Premier Builders Guild "confusion" issue....

[KennethC]

Originally Posted by John Hurtt

The cynic in me thinks that there was some thought behind the decision to keep the orgin of the build a bit cloudy for sales reasons. I have had a Baker and can attest to the high quality of the guitar...you are not getting an inferior instrument.

Agreed. Do you think the builders who are part of the guild are aligned with regard to this?

I agree w the suggestions on how the PBG could provide more clarity in distinguishing their builds from those of the original builders. However, my perspectives are as follows:

- the original builders must know how the PBG builds are being marketed, and their agreement/alignment is implicit in their continued participation in the guild. Those who disagree would have left and will leave, just as Jason Schroeder has done in a clear and respectable manner.

- anyone who has issues with the way PBG builds are marketed should also take it up directly with the original builders (in name) of the respective builds, not just the "organizers" and marketeers of the guild and its builds.

- the ones who have raised issues about the "confusion" seem to be owners of the guitars built by the original builders. One cannot help but think that their discomfort is partly motivated by their worry/fear of price dilution of their existing (and possibly future) guitars. As Johan has clearly stated, there are significant differences between his and the PBG builds. I think there is little need for concern in the area of price dilution.

[KennethC]

Originally Posted by CDaughtry

One would assume, before taking this action, that Johan attempted to handle the issue "in house" without success.

Charlie, is this purely an assumption on your part, or is this factual? Have you approached Johan about this? I'm sincerely curious.

[CDaughtry]

Originally Posted by Rusty G.

Exactly, how does it affect you Charlie?

It affects me in a number of ways, some more directly than others. PBG has stated, many times, that the TGP crowd isn't it's targeted audience. Thus, it's stated consumer isn't nearly as educated as we are here. It just seems wrong to me, at a fundamental level, to allow this type of potential confusion/deception when it is so easily remedied.
Secondly, I own a real Bluesmaster, and while I have no present plans to sell it, if I ever do, I don't want it's value diluted.
Thirdly, I consider Johan a personal friend, and it saddens me that he's had to resort to posting a notice on his website to minimize what he clearly sees as an issue that directly affects his brand...a brand that he's spent years of hard work building.




Are those reasons sufficient to allow me to express my opinions on here?

[CDaughtry]

Originally Posted by KennethC

Charlie, is this purely an assumption on your part, or is this factual? Have you approached Johan about this? I'm sincerely curious.

The powers that be at PBG inevitably chime in on these threads. I'll allow them to answer this question.

[KennethC]

Originally Posted by CDaughtry

The powers that be at PBG inevitably chime in on these threads. I'll allow them to answer this question.

Ok, fair enough. How about the second Q? You've approached Johan and he's shared that he's not in alignment with the marketing of the PBG Gus builds, and that he's had to resort to posting that on his website so as to try to clear the air?

[imissmj]

I've seen no evidence that anyone has bought one of these guitars thinking it was built by the maker. Is there an opportunity for confusion? I suppose someone might plunk down 3k on a guitar thinking they were buying a guitar worth 7-10k but then you'd also assume that buyer would know enough to wonder why it was so cheap.

The real issue here is whether PBG is attempting to deceive. To me, 'Made in Arroyo Grande' or w/e mean made by PBG. It appears that some folks have the opinion it has to say something different and will continue to state that opinion loudly and imo overreact to the issue, which is certainly their choice and right. I personally think a much more interesting question is at what point are small builders obligated to disclose they didn't personally build your guitar all by themselves and at what level of detail are you entitled to know who was involved.

My gut feeling is that the JG statement is directly in response to the threads here, btw.

[KennethC]

Charlie, I am going to assume that there could be some sensitivity in answering my second Q due to legal issues. Hopefully the truth comes to light and things work out in an equitable fashion.

[TNJ]

Johan is a big boy, and knows his business.

The PRS SE line hasnt garnered much, if any, flack for not being US based.

I look at Gene Baker as a master builder, as he used to be for Fender.

Price difference between Fender USA and Fender Master built? You bet.

Price difference between PRS and PRS Private Stock? You bet.

Are the builders the same in both cases...uh, no.

Are the instruments still considered Fender and PRS respectively...uh, yes.

Does the more inexpensive price points of the SE/USA lines affect the Custom or Master Build models resale price range? Uh...no.

Tell me how the PBG line is any different in these respects?

S.
j

[John Hurtt]

Originally Posted by KennethC

Agreed. Do you think the builders who are part of the guild are aligned with regard to this?

I agree w the suggestions on how the PBG could provide more clarity in distinguishing their builds from those of the original builders. However, my perspectives are as follows:

- the original builders must know how the PBG builds are being marketed, and their agreement/alignment is implicit in their continued participation in the guild. Those who disagree would have left and will leave, just as Jason Schroeder has done in a clear and respectable manner.

