Is Fender trying to put Jackson out of business?

[PowerTube]

I totally disagree, because Squiers have "Squier by Fender" labeled on them, and pretty much everyone knows Epiphone is Gibson. The names of the actual manufacturers are still present and accounted for on the instruments.

I respect your opinion, but that's actually my point. If they sold the entry-level stuff under the name "_______ by Jackson," it would offer more separation. See my comment above about the guy who said to me, ".....pretty good for a Jackson." And he was a very good player, too. I'm sure there are tons of Squier owners who aspire to move on up to a "real Fender" someday and the same applies to Epiphone owners lusting for a "real Gibson." But in Jackson's case, an entry-level $249.00 guitar has the exact same logo as a USA Select. If they offered a separate brand, the experience wouldn't harm the Jackson name.

IMO, the Jackson name isn't tainted and synonymous with junk. Most people here who own USA Select Jacksons probably got turned on to them in the 80s. IMO, when I see a guitar with the Jackson name, it automatically registers that I'm looking at a quality instrument, regardless of the price point.

I won't argue that Jackson matches any other company and tramples most at any given price point. But as far as what the name means to someone, that's dependent on the person's experience. I have three USA Soloists now, but if my only experience with Jackson years ago had been the Indian-made el-cheapo DX10X, I would indeed have the opinion that "Jacksons are junk." And unfortunately, that's the only Jackson experience some people ever get.

[AlexL]

If Jackson was pioneering the entry-level guitar market, I would feel differently about it. But they're not and never have. Even when every Jackson was a "Made in USA" one-off custom, you had the Series 10's, Hondo's, Squiers, and a whole range of companies selling in the $150.00-$250.00 range.

But here's the thing. Your "First Act" example may be a bit extreme, but I have to ask; is a JS series really any better than other guitars in that price range? I've played some Squiers, for example, that were pretty decent for what they were, as well as some LTD's and a few others. So in light of this, has Jackson really benefited from selling n that range? I say no. The most logical argument is that "it gets the name out there." But on the other hand, if that once-proud name is associated with cheap JS series guitars, then what's the point?

At least Gibson and Fender had the wisdom (and I hate using that word in relation to Gibson) to keep the Epiphone and Squier labels on their cheap junk and midrange stuff instead of tainting the real thing. If Jackson had done the same with a separate brand for selling the typical Guitar Center crap, then the Jackson name would still mean something closer to what it did in the Eighties.

My example? Extreme? Of course. Cut to the chase.

I bought my 9 year old daughter a small scale squier strat. I paid 99 bucks for it. It's decent enough quality. I certainly don't expect it to be a reflection of the quality on Fender's USA instrument. I was just happy that I could buy something cheap that played nicely until I can ascertain that she is going to stick with it.

I see your point about __________ by Jackson. But, Jackson already did that with Charvel (model series). Maybe they didn't want to do that again, this time with it referring to an instrument of diminished quality.

Or, maybe they wanted to sell more guitars via brand identity.

It doesn't seem that the JS series are bad instruments. Maybe they aren't setting the bar for cost effective guitars, but I doubt they're costing them sales as a result of people thinking that Jackson only makes cheap guitars.

And has Jackson benefited from selling in that range? They obviously have, or they wouldn't be in that market. And the young wannabe shredders get a guitar with a name on the headstock they like.

I respect your opinion, and I definitely see where you're coming from. I think I'm just slightly on the other side of the fence from you on this one.


- E.

[Torment Leaves Scars]

I respect your opinion, but that's actually my point. If they sold the entry-level stuff under the name "_______ by Jackson," it would offer more separation. See my comment above about the guy who said to me, ".....pretty good for a Jackson." And he was a very good player, too. I'm sure there are tons of Squier owners who aspire to move on up to a "real Fender" someday and the same applies to Epiphone owners lusting for a "real Gibson." But in Jackson's case, an entry-level $249.00 guitar has the exact same logo as a USA Select. If they offered a separate brand, the experience wouldn't harm the Jackson name.



I won't argue that Jackson matches any other company and tramples most at any given price point. But as far as what the name means to someone, that's dependent on the person's experience. I have three USA Soloists now, but if my only experience with Jackson years ago had been the Indian-made el-cheapo DX10X, I would indeed have the opinion that "Jacksons are junk." And unfortunately, that's the only Jackson experience some people ever get.

I certainly see your point, but if Squiers are garbage, since they still carry the Fender name, it's still going to reflect poorly on Fender, the same as Epiphone's reputation will reflect on Gibson.

