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

[Foggy]

what is not desirable about this?????

 

 

or this....

 

 

Those are beautiful!

 

The binding and MOP really add a lot.

[Kuz]

Wow, kind of crazy we ar having this discussion really. I play Heritage, because I want to play a Heritage. A Gibson is a copy of a Heritage and not the other way around.

 

Even though Heritage has the best and most loyal endorsees you will find... Honestly, I could careless who plays a Heritage.

 

WHY DO ANY OF YOU CARE WHO PLAYS A HERITAGE??? I do understand we all want Heritage to thrive, but their business model is not set on making 30 guitars a day. They make, what 4 a day now. SO maybe they could grow to 6-7 per day at peak operating capacity. Heritage is always going to be what Heritage is. AND THAT IS PERFECTLY FINE FOR ME.

 

Leave the headstock alone PLEASE.

 

Now as for those funky pickguards, well I could do without them.....

[Jazzpunk]

To you and your pals at TGP I say this: you have an extremely superficial preference for guitars. The majority of people might think that the Heritage headstock is not as "perfect" and "pretty" as Gibson's, but I think Heritage's is unquestionably a good looking headstock. I mean, look at the below pic. You really think it's that hideous? As bad as the Tyler's? So bad looking that it'll prevent you from buying a Heritage? C'mon man.

 

To be honest, I don't think Heritage wants to nor should try to appeal to this market of people whose interest in guitars is so juvenile. Gibson's headstock might be a little bit better looking, but you're going to base your entire guitar buying decision on something so seemingly trivial as a headstock shape? "Well, this headstock is a wee bit better than that one, so ... " Does that kind of reasoning not seem ridiculous to you?

 

 

Your defensive response to pcover relating his personal experience with buying his first Heritage guitar perfectly exemplifies everything that went wrong with this thread.

 

YOU GUYS ARE NOT THE MARKET I AM TALKING ABOUT!

 

Obviously my motivations for posting this topic here on the HOC were unclear as almost every single one of you have responded with a knee jerk reaction of some sort. I bought a brand new Heritage guitar this year so I'm really the last guy you need to be giving 'IN YO FACE WITH MY HEADSTOCK PIC!' type responses to.

 

Kuz, you asked why I care if anyone plays a Heritage guitar and my honest answer is that I actually do care. I care because they are awesome guitars and I get tired of seeing people on other forums putting them down or opting for lesser quality Gibson inspired guitars simply for the reason that they are put off by the Heritage headstock. Face it from the nut down, Heritage screams 'Gibson inspired!' (gee, how'd that happen I wonder?!). Above the nut? To the unintiated (myself having been one of those people) uh, not so much.

 

Like pcover, I purchased my first Heritage guitar despite the headstock (now I like the damned thing so either I got used to it or all of that mojo oozing out of my guitars put a spell on me!). Because of this I started thinking, 'Man are all of these missed sales really just because of the headstock?!'. I did my poll and as I don't believe the people responding were full of shi* as has been concluded here, it confirmed my suspicions.

 

Now if Heritage is indeed doing fine than NONE OF THIS MATTERS!. I presented my TGP poll results here on the HOC for ONE REASON ONLY-because of this statement made by Brent:

 

I have heard many views from a few different sources...they have seen better times...that's probably a mild way of putting it.

 

My only motivation was to mention a lost source of revenue if Heritage is indeed in trouble. That's it fellas. The market is out there and it's real. Get pissy about it or tell me it's BS, I really don't care. Brent made it sound really dire for the boys at Heritage so I thought I'd share what I believe to be true.

 

Sorry so many took this as a personal attack but Wolfe forgot to ship my 'Heritage Monkey Mob' chip implant with my 575 so I'm willing to look at all revenue possibilities if the boys at Heritage are indeed in trouble.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I fully expect that this post will also be ignored and will by followed by more headstock pics but whatever. I'm only joining back in the 'conversation' because pcover did not deserve to be ridiculed for relating his personal truth here.)

[Poelbaum]

At the end of the day, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I even suspect there are many out there that love there Heritage guitars and still think the headstock is kind of bland or clunky. Myself, I kind of like the fact that its a little clunky and plain. It speaks to me in a way that others do not. It says to me that it was crafted by guys not caught up in marketing and fads, but in timeless tradition. Not by rock stars, but by craftsman. Not by Madison Avenue, but by guys that love building guitars. But the thing that I have to disagree with most is the premise that changing the headstock would be good for sales. The truth is brand building is all about consistency. Heritage "is" that headstock (though there have been a few with different ones). You cant be a company whose brand is all about tradition and consistency (as Heritage has defined) and then scream "and look at our cool new headstock...". It simply does not make sense from a brand perspective. IMHO

[LH575]

Well, I'll be perfectly honest with most of you. You don't have a F'n clue.

