[J Kimble (FLICKOFLASH)]

A Corporate Mission Statement is a mission statement that is written for the purpose of helping a corporation develop their mission for the future of the corporation.

Master Luthier Roman Rist suggests :
Henry should step down and let myself and Greg run the company. :naughty::naughty::naughty:

What do we know??? Nothing, but we know how to run a shop on a shoestring budget. We know how to make guitars play well, we know how to listen to customers. We know what customers, not "fans" want. We know how to make people happy.

The first thing I would do is set up a goal (or in corporate terms, a "mission statement")

What would that be? Roughly, " We are going to bring Gibson back to making the Best Damn Guitars In The World". It is a simple yet all encompassing goal that you could get everyone behind. Customers as well as employees.

All the cooperate stuff I didn't know how to deal with, I would find the people that did.

I would survey all the employees, and find out who were the best folks that worked there, the folks that the staff were sad to see go................and hire them back.

I'd get rid of all the Corporate Mumbo Jumbo, and speak to the world in plain English.

I would re-institute smaller mom and pop places as dealers. Taylor does, Martin does, and Fender does. Gibson should too.

I would sell Gibsons to any one that wanted to buy Gibsons.

I would hire my buddy MAX to run QC.

Of course this is all off the top of my head, and I haven't spent any time thinking about this and doing a strategical analysis, but this is a start.


In 30 years of dealing with guitar players, I have never met one that didn't want a Les Paul, even if they weren't an LP player.

The world WANTS Les Pauls, We would give them the best damn Les Pauls they have seen.[/COLOR][/B]


But, it is just a idle internet fantasy.

[C Yiannias (Yiann)]

Many people think that "mission statements" are generally drivel that often has nothing to do with the company's purpose or character. I find this to be true without exception in my own experiences up to this point in life.

Gibson, Epiphone and all of their brands need not have any other purpose than to "be the best" or "build the best" or whatever general qualities they exhibit presently. All that trying to verbalize it actually does is to create another artifact of corporate culture.

I say skip it and get back to the task at hand: making the best instruments that you can.

[m dailey (milod)]

I'm with "Yiann" on this one...

Sorry...

Also I've gotta admit that the LP is a guitar I've never aspired to own - and that dates back to when I first started playing and the LP wasn't very popular at all.

It's one of those guitars - like a Strat, to be blunt - that I can appreciate is an instrument that many pickers prefer, but I don't.

Perhaps it's because I started on a classical guitar. I dunno.

I even like the SG, btw.

Give me a any Gibson "free" and I've gotta admit that although it's not the most expensive in the line, electric or acoustic, I'd do an ES175 as an almost perfect all-around guitar for just about everything except bluegrass type stuff.

m

[r ferrell (raven999)]

I'm not being cynical, or even sarcastic, but vast, and easily observable experience shows that,\; Mission Statements, in almost every endeavor, are simply a way for the issuer to cover their backside, in that they already have the levels and standards that they aspire to, or; that they set a standard that they can't reach, ever; and yet have a noble and lofty height to point to and say "we're working to get there for you" Understanding all the while that the general populace is a herd of gullible fools, who believe that as long as a person points to said lofty and noble goal, and promises to work to achieve it, that they'll actually TRY.

In truth, I do not care one whit for what people SAY they're going to do. When I actually hold the proof in my hands, then I'll listen.
Talk is cheap.

[J Luekemeyer (ACELUEK)]

We have mission statements at our plant. They mean something if the management believes in it, they live it, and find a way to get everyone else that does the "real" work to live it too. Realistically it isn't the mission statement that means as much as the culture that is created. The feeling of each worker that what they do matters and they are recognized frequently for doing a better than average job.

As far as quality... It is the customer that determines if your quality is acceptable.. If it is not, they will stop buying your product. Some managers and upper level VPs don't always get that.

[r akers (wrick)]

What they said.