As for the guy who said, "Pretty good for a Jackson," there are always going to be people who aren't happy with a particular brand for whichever reason(s). I have a friend who rabidly HATES Fender, and you couldn't pay him enough to say ANYTHING positive about them, yet, he's never owned one...BUT he has owned Jacksons, and likes them. Well, Fender owns Jackson, so I'm stumped over this one. :think:

I own a Squier "Affinity" bass guitar. My wife got me one of those gig packs for Xmas last year. It cost $250, and all I wanted was a cheap bass, so it didn't matter to me. I've seen so many negative comments on the "Affinity" series instruments, it's unreal, yet every one I've played has been a relatively decent instrument. After a minor setup, my $250 bass plays just as nicely as a $600 bass; I know, because I've played them back to back.

People will knock anything they aren't familiar with. Somebody will go on the net to find info on a potential buy, and they'll see some post about what a pile his/her Jackson is, and run with it. The next thing ya know, that person starts talking about how "Jacksons don't hold tune," or whatever, just because they read somebody's single comment, yet this person badmouthing had never even played a Jackson.

On another front, look at Lexus. Everybody knows they're a division of Toyota, the same as Infiniti is a division of Nissan. It wouldn't matter how great of a luxury car Lexus built, a Lexus will never hold the same prestige as a Mercedes. It can be argued that Mercedes should be selling their $35,000 entry-level models under a different brand, right? Why don't they? It's simple; Mercedes have confidence in their entry level models, just as they have confidence in their high-level models. The same can be said of Jackson. The Mercedes name carries weight, regardless whether it's an entry-level or upper-scale model, just as the Jackson name holds weight and prestige.

While many people here will probably turn around and bash the JS series, and I have seen it, I question how many of these people have actually played the new models, or if they're basing their assumptions and experiences off of previous low-end models.

I can assure you that I'm not some JS Series "fanboy," who defends them like gospel, but instead, I'm someone who "accidentally" found his way into the Jackson "family." If someone would have told me that day I was going to come home with a Jackson, and a Warrior, of all guitars, I would have laughed. A Jackson was literally the last guitar I thought I'd be bringing home; not because they're bad guitars, but because I'd never connected with any of the ones I'd played in the past. If it weren't for that Kelly being on the wall, I probably would have come home with an Epiphone Les Paul that I was looking at.

I hate the fact that my Warrior was made in India, and I hate the fact that it was built by Harmony even more, but these are the only two things I can say about this guitar that I dislike. Admittedly, it is very hard for me to set aside these two facts, and as much as I "want" to find something to bitch about with this guitar because of it, I just can't do it. The worst flaw I've run into was just a setup that needed some help. Other than that, I have to stand by the instrument and say that these new JS guitars do Jackson's reputation justice as quality instruments.

[Codex]

the JS series is around for one thing... to sell more guitars

[VitaminG]

I respect your opinion, but that's actually my point. If they sold the entry-level stuff under the name "_______ by Jackson," it would offer more separation. See my comment above about the guy who said to me, ".....pretty good for a Jackson." And he was a very good player, too. I'm sure there are tons of Squier owners who aspire to move on up to a "real Fender" someday and the same applies to Epiphone owners lusting for a "real Gibson." But in Jackson's case, an entry-level $249.00 guitar has the exact same logo as a USA Select. If they offered a separate brand, the experience wouldn't harm the Jackson name.

You can buy a 'real' Fender for what, around $500? Many hardcore Fender fans would dispute that a guitar made in Mexico is a 'real' Fender. But those MIM Fenders serve the same purpose as JS Jacksons - they allow people who otherwise couldn't afford one to get in on the cache. "MYYY guitar says "Fender" on the headstock". The only difference is that Jackson has chosen to keep a single identity in the market by not putting out entry level "Jalmost by Jackson" guitars.

I won't argue that Jackson matches any other company and tramples most at any given price point. But as far as what the name means to someone, that's dependent on the person's experience. I have three USA Soloists now, but if my only experience with Jackson years ago had been the Indian-made el-cheapo DX10X, I would indeed have the opinion that "Jacksons are junk." And unfortunately, that's the only Jackson experience some people ever get.

The people who judge the entire product line, top to bottom, on one experience with an entry level instrument are the same ones who post Harmony Central reviews on a Vetta II stack that they've never played based on a faded memory of the 15 minutes they spent on a friend's first generation 15w Spider combo 5 years ago, at which time the friend, slightly embarrassed that he couldn't afford a fully sick Recto stack said self-consciously, as his friend plugged in his acrylic BC Rich and dialled up the MAXTREEM DISTROTION setting on 10, "yea, it's pretty shit but my farkin' parents are too tight-assed to buy me anything good for christmas" (whilst quietly crying inside because he truly quite liked it, despite his friend's cruel taunts).

