the myriad other brands that they own to demonstrate that they can innovate.
[/quote]

With the buyouts they were doing up until recently I thought they were going to do that.
Maybe that was the plan initially and they ran out of steam (or money).

I really expected to see the GB stuff on the shelves with 'Fender' badges on it by now.

[Skinnyman]

[quote name='icastle' timestamp='1420379802' post='2648543']


With the buyouts they were doing up until recently I thought they were going to do that.
Maybe that was the plan initially and they ran out of steam (or money).

I really expected to see the GB stuff on the shelves with 'Fender' badges on it by now.
[/quote]
I believe there are four reasons to buy another company. 1) to get revenue (I.e. Buying a company that has strong revenue streams such as software, maintenance or royalty/licence fees) 2) to get technology (I.e. Buying a company for their patents/innovation 3) to get market share (by buying a strong brand that will continue to be promoted independently) or 4) to take out the competition.

Given that GB had no revenue stream outside product sales, had limited patents and have now been taken off air, I can only assume that they were bought for reason 4.

[Prime_BASS]

[quote name='Skinnyman' timestamp='1420383536' post='2648592']

I believe there are four reasons to buy another company. 1) to get revenue (I.e. Buying a company that has strong revenue streams such as software, maintenance or royalty/licence fees) 2) to get technology (I.e. Buying a company for their patents/innovation 3) to get market share (by buying a strong brand that will continue to be promoted independently) or 4) to take out the competition.

Given that GB had no revenue stream outside product sales, had limited patents and have now been taken off air, I can only assume that they were bought for reason 4.
[/quote]

I don't think for reasons four.
GBs market wasn't really traditional, more lightweight and modern. And not too long after the announced buyout Fender released a new rumble range, that was strikingly similar to the shuttle range. Looked promising but never got chance to have ago with one as local music shops still have old crap combos and the old bit of markbass gear that's on at RRP.

[stingrayPete1977]

Were Genz amps in any form of competition with anything Fender made? I think more likely they wanted some of 2) but either dropped a bollock and did not pull it off as planned or ran out of cash to implement it properly with the new rumble not being a match for the old Genz, a simple redesign of the facia was all that was needed to keep the Shuttle and the Streamliner models on the shelf but with a Fender logo on it.

[icastle]

[quote name='Skinnyman' timestamp='1420383536' post='2648592']
Given that GB had no revenue stream outside product sales, had limited patents and have now been taken off air, I can only assume that they were bought for reason 4.
[/quote]

To me, that only makes sense if the company you are taking over are competitors.

Fender bass amps have been mostly the big valve jobbies or bog standard 'budget' transistor stuff for years now.

If I was in the market for a GB type setup then I'd certainly check out other brands while I was at it, but I wouldn't even look at Fender as their product range seems to fall well outside that.

IMO, they'd have been better off buying Peavey or Ampeg if they wanted to divert market share.

[icastle]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1420384244' post='2648613']
Were Genz amps in any form of competition with anything Fender made? I think more likely they wanted some of 2) but either dropped a bollock and did not pull it off as planned or ran out of cash to implement it properly with the new rumble not being a match for the old Genz, a simple redesign of the facia was all that was needed to keep the Shuttle and the Streamliner models on the shelf but with a Fender logo on it.
[/quote]

+1

My guess is that they bought GB to rebadge it and provide a boost to their somewhat lacklustre bass amp range but their budget to bring that to fruition was based on revenue turnover that didn't materialise.

EDIT: One can only hope that GB has been only temporarily shelved and we'll see it back on the shelves at a later date.

[stingrayPete1977]

The funny thing is I would buy a Fender amp if I knew it was just a rebranded shuttle, once a few had been sold to forum members and we had looked inside they could well have been doing alright with them, then again £250 million in debt or whatever it is would need a few units shifting!

[Lozz196]

Never understood why Fender bass amps aren`t more widely used, they sound great (he says whilst admitting his gigging rig is Aguilar and Barefaced).