[P Petiniot (Blues4U)]

J Luekemeyer (ACELUEK), on 15 October 2010 - 08:52 PM, said:

We have mission statements at our plant. They mean something if the management believes in it, they live it, and find a way to get everyone else that does the "real" work to live it too. Realistically it isn't the mission statement that means as much as the culture that is created. The feeling of each worker that what they do matters and they are recognized frequently for doing a better than average job.

As far as quality... It is the customer that determines if your quality is acceptable.. If it is not, they will stop buying your product. Some managers and upper level VPs don't always get that.

This holds true with some businesses and some products but when you have a guitar company that makes of of the most sort after production model of guitar and many players think "every playe should own one Les Paul" and the said guitar cost a customer between 1500 and 4000 dollars and the second you take the product home it has lost 25 to 50% of the sale price, people can't always vote with their feet/money.

When a guy spends that sort of money, he complains when he gets a turd and then starts to spend more money to insure the guitar becomes playable or more playable ect..--

I do believe that many Gibson customers are voting with their feet/money which is the only reason this site and the conversations that are generated by it exist--

I quit buying new Gibsons for quite a while because I wasn't happy with the price/quality over the past years. No local dealers and iffy QC means that buying a guitar from Gibson has been a gamble for a while. I have been hearing good things about new instruments, but have yet to see one in person.

Mission statements are usually just a bunch of fluff to make executives feel like they are doing something that makes a difference, but they are rarely backed up with deeds.

If you actually read what Roman suggest and understand the spirit of the text, you should understand where he is coming from.

Roman Rist is the sort of guy that Gibson, Fender and all other guitar companies should not only listen to but hire-imo-

When one looks at what Roman can do and produce in his small workshop, imagine what he could do with a brand new state of the art shop like the one Gibson now has and is continuing to build to this day-

Roman has spent a lifetime making Gibson and Fenders better! I have no doubt he could guide Gibson down the right path from the get go if they cared to listen.

[m dailey (milod)]

Okay...

Nothing against Roman or anybody else, but I've learned that there is an incredible gap between being a small "custom" shop and being an international corporation. That's true whether it's guitar making or a publication.

That's not an insult to either side.

Operation of a multinational, even a small one like Gibson, is different from a North American guitar or automotive custom shop - even those with international reputations and customers.

You are in a totally different "thing" when you're a Gibson type and size (or larger) company regardless of the product.

Can a custom auto shop put out a better personalized pickup truck than GM, Toyota or Ford? Of course it can. But can the custom shop put a complex consumer product into the international marketplace? Darned seldom unless they're a Carroll Shelby. Even then... it's still different.

Can Roman put out a better LP? It appears that the answer is "yup" from what I could Google. But how many thousand guitars a year from scratch? That's the difference. Overhead for a larger multinational is very, very different. So is project planning and overall management needs and structure.

Frankly I think it's comparing apples to pencils to criticize Gibson because it doesn't function like a custom shop of 5-50 employees. The question should be: How does Gibson compare to similar-sized U.S. specialty consumer product manufacturers.

Part of the QC complaints - IMHO come from a lack of setup near the end-user. I'm not surprised that a guitar might show up in Queensland, Oregon or York with strings laying flat on the fingerboard just from transportation and climate issues. Who does one blame for wood acting like wood?

Also... Hire Roman or Greg? I don't think so and not because of their skill sets. Guys like Roman aren't ever going to be happy as corporate cogs - which plays a major role in them being entrepreneurs. They might do very well as technical consultants, but again, that's entrepreneurial as opposed to being corporate employees.

m

[P Petiniot (Blues4U)]

m dailey (milod), on 18 October 2010 - 02:19 PM, said:

Okay...

Nothing against Roman or anybody else, but I've learned that there is an incredible gap between being a small "custom" shop and being an international corporation. That's true whether it's guitar making or a publication.

That's not an insult to either side.

Operation of a multinational, even a small one like Gibson, is different from a North American guitar or automotive custom shop - even those with international reputations and customers.