[Hellbat]

"Jalmost by Jackson" guitars.

Wow, I would totally buy one of those

[RacerX]

Here's the actual commercial

[Sephiroth]

But people DO judge a company's entire line by it's entry-level stuff. Unfortunately you do not live a world of rational intelligent people, and instead live in a world of mindless consumer sheep who'll love or hate a company forever based on first impressions with an entry-level instrument or even with no experience with an instrument at all and basing opinions around what artists play them. Unfortunately, the majority of guitar buyers are people buying entry-level ones who are easily swayed by such thinking.

Personally I would lose no sleep at all if Jackson killed off their entry-level stuff entirely, but hey I briefly worked in a guitar store and know first-hand that for every high-end USA guitar you sell, you sell ten to twenty entry-level ones and starter kits.


And in the late 80's/early 90's Jackson too briefly used Charvel and a now-dead brand called "Charvette" as their "import" lines before they introduced the Jackson imports as a means of maintaining brand integrity for the Jackson name while selling cheap imports. They even had a Charvel Rhoads. If maintaining the sense of prestige with the Jackson name, maybe they should try to "Grover Jackson" or "Jackson Stars" the names of the imports like they did in Japan?

[PowerTube]

And in the late 80's/early 90's Jackson too briefly used Charvel and a now-dead brand called "Charvette" as their "import" lines before they introduced the Jackson imports as a means of maintaining brand integrity for the Jackson name while selling cheap imports.

That's a great point, so let me take the analogy a bit further. I love Jacksons with a passion, but when I walk into a pawn shop and see a Charvette hanging on the wall, I walk right on past it. I might take a quick note of the graphic or whatnot, but there's no way I'm interested. Now, let's say that I know nothing about guitars and that same junker said "Jackson" on the headstock. Well, guess what my impression of Jackson would be?

That's what I'm talking about. We on here know Jackson guitars really well and we have no problem making the proper distinctions. But what about the new player or the guy who is already prejudiced toward Fender, Gibson, Ibanez, or whatever brand is their "comfort zone?" They'll think of Jacksons as "junk" for the rest of their lives and Jackson loses sales.

Speaking of Ibanez....here's another analogy. I don't like them very much and neither do many on here, but then again, what is the experience of most of us "Ibanez bashers?" You guessed it; the $300.00 Ibanez junkers at Guitar Center. Now, if they only put the Ibanez name on the JEM777 and a few other higher quality instruments but used an "Ibenhad by Ibanez" monicker on the junk, we would hear them trashed a whole lot less on here.

[toejam]

If maintaining the sense of prestige with the Jackson name, maybe they should try to "Grover Jackson" or "Jackson Stars" the names of the imports like they did in Japan?

But they weren't imports IN Japan. Japan just couldn't use the name Jackson for their market.

[markD]

powertube, you speak with wisdom.

[Torment Leaves Scars]

But people DO judge a company's entire line by it's entry-level stuff. Unfortunately you do not live a world of rational intelligent people, and instead live in a world of mindless consumer sheep who'll love or hate a company forever based on first impressions with an entry-level instrument or even with no experience with an instrument at all and basing opinions around what artists play them. Unfortunately, the majority of guitar buyers are people buying entry-level ones who are easily swayed by such thinking.

Personally I would lose no sleep at all if Jackson killed off their entry-level stuff entirely, but hey I briefly worked in a guitar store and know first-hand that for every high-end USA guitar you sell, you sell ten to twenty entry-level ones and starter kits.


And in the late 80's/early 90's Jackson too briefly used Charvel and a now-dead brand called "Charvette" as their "import" lines before they introduced the Jackson imports as a means of maintaining brand integrity for the Jackson name while selling cheap imports. They even had a Charvel Rhoads. If maintaining the sense of prestige with the Jackson name, maybe they should try to "Grover Jackson" or "Jackson Stars" the names of the imports like they did in Japan?

Sure, some people DO judge a company by their entry-level stuff, and as well they should. If a company puts out a crappy entry-level product, that tells me right off the get-go that they don't care about their consumers, or put much value into their quality control, and they short-cut wherever they possibly can. I'm not going to buy the fact that their upper-scale lines are any different. A first impression is a lasting impression.

If I had purchased this JS32 and had tuning keys falling off in my hands, or wobbling knobs, etc., do you really think I'd be saying, "Damn, I can't wait to afford a USA Select Warrior?" While in the past, I've played a few Jacksons, and unfortunately, never quite "connected" with any of them, I never viewed them as a poor guitar company, they just simply made guitars that for whichever reason, I didn't find that "bond" with.

