Here is how Heritage could sell more guitars (Warning: another headstock discussion!)

[Jazzpunk]

Ok, here we go (deep breath!)...

 

There's been a recent rash of threads regarding Heritage guitars over on TGP. I was struck by how many people expressed interest in Heritage guitars but were put off by the look of the headstock. I personally do not think Heritage guitars get near the respect they deserve and started thinking, "Is it really just the headstock that's keepin' people from giving them a try?!"

 

I posted a poll asking how many people would consider purchasing Heritage guitars if the headstock design was more *G* like. Unfortunately I went to edit my initial post due to where the conversation was headed and ended up deleting the entire thread...doh! Anyway, at last count the poll results showed that there were over 70 'Yes' votes. Pretty substantial imo.

 

The only reason I am bringing this up is because of this thread (otherwise I would not have even mentioned my poll here on the HOC as I know the headstock topic is taboo!):

 

http://www.heritageownersclub.com/forums/i...?showtopic=6588

 

Please know that I bring this up with only the best intentions in mind. I do not want to start an argument and I do not mean to offend! If Heritage is truly struggling as much as Brent suggests I would hope that someone who has in 'in' with them would suggest updating the look of the headstock (Jay Wolfe maybe?). After reading the comments on my thread and seeing the poll results, I truly believe this would get them more sales.

Is this heresy? Maybe but I'd rather see Heritage 'compromise' a little and stay in business than stay the course and end up closing shop! Anyway this is just food for thought and I hope it will be taken in the spirit it is intended.

[Jazzpunk]

I'd like to add that quite a few people commented that the headstock did not need to be more *G* like just that they found the shape unappealing and would be likely to make a purchase if it was changed. Thought I should mention that as I imagine Heritage cannot do a *G* like design due to law suits.

[Dick Seacup]

How does the headstock affect the playability, tone or quality of the guitar?

[bolero]

I REALLY like the headstock on the centurion...if they put that on a 150 I'd be all over it

 

however if they just increased the size of the H150 headstoc to be the same as the bigger archtops, it would look much better IMO....the thin, small current headstock looks a little out of place, I prefer a larger headstock, both for looks & the mass gives you ( apparently ) more sustain

[Jazzpunk]

How does the headstock affect the playability, tone or quality of the guitar?

 

It doesn't but it is effecting their sales. I only brought this up as it was made to sound in the other thread I highlighted that Heritage could potentially go out of business. That would be terrible imo.

 

If I loved making guitars but was about to go out of business and someone gave me honest feedback about how I could absolutely attract more customers I would at least listen to what they had to say.

 

If Heritage guitars was thriving I would not have even brought this topic up. Apparently they are not. I just think it would be a damned shame to see them go out of business so I'm willing to throw myself on the HOC chopping block and offer my findings.

[brentrocks]

i know that a lot of people say they would buy a heritage if the headstock was different, but i seriously think that is just a BS way of saying that would rather pay more for something that says gibson on it rather than going for the less popular brand, eventhough it may be a better guitar in the long run.

[big bob]

i know that a lot of people say they would buy a heritage if the headstock was different, but i seriously think that is just a BS way of saying that would rather pay more for something that says gibson on it rather than going for the less popular brand, eventhough it may be a better guitar in the long run.

the head stocks on mine are perfect, just perfect!

[Jazzpunk]

i know that a lot of people say they would buy a heritage if the headstock was different, but i seriously think that is just a BS way of saying that would rather pay more for something that says gibson on it rather than going for the less popular brand, eventhough it may be a better guitar in the long run.

 

Sorry but I disagree. There is a big market for people like myself who love the classic designs of Gibson guitars but cannot afford the price tag. Researching a more reasonably priced alternative was how I discovered Heritage in the first place!

[DreamKing]

If Heritage is having trouble selling guitars, I don't think it's because of the headstock. Even if the headstock was exactly the same, it still wouldn't say "Gibson" on it, and you'd have the same problem. People who buy guitars for the headstock also buy it for the brand, and Heritage is not Gibson. Thus, the headstock is not the problem.

 

Personally, I think the headstock is pretty sexy... Gibson's headstock looks like an open book, but Heritage's looks like a king's crown. Really symbolic of the quality, I think, but anyway...

 

The solution as I see it, which is really just an educated guess cause I have no idea what Heritage does in terms of marketing, is .... increase their marketing. Seriously, nobody knows anything about Heritage. The word needs to be spread. I think when people play the guitars and hear about the history, they are much more interested. Most dealers don't have Heritages because people don't buy them, and people don't buy them because they don't know anything about them. So, you gotta start with the people: educate them. Then people will want them, dealers will get them to meet demand, and we will have peace on earth.

 

At the same time, though, I get the impression that Heritage likes their niche market and isn't too interested in increasing their sales. So who knows if they even want to expand their market, which would require more production, and then more employees for more production, and then the quality could suffer.... and these guys are pretty old, too.