You are in a totally different "thing" when you're a Gibson type and size (or larger) company regardless of the product.

Can a custom auto shop put out a better personalized pickup truck than GM, Toyota or Ford? Of course it can. But can the custom shop put a complex consumer product into the international marketplace? Darned seldom unless they're a Carroll Shelby. Even then... it's still different.

Can Roman put out a better LP? It appears that the answer is "yup" from what I could Google. But how many thousand guitars a year from scratch? That's the difference. Overhead for a larger multinational is very, very different. So is project planning and overall management needs and structure.

Frankly I think it's comparing apples to pencils to criticize Gibson because it doesn't function like a custom shop of 5-50 employees. The question should be: How does Gibson compare to similar-sized U.S. specialty consumer product manufacturers.

Part of the QC complaints - IMHO come from a lack of setup near the end-user. I'm not surprised that a guitar might show up in Queensland, Oregon or York with strings laying flat on the fingerboard just from transportation and climate issues. Who does one blame for wood acting like wood?

Also... Hire Roman or Greg? I don't think so and not because of their skill sets. Guys like Roman aren't ever going to be happy as corporate cogs - which plays a major role in them being entrepreneurs. They might do very well as technical consultants, but again, that's entrepreneurial as opposed to being corporate employees.

m

So you are saying Gibson should not try to compete with the Roman's of the world? They can't compete and their customers should be satisfied with a sub standard product as long as they are the top sub standard product corporation out there?

Gibson should be able to build a better or at least as good of a product as Roman for the same or less money given their buying power and manufacturing power.

For some reason you always seem to think that all of us little people have no experience in the business or manufacturing world-- I work for a fortune 500 company, we have 10's of thousands employees and we are in the top 5 companies in the nation in customer base, sales, customer service and dividends paid to share holders--for some reason you assume everybody but you is pumping gas or flipping burgers for a living--

At one point in their History companies like Gibson felt the need to bring the likes of McCarty, Lawrence, Fullerton ect.. into the fold in order to pick their brains and see to it their products were as good as possible--Now, it seems that Gibson, Fender and you are satisfied with being good enough--You wouldn't by chance be a Cubs fan would you;)

[r akers (wrick)]

So many great points of views,guess one could say there is not a simple answer to a difficult remark.

[m dailey (milod)]

Sorry, but I won't argue against so many logical fallacies because it's impossible.

If I have a small town custom auto shop, does that suggest that I'm in competition with the major automotive manufacturers? Not at all.

Another fallacy is your personal poke at me: Big shot or little shot also is as irrelevant to a valid argument as it is to addition and subtraction. Let's not even get into anything more personal than my stating categorically that I'm no "big shot" by almost anyone's definition.

Bottom line is that your many variations of the "red herring" argument within four paragraphs doesn't change anything whatsoever.

A half-decent precis of logical fallacies is easily found at:
http://en.wikipedia....st_of_fallacies

m

[P Petiniot (Blues4U)]

If I were Henry, I would see to it that I built the best guitar on the planet for any price---He does not. I own many and have owned many more. For the 3.5K that a Gibson les Paul Custom (which has absolutely nothing custom about it anymore) cost, you can go to a couple of major guitar manufacturers and have a truly custom guitar built--You can also go to a dozen reputable luthiers and have one hell of a guitar built in the 3-4K range and it can be built exactly how you want it--

At this time the only thing Gibson has going for them that some of the others do not is their name which points to a legacy (legacies are forged in the past) that has long since seen its hay day.

Gibson has rested on their laurels, much the same way that the U.S. auto industry did in the 70's and in the 2000's--How did that work out for them?

Building guitars is not rocket science, been happening pretty much the same way for the past 50 or so years.

My company (company I work for, not actually MY company) is actually #3 in the nation and could be #1 but the leadership has determined #3 is good enough---They say they want to be in the top 5--Not number 1--who in the heck strives to be number 3 for crying out loud.