All I did was simply walk down a line of guitars, find one that caught my eye, and I decided to play it. If it weren't for that JS32 Kelly hanging on the wall, it's quite possible I would have just walked right past the Warrior I wound up buying. My initial thought was, "Ugh, I love the guitar, but it's a Jackson. I've never played a Jackson I've connected with." Well, I had some time, and LITERALLY, within a minute, I had bonded with this Kelly as if we were made for each other. While I was at the "Jackson wall," I spotted the Warrior, and figured I'd play that, too, because it looked "totally Metal." I brought both, the Kelly and the Warrior back to the amp, sat down with both, and decided the Warrior was more comfortable, and much more "Metal" looking, especially in its all-black paint with the chrome.

Jackson's entry-level product is what sucked me in. It's exactly what I was looking for, and more. I wasn't at the music store to buy a $2500 guitar, I already have a guitar that cost me over $2000, I was at the store to upgrade a pos rag of a guitar with a playable, cheap guitar that I would enjoy playing, and would not be collecting dust. Frankly, the Jackson was more expensive (and nicer) than what I was looking for, but it was so damned good for the money, I couldn't pass it up. My full intention was to find a $200 Squier "Affinity" Strat, which was better than the pos Ibanez, and good enough to be playable. It was going to be something I could drag out of the house on weekends to my parents' house, or drag on to an airplane without worrying about a $2000 instrument. Instead, what's happened is I wound up with a $400 guitar that I am absolutely IN LOVE with. I haven't put the damned thing down since I got it! Instead of becoming that "workhorse," it's nearly become my favorite guitar out of my bunch, and I feel guilty saying that on some levels, I connect with this guitar more than with my $2000+ Warmoth. Yep, that's good for Jackson, BAD for Warmoth. This "cheap" guitar has become one that I have no intention of subjecting to damage by flying with it, but I will travel with it. I'd be as equally upset if something happened to this guitar as if it happened to my Warmoth.

IMO, the entry-level line is the most important line in a company's catalog. These are the most easily accessible to most people, and if the product is good, it's an excellent advertisement for the company. Entry level products are the main reasons I've come to be brand-loyal to guitar manufacturers like B.C. Rich and Fender, and now Jackson. Jackson is making a high quality instrument at an affordable price, and that's the right direction.

I prefer to look at my guitar as the "Volkswagen of guitars." While there are many competitors within the same class, Volkswagens may be slightly more expensive, but the quality is head and shoulders above what the competitors are offering. In fact, I'm so confident in this JS32, I'll put it up against any $1000 American Fender, Gibson, B.C. Rich, or whatever you wanna throw at it, any day of the week, and that's the kind of confidence that companies need to instill in new customers with their entry-level products.

[Torment Leaves Scars]

That's a great point, so let me take the analogy a bit further. I love Jacksons with a passion, but when I walk into a pawn shop and see a Charvette hanging on the wall, I walk right on past it. I might take a quick note of the graphic or whatnot, but there's no way I'm interested. Now, let's say that I know nothing about guitars and that same junker said "Jackson" on the headstock. Well, guess what my impression of Jackson would be?

That's what I'm talking about. We on here know Jackson guitars really well and we have no problem making the proper distinctions. But what about the new player or the guy who is already prejudiced toward Fender, Gibson, Ibanez, or whatever brand is their "comfort zone?" They'll think of Jacksons as "junk" for the rest of their lives and Jackson loses sales.

Speaking of Ibanez....here's another analogy. I don't like them very much and neither do many on here, but then again, what is the experience of most of us "Ibanez bashers?" You guessed it; the $300.00 Ibanez junkers at Guitar Center. Now, if they only put the Ibanez name on the JEM777 and a few other higher quality instruments but used an "Ibenhad by Ibanez" monicker on the junk, we would hear them trashed a whole lot less on here.

"But what about the new player or the guy who is already prejudiced toward Fender, Gibson, Ibanez, or whatever brand is their "comfort zone?" They'll think of Jacksons as "junk" for the rest of their lives and Jackson loses sales."

You're talkin' to'em. I'm very predjudiced towards Fender, and love Ibanez. Both of these guitars certainly fall into my "comfort zone." As a guitar player, I'm familiar with those crappy, $300 Ibanezes, and tend to agree with you that they aren't half as nice as some of the others, but most musicians aren't gravitating towards $300 Ibanez guitars. You'll get the "starters" gravitating towards them as first guitars, but, if they don't like them, they're not going to buy them.

