Not a good idea.
No. Ted McCarty didn't even realize he had purchased all of Epiphone; he thought he was just getting the bass-building business and was confused when all the guitar-related tooling showed up in Kalamazoo along with the bass tooling. For the next 12 years, Gibson reworked Epiphone into a subsidiary brand built in the same factory and to the same standards as Gibson, but with a separate dealership network in an attempt to avoid competing with themselves. It was only in 1970 that Gibson sent Epiphone production overseas, and that was to compete with the cheaper imports already impinging on Gibson's lower-end sales.
Unfortunately I think it would cheapen the Gibson brand by doing that. Also, the Epiphone brand does have some unique models of their own like the Broadway and Sheraton. I think its good to separate the two. It can get a bit convoluted when they had the Epiphone Elite line. Those were Japanese models that were as good or better than many of the Gibson's for a lower price.If Gibson changed the Epiphone name to Gibson they would sell a lot more guitars.
It would be an overseas-made Gibson. Ta-da!
Does anyone have any brand-desire for an Epiphone... maybe a "Casino?" But you'd take the Gibson CS-330 (C for China)!
I hope the new CEO does this. This has been the biggest no-brainer for at least a decade.
I don't have an issue with the Epiphone headstock. The bound one on the Les Paul Custom looks great, the non-bound is a bit bland but it's a functional headstock. There are also no wing tips to get dinged, for those who like pristine guitars. It looks better than the Telecaster flaccid wang, and that one is functional too. Headstock outrage is pretty much an internet goober issue, not so much a real world issue.
No one is disputing anything you said. Actually, it's fairly obvious. The question is whether the Gibson company -- which includes Epi -- would sell more guitars overall if they changed up the branding. I personally don't really care one way or another.Perhaps I have missed something along the way but Gibson is the parent of Epiphone. Hence when Epiphone sells guitars, Gibson makes money.
Epiphone is to Gibson what Squire is to Fender
I think they'd sell more if they used the same headstock shape because people would buy them to put fake Gibson logos on them. No question about that. It's no wonder why they use a slightly different shape for Epiphone, and one that can't easily be converted into the Gibson shape.I don't see why people lose their minds over the Epiphone shape, it's no terrible. The Epi is not my favorite shape ever, but then again neither is the Gibby. I suppose they're both simply okay
If they completely switched to THAT headstock with the bikini badge, I believe it would be a tremendous step in selling more Epi guitars!Yes I do and no I wouldn't take a Gibson, Casino's have much hotter pickups for their sound
No they wouldn't. Gibson garners about 40% of the market for electric guitars over $2,000. You're telling us they would do better if they copied the other companies that do not have that market share? I'm pretty sure they went bankrupt for thinking they could put their name on imports to make sales:
There's an awful lot of people referencing the shape specifically. Even saying Epi should change the shape and keep the Epi name. That tells me it's about the shape more than the name.It's not about the shape. It's about the bragging rights.