- anyone who has issues with the way PBG builds are marketed should also take it up directly with the original builders (in name) of the respective builds, not just the "organizers" and marketeers of the guild and its builds.

- the ones who have raised issues about the "confusion" seem to be owners of the guitars built by the original builders. One cannot help but think that their discomfort is partly motivated by their worry/fear of price dilution of their existing (and possibly future) guitars. As Johan has clearly stated, there are significant differences between his and the PBG builds. I think there is little need for concern in the area of price dilution.

Well, obviously I can only make an educated guess here. I think that some of the builders are more in tune with the business side of things than others. If I had to bet the house I am sure that the issue of how/if to label the Arroyo Grande built guitars came up either in a meeting or by correspondence. If the PBG dealers are misprepresenting the guitars in any way (and some have done so, intentionally or not) than it is up to the business head(s) of the Guild to remedy it. Not doing so, IMO, either shows a conscious decision to cloud the issue or a lack of involvement in the process.

The brand names of each of these fine builders are valuable. Gene has a reputation of building terrific, finely crafted instruments. Both of these can be played up if handled properly.

As far as the target audience and any confusion that these might bring to the customer base...I can only use as example Gene Baker's own brand name after Ed Roman won it in the auction.

[Tone Disciple]

Seems to me like the confusion comes in when dealers start selling the PBG models as Gustavssons, Kolls, or whatever. I understood the concept of a builder letting a shop contract for production of his designs to make them available at a lower cost to the general public. That seems like a good idea, and, as it has been pointed out here, when that builder is Gene Baker you would still be getting a high quality guitar. But when dealer's websites start listing Gustavsson guitars in their index of available models that are actually PBG built guitars I can see how there would be some confusion.

My original impression of PBG was that they would be the dealer, selling directly the models they were licensed to build. Now with dealers selling PBG models it gets more complicated.

[s.tuliebitz]

Originally Posted by CDaughtry

Any other dealers using the JG logo are selling Premier Builders Guild licensed JGs. The fact that many of Premier Builder's Guild's dealers are using my logo to link to their inventory has unintentionally further muddied the waters. I know that this was never the intention of my good friends at PBG.

seems if Johan truly had the say, he'd opt dealers not use his standard logo in advertising PBG-built JGs (as it 'muddies the water'). if this assumption were true, and it is 100% an assumption, I'd wonder if and how a builder like Johan would potentially modify their agreement with PBG at this point in time [if they were fully able to do so].

I agree with an earlier post... that these business decisions/ventures are often not black and white, and to say this all must have been conscious by both PBG and the builders from the beginning is a bit generous IMO. we also can't assume that it would be as simple as walking away if a builder were 'unhappy'- licensing agreement terms must vary between these builders, so who knows how complex or vested some of these deals are... I certainly don't know, and this is all conjecture (meant in good faith).


Disclosures:
-I bet the PBG guitars are killer
-I own a Futuremaster
--I am not worried about it losing value (entirely separate from an opinon on the affect PBG may or may not have on a Swedish JG's value [monetary & perceived])

[treeofpain]

PBG has a unique marketing challenge - to sell guitars with a brand on them that are not made by the original luthier, and to do this without diluting the brand itself. They have a very well thought out strategy, involving Gene Baker, including great communication from both PBG and the builders themselves.

To address the specific question at hand, it seems obvious that PBG considers it a disadvantage to "subbrand" these guitars, as recommended by some here. They are NOT like Fender Squiers or Gibson Epiphones or PRS SEs. They are high quality USA-made instruments. Maybe call them "team built vs masterbuilt" if you like, but even that does not seem to be an apples-to-apples comparison.

So PBG at least differentiates the guitars with the Arroyo Grande label. That should show that there is an acknowledged effort to differentiate the line compared to the custom made guitars by the original luthiers. I think subbranding is unbalanced in the other direction, but that's just me. I am sure everyone has their own slant on this...

[Dave Orban]

What are the prices on those Baker-built Juniors? They look VERY interesting?

[Route234]

Originally Posted by TNJ

Johan is a big issue here, ask the OP. Most of the other builders have different models that ARE twice the price of the PBG models.

I think the Johan thing is pure TGP quilting circle stuff to be honest. Only here do guys keep themselves up at night worrying about their investment in a guitar going down due to 3k guitars that dont look, sound or market themselves in the same arena.

So who, outside of JBG has models for TWICE the price? I cant see any. Ive been watching this stuff since they launched the guitars and Ive been hoping they sold guitars for half the price of the regular models and that has never been the case. The price difference is actually more like 0-20% at best. Even the JBGs are not at all comparable to what he makes himself so its totally apples and oranges.

[tdarian]

I'm more confused about whether I'd want a .925 - 1.0 soft V or U neck on a FM.

Totally understand how there could be branding confusion on the open market down the line....at least we have it all fairly well documented on the internet.