I never thought much of Ibanez until around 1.5-2 years ago, even though I had this one in my closet for a while, UNTIL I played an RG770 Prestige, I think it was. It was AMAZING. It felt like it would play itself,and sounded the part, too. Everyone kept telling me, "You gotta play a REAL Ibanez, you gotta play a REAL Ibanez." I just happened to be in a store, and there was one on the wall. I didn't expect much, but when I picked it up and started playing, I immediately found that special "connection." Everything was so right. In fact, that Ibanez ranks up there as one of the top 5 guitars I've EVER played.

I'm repeating myself here about 100 times, but I'll say it again; while I've always respected Jackson, I was never a fan because I'd never connected with ANY Jackson I'd EVER played, and just happened to eye a Kelly, because I just like the way they look, and sat down with it. I'd never seen a Kelly in person, and just wanted to play one. Instead, what I found was a guitar I immediately connected with, and it guided me to the Warrior I now own. I had no intention of ever liking it...

Right after my purchase, I called my wife, and she asked me, "So did you find anything?" I told her, "Yeah, I got a Jackson." She was like, "Since when do you like Jackson? Aren't those the USA guitars you played and were really hoping to love, but ended up so disappointed with?" "Uh, yep, those would be the ones..."

[Larz]

Sure, some people DO judge a company by their entry-level stuff, and as well they should. If a company puts out a crappy entry-level product, that tells me right off the get-go that they don't care about their consumers, or put much value into their quality control, and they short-cut wherever they possibly can. I'm not going to buy the fact that their upper-scale lines are any different. A first impression is a lasting impression.

I'm probably missing the point here, but by definition Jackson's (and other's) entry-level stuff is going to be on different level in terms of materials, features, etc. compared to their top of the end stuff. I don't think Jackson necessarily tries to specialize in that entry-market but they want a piece of it for sure.

Its the same with amps, drums, cars, boats, bikes, cuts of steaks, hookers, etc.

They have to cut some corners to make something relatively affordable. I guess the difference is cheap and crappy versus less expensive but still nice.

I'm glad you're happy with your Warrior and hopefully it keeps you waving the Jackson flag for a long time.

[Torment Leaves Scars]

I'm probably missing the point here, but by definition Jackson's (and other's) entry-level stuff is going to be on different level in terms of materials, features, etc. compared to their top of the end stuff. I don't think Jackson necessarily tries to specialize in that entry-market but they want a piece of it for sure.

Its the same with amps, drums, cars, boats, bikes, cuts of steaks, hookers, etc.

They have to cut some corners to make something relatively affordable. I guess the difference is cheap and crappy versus less expensive but still nice.

I'm glad you're happy with your Warrior and hopefully it keeps you waving the Jackson flag for a long time.

You're absolutely right that the entry-level stuff is going to be different in terms of materials and such, but I think what matters is that one company's entry level uses better quality materials than another company's materials, or at least better quality [i]control.[i] I'm a firm believer in the fact the "You can have the best of the best, but it's only as good as the person who builds it" mentality. A prime example of that would be when I got my Warmoth built. I had Neal Moser assemble it and set it up, and as expected, he did a phenomenal job. Had I assembled and set up the guitar itself, it would probably be absolutely terrible. I've only seen one other Warmoth guitar in my life, aside from my own, and it was for sale at Guitar Center. Being a Warmoth owner, and having never seen another one, I just had to play it, and lemme tell ya, if that were the only Warmoth I'd ever played, there's no way in Hell I would've taken a chance with them. That thing was probably one of the worst playing and sounding guitars I'd ever played. It was abundantly clear that whoever put it together and set it up hadn't the slightest clue what he/she was doing.

I'm in full agreement with you that Jackson probably isn't trying to take over the entry-level market, but just trying to get a piece of the pie, however, I don't think Jackson is trying to aim so low as to "rival" the very bottom of the market along with Squier Bullets and $160 Ibanezes. but focusing more on that "in between entry level and the next step up" with their JS series.

I'm a full believer that you can get a decent product for cheap. Hell, my wife and I have a few friends who pulled the trigger on $1000 (each) washing and drying machines, and they've already broken within a year, and they're fighting with some company over a warranty. Meanwhile, my wife and I bought $300 (each) "Sears Brand" machines and they haven't hiccuped once. Exotic materials can make for exotic problems. Sometimes less is better when it comes to some things, but I don't think guitars are one of them.

Last week I played a Kelly KE3 (Made In Japan) back to back with the JS32 Kelly I'd played prior to picking up my Warrior, and on one hand, I was quite disappointed to see that the KE3 didn't feel much different at all, aside from the cosmetics and a slightly different string feel, but on the other hand, I was pretty happy, especially since I'd just purchased a JS32.