[Wonky2]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1420131732' post='2645947']
I felt the same way but finding a nice us jazz V has made me realise I do like having one in my arsenal, the dodgy ones with crap B strings just makes me more happy to have this one, its already picking up a few marks and I dont mind somehow it feels right.
[/quote]

" its already picking up a few marks and I dont mind somehow it feels right."

Understand this completely.... I have never abused an instrument in any way what so ever but there's something about the jazz's I've had which has a quality of an old pair of slippers ..... They are a bass which I am not too precious over in regard to nicks and bumps (neck excluded) something about this helps me to relax with the thing, something I could never do with some of the more top end gear I've had like status kB or MM's I've had....

Regarding the fender product line...... I'm glad that they have the american standard p and j bass's, and to me , these should represent fenders 2015 take on the original design. They pretty much do aside the improvements you would expect such as truss design, machine heads, high mass bridge and custom shop pick ups...... All in all very good.
The other American variations such as 60's concentric pot , vintage 6o's and 70's j and p are all warranted in the USA line up too.
The custom shop gear is what it is, but I ink should be a made to order and spec arrangement rather then churned out and sold amongst the masses but just at a higher price. They should be special, given the utmost attention and assembled by one luthier rather then a line . ( i imagine this is how they are done anyhoo)

This brings me to the OTHER "fender" gear..... Mexicans, japs, squires etc etc....... As far as I'm concerned they shouldn't carry the fender brand, these should all come under the squire brand .....

Why do I think this? Well, I have played many USA fenders and sure, they can be mediocre at worst but sweet as hell at best. And usually , the sound quality is dependable as well as playability.
This can't be said for the most of the squire stuff. I have played ones which are set up well and play fantastic, but plug them in and crank it up and they begin to sound like their price tag demands.

I borrowed a friends squire by fender p bass recently for a rehearsal when I was between basses.... I was happy enough to take it along as it played great. I run it through my mesa and it just sounded so thin and transparent, it really made me see why the fender stuff is the premier stuff.
Incidentally, same friend asked me to purchase and install new pick ups and circuitry to the squire p, stuffs in transit as we speak..... The bass plays well enough so maybe this upgrade will make the thing worth its salt...... Dunno, I'm open to being convinced....it shall speak for itself I guess.

But, outside of the standard fender (USA) stock, they're are many signature models and variations, something i NEVER wanted to entertain as I preferred to keep things original with either p or j.
I was amazed with myself last week when without hesitation i traded in my 3 month old am Stan jazz for a 70's reissue hotrod, something i always saw as a freak between the two, confused and having somewhat of an identity crisis....... But OH MY GOD , was I gob smacked at how good this bass is, bags of tonal range, plays like a beauty .... Just "feels" right.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Wonky2

[icastle]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1420384962' post='2648624']
The funny thing is I would buy a Fender amp if I knew it was just a rebranded shuttle, once a few had been sold to forum members and we had looked inside they could well have been doing alright with them, then again £250 million in debt or whatever it is would need a few units shifting!
[/quote]

I started out with a old Fender Bassman (75 I think it was) and a matching 2x15 cab but moved it on and never felt any strong inclination to use Fender bass amps again.
Nothing hugely wrong with them, but, for me, there was never anything overwhelmingly 'right' about them to entice me back.

I'd certainly consider a rebranded shuttle though.

[stingrayPete1977]

The traditional Fender bass amps do nothing for me, even as kid I remeber seeing stuff like that in the second hand shop, or junk shop! Lol

[icastle]

[quote name='stingrayPete1977' timestamp='1420391098' post='2648732']
The traditional Fender bass amps do nothing for me, even as kid I remeber seeing stuff like that in the second hand shop, or junk shop! Lol
[/quote]

IIRC, I went Trace Elliot combo with an extension cab after getting shot of mine.

I've always been a stubborn git, but a scrawny 17 year old stubborn git trying to shift gear that weighed more then he did was never going to be a good idea in the long term.