 

This topic raises some interesting questions and it's hard to say what the answers are. I do think it's cool that we're all so loyal to this brand that we're trying to increase its sales - that's saying something.

[SouthpawGuy]

the head stocks on mine are perfect, just perfect!

 

Lance I hear what you're saying !

 

 

 

[jmc7581]

If Heritage is having trouble selling guitars, I don't think it's because of the headstock. Even if the headstock was exactly the same, it still wouldn't say "Gibson" on it, and you'd have the same problem. People who buy guitars for the headstock also buy it for the brand, and Heritage is not Gibson. Thus, the headstock is not the problem.

 

Personally, I think the headstock is pretty sexy... Gibson's headstock looks like an open book, but Heritage's looks like a king's crown. Really symbolic of the quality, I think, but anyway...

 

The solution as I see it, which is really just an educated guess cause I have no idea what Heritage does in terms of marketing, is .... increase their marketing. Seriously, nobody knows anything about Heritage. The word needs to be spread. I think when people play the guitars and hear about the history, they are much more interested. Most dealers don't have Heritages because people don't buy them, and people don't buy them because they don't know anything about them. So, you gotta start with the people: educate them. Then people will want them, dealers will get them to meet demand, and we will have peace on earth.

 

At the same time, though, I get the impression that Heritage likes their niche market and isn't too interested in increasing their sales. So who knows if they even want to expand their market, which would require more production, and then more employees for more production, and then the quality could suffer.... and these guys are pretty old, too.

 

This topic raises some interesting questions and it's hard to say what the answers are. I do think it's cool that we're all so loyal to this brand that we're trying to increase its sales - that's saying something.

 

Well said, DK. Peace on earth, indeed!

[big bob]

Lance I hear what you're saying !

 

 

 

 

thats what I'm talking about!

[SouthpawGuy]

thats what I'm talking about!

 

Word !!!

[Gitfiddler]

Headstock schmedstock!

 

I say we demand that Heritage put everyone on the HOC on their Board of Directors. We will give them the benefit of our substantial knowledge on marketing, research and development and most of all, headstock envy! We'll get their guitar sales up as high a Malibu mortgage.

 

When is the next meeting?

[barrymclark]

While the headstock has grown on me, having sold guitars for a number of years, I would have to agree with the idea that the headstocks are not going to turn heads. Headstocks, particularly the classic designs, are a big, big deal. I hate to admit it, but there is an impulse attraction for me as well.

 

For the initiated, the headstock is a badge of honor of sorts and is a highly functional design. For the uninitiated, it looks like the part of the guitar that got little attention as it doesn't have the 'bling' factor.

 

I never had an issue selling a Heritage when they came in used as it wasn't often and it was easy to spot the person looking for a quality Gibson-esque instrument who didn't necessarily want a Gibson.

 

However, for those looking for 'the look' and the mystique of a Gibson, there is just nothing Heritage can do.

 

I too like the Centurion headstock, but I think that might be the same problem but to the other extreme.

 

I would make that ONLY an option if anything.

 

All that being said, I think changing the headstock now would be a bad idea. Heritage has a wildly loyal following and to change this now, would be almost akin to admitting defeat.

 

Although it might be too late to capitalize on it, where Heritage could stand to make a couple of bucks is find a way to compete with the budget brands but make them American made.

 

Make them attractive. There has to be an easy way of manufacture. It won't be top quality wood or components, but it is DEFINITELY Heritage.

 

The ecomomy is killing Heritage even though it is at a much lower price point than Gibson... cause one can get an Ibanez for $500. When you don't know where your next check is coming from, that is a HUGE deal if you are thinking of buying a guitar.

 

The headstock is heritage to this guitar. I wouldn't change a thing. I used to think differently... but I get it now.

[big bob]

Headstock schmedstock!

 

I say we demand that Heritage put everyone on the HOC on their Board of Directors. We will give them the benefit of our substantial knowledge on marketing, research and development and most of all, headstock envy! We'll get their guitar sales up as high a Malibu mortgage.

 

When is the next meeting?

+1

[SouthpawGuy]

Seriously, I don't think changing the headstock will improve sales, and as mentioned in the TGP thread you don't play the headstock.

 

I do wish that Heritage would consider reintroducing the stinger on all models, and also having a bound headstock as the norm with "The Heritage" inlaid in MOP.

 

That would "ring my bell" big time, so to speak.

 

[barrymclark]

+1

+2

[zookroo1]

I do like the bound headstock as well. It definitely has a more finished look to it.

[barrymclark]

I do like the bound headstock as well. It definitely has a more finished look to it.

Agreed.