 

I look around, I read your posts, I look at your profiles and I'll tell you, most of you are out of touch.

 

Why?

 

Well you've gone 4 pages and I see no mention about how awesome P90s are!!!!! Every thread should include a mention of how awesome P90s are!

 

About the headstock - I'm with JazzPunk on this one, but really it's too late. A headstock defines the brand and the stock is 20-some years old. I would have liked that they had designed it differently, but oh well.

 

I do see his point about this thread not being for owners, but potential owners. The headstock does turn some people off, no doubt about it. You can't completely deny it.

 

But it's too late, they picked the headstock and have stuck with it. It might hinder some sales, but hopefully those people on the fence will get one in their hand, look past the headstock.......AND SPECIAL ORDER ONE WITH P90S!!!!!!

 

Keep it cool, folks. Keep it cool. We're all pals here.

 

575

[bolero]

yeah, ever notice how ugly a telecaster headstock is? yuck.....but people eat them up!!

 

 

[barrymclark]

I agree, this thread has gotten rediculous in places. Overall, I think it was reasonably discourse, though.

 

In fairness, though, I have seen people NOT buy a Gibson because of the headstock.... or an Ibanez.... or a Gretsch.

 

Some of the reasons I have been given for not buying a Gibson because of the headstock are:

 

they just break off to damn easy when they fall backwards

 

too damn big

 

too classic (yes, I have gotten this one)

 

don't want to play the same thing everyone else does (even though they love the classic sound of a Gibson whatever model)

 

the tuning keys are not all on one side

 

headstock doesn't look like a skewer.

 

too pretty

 

too plain

 

Ibanez:

 

Not a Gibson

 

way too pretty.

 

too plain

 

tuning keys are/are not in line

 

hate the logo

 

looks like a Nike advert

 

 

 

My point is this, it doesn't damn well matter what Heritage does with their headstock or anything else. Someone will find fault with it.

 

That is another reason why I say, don't bother changing the headstock.

 

I don't know this for certain, but I don't think Heritage is ignoring a market. They have been at this for nearly 60 years. I think, more than any of us, when it comes to guitars, they 'get it' and know how people are.

 

 

LH575: P90's!

[Kuz]

FWIW, I only skim read the threads and my response was only my view and directed at no one.

 

This place is starting to get very sensitive around here... both sides of the isle.

 

1. I like the headstock

2. Since I like the headstock, I personally don't want it changed

3. I really don't care what others feel about the headstock

4. I think it would be a horrible move for brand identity to change the headstock

5. I don't care who is playing Heritage guitars (besides my friends here)

6. My comments about Heritage doing better is always relative (ie Better than this summer is not better than before the economy crash)

7. I don't have time right now but I can post 7-10 headstocks of guitars that are OUT SELLING HERITAGE or HAVE A HUGE REPUTATION that have headstocks closer to Heritage than Gibson

8. I don't feel a change in the headstock will do anything for Heritage sales

9. Those that don't like the headstock (which is based on function, by the way) why don't you guys put your money where your mouth is and show us some mock ups of some new headstock that you would have come up with if you were Heritage.

 

To quote Yoslate who quoted Frank Zappa... "Just play the f***ing thing!"

 

Best to all here at HOC and our passion,

 

John

[JeffB]

I have a hamer and a takamine that Ive used and owned decades before I bought my Heritage.

I must have just seen the heritage headstock as pretty natural looking for a 3 a side headstock after looking at the Hamer and Takamine for so long. Because it just didnt register as ugly or good looking. It was a headstock. It fit nicely on the end of the neck and suit my ideal of what a 3 aside headstock should look like.

Regardless of how the headstock looked I would have bought the H150. It was the perfect LP style guitar for me after trying so many at different price points. I bought it with very little knowledge of the Heritage company. I learnt that later after finding the HOC.

 

So no cutting edge marketing or fancy websites needed for me to make me want and buy a Heritage. No change of design needed to entice me. No "A" list artists. Just a good sounding well made guitar.

 

Please dont deny my personal experience by saying the headstocks are ugly.

 

I never got the monkey chip with any of my guitars so Im free to purchase really good guitars from any builder.

[tyguy]

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.

Production goes up quality goes down.Gibson is best example.After 1970 quality wasn't good again 'til about 2000(there are exceptions)and starting in 2008 quality is poor again.When I pay Gibson high dollar prices,I want a perfect guitar not a good one.

[Mikenov]

1) I found heritage as a substitute for Gibson. I couldn't afford more that 2K for a premium top les paul and I found Heritage on the TGP I think. Kept researching it, found a dealer near me (no longer a dealer) and bought a brand new H150 deluxe cherry burst for $1325 plus tax. I had played a ton of used gibsons at various stores. All had terrible set ups or worse, actual structure problems. All look like sh*t, crappy tops, dusty, not cared after. And the Heritage sounded better than all of them too. Nicer wood.

 

2) I admit, I wanted my Jimmy Page burst. Since I was a little kid. The Heritage 150 had the look . I never once thought about the headstock though. I thought about that beautiful flame and the triple bound body helped too. It was just the choicest looking guitar I ever saw. I didn't see a single Gibson that matched it and I looked around where I live. GC, independents, ect.

 

3) keep these threads going. That's how I learned about Heritage in the first place. Everytime someone starts this thread on TGP or HC or wherever I get struck by a couple of things.

allot of people know who The Heritage is.

and Allot of people who didn't just read about them.

Maybe it's not for everyone but that's OK. They probably couldn't make a guitar for everyone either. With only 1200 or so rolling out of Parsons every year, it would take a while anyway.

 

Lastly,

in regards to things getting awefully sensitive around here. Agreed. Lets try and keep it light and fun. try not to post anything that dumps on someone's opinion. After all, they have a right to it, and on the other side, try not to take people's statements personal. I had a great manager once when I was waiting tables. When I would get in the weeds and get to the point where I couldn't keep things straight, she would pull me aside and tell me,

"hey, it's only food." Well, it's only guitars. We love em' we are passionate about them, but they aren't solving hunger, and they aren't fixing the hole in the ozone.

Alright! Lets go play.

[pcovers]

Some believe a headstock change and its associated brand identity would be potentially deterimental to company market share. Those with experience in marketing will relate to the following:

 

Ford

Microsoft

Toyota

Pepsi

Gibson

Verizon

etc

etc

etc

 

These are just a very small sample of very large companies with very real and significant markets, with huge brand awareness associated with a corporate symbol and all have changed their branding symbols, with no loss to market share - the opposite as a matter of fact. Concern about impact to the Heritage bottom line and cash flow as a result of changing their brand symbol is like wondering about the sound a falling tree makes in a forest where no ears are there to hear it.

 

I respect that Heritage has the right to change or not change the darn headstock. They may never do it. As has been noted, their product is a terrific product and their headstock brand has no direct impact on their quality. But believe me, concern over that a change would negatively impact the company brand is just not one of them. Really. It is not even an argument. Tons of very well known companies will millions vested in their brand symbol do it all the time. Even some known and not so known guitar companies.

 

Now off to plug in my The Heritage H150.

[Poelbaum]

Some believe a headstock change and its associated brand identity would be potentially deterimental to company market share. Those with experience in marketing will relate to the following:

 

Ford

Microsoft

Toyota

Pepsi

Gibson

Verizon

etc

etc

etc

 

These are just a very small sample of very large companies with very real and significant markets, with huge brand awareness associated with a corporate symbol and all have changed their branding symbols, with no loss to market share - the opposite as a matter of fact. Concern about impact to the Heritage bottom line and cash flow as a result of changing their brand symbol is like wondering about the sound a falling tree makes in a forest where no ears are there to hear it.

 

I respect that Heritage has the right to change or not change the darn headstock. They may never do it. As has been noted, their product is a terrific product and their headstock brand has no direct impact on their quality. But believe me, concern over that a change would negatively impact the company brand is just not one of them. Really. It is not even an argument. Tons of very well known companies will millions vested in their brand symbol do it all the time. Even some known and not so known guitar companies.

 

Now off to plug in my The Heritage H150.

 

With all due respect, it is not about changing one's corporate symbol. Without question corporate identity ("CI") changes like the wind, though contrary to your point, it is often easier for a blue chip company with substantial market share to do so, than for a smaller company that relies on a consistent CI to be recognized. In question here is not the CI, but the "culture" of the company or its associated "brand". This always transcends CI. IMHO changing the headstock to something different would be a substantial break in culture for a company whose brand is deeply tied up in "traditional" methods. I believe Heritage could change its logo 10 times without much impact. A wholesale change of headstock would be in my opinion more problematic. But hey too each his own.