[tulk1]

I personally think the Heritage headstock is pretty cool. I also think the headstock can be a valid reason for not looking at a guitar. I would never consider the STATs with the sharp flat headstocks or the big hockeystick design. After getting over my '74LPC with the huge headstock, I always looked for LPs with smaller profiles. In fact I really don't like the huge open book look anymore. I like the way-huge '70s headstock on Fenders (lots don't), the modern one is good, but Tele's just turn me off. One thing that drew me to PRS was the headstock, in that it wasn't outrageous or "looked dumb" in my book. When I had my Stambaugh Designs built, I sent him a headstock drawing because, honestly, his is kinda stupid looking to me. And of all guitars I'd never try - Dean takes the cake! I would never in my life even try one of his guitars with that wide open whatever it is. Even if he does claim it adds to the sustain, blah blah. And forget Steinbergers (okay, maybe they don't qualify as they don't have one!). So, I myself have been a headstock snob ... and probably will continue to be so. For me, aesthetics are important in the overall presentation of the guitar. That brings me to believe some when they say they won't buy Heritage for the headstock. I also think it's their loss.

[Dick Seacup]

It doesn't but it is effecting their sales. I only brought this up as it was made to sound in the other thread I highlighted that Heritage could potentially go out of business. That would be terrible imo.

 

If I loved making guitars but was about to go out of business and someone gave me honest feedback about how I could absolutely attract more customers I would at least listen to what they had to say.

 

If Heritage guitars was thriving I would not have even brought this topic up. Apparently they are not. I just think it would be a damned shame to see them go out of business so I'm willing to throw myself on the HOC chopping block and offer my findings.

 

I'm pretty sure that the people who claim that they would buy Heritage's by the truckload if only the factory would change the headstock are not telling the truth. They might buy one if the headstock looked like Gibbon's and said Gibbon on it. But, they're buying a lifestyle, a momentary shot of self-worth. They aren't buying a tool for making music. Not really.

 

I understand your motivation, and I don't think you're on some mythical "chopping block." I also don't think the headstock discussion is taboo around here. I think I remember it being done a couple of times before. <shrug> As to Heritage surviving, I think if they play their cards right, they could come out of this sitting pretty well. The only way they could sink is to a) not seize the marketing opportunity before them and b ) be leveraged even more than Ol' Henry is. In either case, the headstock isn't going to help or hurt that much.

 

(kee-ripes, that was a lot of thinking I did in that last paragraph!)

 

i know that a lot of people say they would buy a heritage if the headstock was different, but i seriously think that is just a BS way of saying that would rather pay more for something that says gibson on it rather than going for the less popular brand, eventhough it may be a better guitar in the long run.

 

 

DAMN IT MAN! Where is that frigging karma +1 button when I WANT ONE?!?!?!?!?! Hey, Admin!!

 

I think you hit the nail square on the head (not surprising for a carpenter, eh?). When I read or hear people saying, "If the headstock were different I would buy one," I think what they are really saying is, "All it would take is for them to inlay Gibbon in abalone and I'd plunk down $6000 for one of them quality guitars." I don't think it's the shape of the headstock at all. Hell, I can't even see the headstock shape when I play. 'Course, if I'm letting them sit on racks or hang on the wall...

[LH575]

I never really did like the headstock, but it has grown on me over time.

 

I actually kind of like the larger one now, but the 535, 555, 157, 150 etc, the small one, still looks a bit off too me. I think it is too narrow. Binding helps, but not too much for me.

 

I think the issue is that it narrows down from the nut to the end of the headstock. Instead of narrowing, if it got a bit larger, I think that would make all the difference.

 

The old Taylor headstock, before it got curvy, is just as plain as the heritage, but it doesn't narrow, and this has the same basic form as Gibsons.

 

http://www.guitarauction.com/vintagemusic_...0headstock2.jpg

 

If they had a head stock that went out as opposed to narrowing, that might satisfy some more people. I think the Taylor one would look great on a 150.

[pro-fusion]

When looked at dispassionately, the Heritage headstock is a functional piece of modern design, with simple lines and a comparatively straight string pull. By contrast, the Gibson design is rather old-timey and garish, and is also anti-functional by pulling the strings horizontally away from the nut.

 

The worst thing you can say about the Heritage headstock is that it is not very distinctive.

 

From a marketing perspective, I think Heritage should be more aggressive in marketing itself as the "American guitar for real guitar players." Yeah, that's a snub at the Gibson fetishists. But I think there is a sizable group of players out there who like basic Gibson designs but don't want to pay a brand premium. Like it or not, Heritage sales are going to have to come out of Gibson's hide. Heritage has the potential to create its own aura, or snob appeal, as being the guitar played by the smart people, the individualists, the trend setters. Let the lemmings have their Gibsons.

 

Heritage will only thrive, however, as a clearly recognized alternative to Gibson, which includes it's own headstock identity. Being just another knockoff, such as Edwards or Tokai, is not an option.

 

Put another way, the headstock design will neither save nor destroy Heritage.

[brentrocks]

Put another way, the headstock design will neither save nor destroy Heritage.

 

 

EXACTLY!

 

the economy will save or destroy Heritage