[pcovers]

With all due respect, it is not about changing one's corporate symbol. Without question corporate identity ("CI") changes like the wind, though contrary to your point, it is often easier for a blue chip company with substantial market share to do so, than for a smaller company that relies on a consistent CI to be recognized. In question here is not the CI, but the "culture" of the company or its associated "brand". This always transcends CI. IMHO changing the headstock to something different would be a substantial break in culture for a company whose brand is deeply tied up in "traditional" methods. I believe Heritage could change its logo 10 times without much impact. A wholesale change of headstock would be in my opinion more problematic. But hey too each his own.

 

In my view and dialog with other on the subject, the Heritage corporate identity is the story of its association with the old Gibson and of its coming into its own, as well as a sense of old school quality/value. That is what I think the Heritage corporate identity is. That is what draws potential buyers to it. The headstock is the just a design element at the end of the neck that tends to create negative first impressions in unusually large numbers, not unlike Tyler.

[Kuz]

OK, I am in sales and we really don't do well with just complaining about a problem (or a perceived problem by some).

 

WHY HASN"T anyone taken me up on my offer to show their headstock template?

 

Pointing out a problem isn't good enough, let's see some purposed solutions on paper (or monitor, it you will).

I like the current headstock so I am punting to the next poster.

[barrymclark]

Although I wouldn't object necessarily to a change (depending on the change), I also like the current one. Punt.

[ledzef]

Another long thread about a reoccuring topic. Why don't more people get turn onto Heritage? Let's face it, this is a pretty intelligent group of people and we can all state a dozen reasons each why. It would be nice to think that a tweak in the headstock would get more people turned onto Heritage but I seriously doubt that would do it. I think the headstock is fine, the bound headstock does look nicer. I like the niche in the market that Heritage has and as far as the masses getting Heritage I could care less. I like being a part of this community because were all a part of a big inside joke and the secret to the joke is we play a much better guitar at a lower price. If that isn't a part of America I don't know what is. Oh well it's just my 2 cents anyways.

[Kuz]

Another long thread about a reoccuring topic. Why don't more people get turn onto Heritage? Let's face it, this is a pretty intelligent group of people and we can all state a dozen reasons each why. It would be nice to think that a tweak in the headstock would get more people turned onto Heritage but I seriously doubt that would do it. I think the headstock is fine, the bound headstock does look nicer. I like the niche in the market that Heritage has and as far as the masses getting Heritage I could care less. I like being a part of this community because were all a part of a big inside joke and the secret to the joke is we play a much better guitar at a lower price. If that isn't a part of America I don't know what is. Oh well it's just my 2 cents anyways.

 

So is that a punt?

 

(I agree with everything you say, for what that is worth!)

[FredZepp]

Ok , you asked for it..... how about one like this..

 

 

Sorry, just jokin' with ya..

[bolero]

Fred, that was my choice....it would look killer

[fxdx99]

WHY HASN"T anyone taken me up on my offer to show their headstock template?

 

Pointing out a problem isn't good enough, let's see some purposed solutions on paper (or monitor, it you will).

I like the current headstock so I am punting to the next poster.

 

[111518]

As for a headstock prototype, how 'bout one with "heritage," the Gibson snakehead mandolin headstock ... oh, whoops, that ones been taken:

 

 

As a historian, I often argue against the principle that "history repeats itself." Maybe I've been wrong all these years ...

 

http://www.heritageownersclub.com/forums/i...?showtopic=1298

 

This was already the second significant thread on this subject, though please, don't get me wrong, I'm interested in what the new comers have to say. But, if you guys are wondering why some of the oldtime HOC'ers are pretty much off line on this one, we've been through it. Nobody has even mentioned yet the fact that the point on the Heritage headstock is sometimes asymmetrical, and that really bothers some people.

[brentrocks]

I wish Vince would jump in on this topic...i know he lurks from time to time...or Ren

[Dick Seacup]

I wish people would stop saying "I could care less" when they really mean "I couldn't care less." If you could care less, that means you care about whatever it is you are trying to say you don't care about. Not picking on any one person, and certainly not limiting it to the HOC; this happens all over "teh interwebz." Oh, and another one that drives me absolutely batshit crazy is "for all intensive purposes." No, it is "for all intents and purposes."

 

Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Thundersteel]

How about those who say, "Well, if you axe me..."

 

Well, I'd like to axe you for butchering the English language! It's "ASK!"

 

 

Other pet peeves: "Irregardless" when it's supposed to be "regardless."

 

 

Those who say "It is an historic event." No, it's "a historic event!"

 

Also, those who use "it's" when it should be "its."

 

 

Sorry...just rambling.

 

Now...really...back to your discussion!