Is Fender trying to put Jackson out of business?

[Sephiroth]

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

Touche`

[Inazone]

I think that some of you are overlooking the effect that the Internet has had on brand perception in the musical instrument business. Sure, there's still a lot of confusion about where certain models were made over the years, which were the worst/best, and who was responsible for certain business decisions concerning the Jackson/Charvel brands. However, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if Musician's Friend sells one Jackson for $299 and another for $2499, there are going to be some substantial differences. Furthermore, the abundance of guitar-related forums and the all-seeing, all-knowing Google means that it doesn't generally take long to find reviews about virtually every production model by virtually every manufacturer. How accurate some of the info is remains to be seen, but the same can be said about the intelligence of some prospective buyers.

In other words, anyone with a brain will understand that buying the cheapest Jackson available isn't going to give them the same results as a top-of-the-line model that costs four or five times the price. For those that don't have a brain, well, they're only buying based on appearance and price anyway, not build quality or tone.

[Torment Leaves Scars]

I think that some of you are overlooking the effect that the Internet has had on brand perception in the musical instrument business. Sure, there's still a lot of confusion about where certain models were made over the years, which were the worst/best, and who was responsible for certain business decisions concerning the Jackson/Charvel brands. However, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if Musician's Friend sells one Jackson for $299 and another for $2499, there are going to be some substantial differences. Furthermore, the abundance of guitar-related forums and the all-seeing, all-knowing Google means that it doesn't generally take long to find reviews about virtually every production model by virtually every manufacturer. How accurate some of the info is remains to be seen, but the same can be said about the intelligence of some prospective buyers.

In other words, anyone with a brain will understand that buying the cheapest Jackson available isn't going to give them the same results as a top-of-the-line model that costs four or five times the price. For those that don't have a brain, well, they're only buying based on appearance and price anyway, not build quality or tone.

"In other words, anyone with a brain will understand that buying the cheapest Jackson available isn't going to give them the same results as a top-of-the-line model that costs four or five times the price. For those that don't have a brain, well, they're only buying based on appearance and price anyway, not build quality or tone."

WHAT? YOU MEAN TO TELL ME I'M NOT GETTING THE SAME PARTS FOR A FRACTION OF THE PRICE? YOU MUST BE JOKIN'! I GOT RIPPED!

I definitely notice a difference between a Squier Bullet and an American Standard Strat, that's for sure, but with my JS, between the KE and the JS, I honestly didn't notice much of a difference, aside from cosmetics, and maybe a slightly different overall feel to the instrument as far as string tensions, and stuff like that.

I'm pretty sure I'd notice a significant difference between a JS and USA Select model. If I don't, I would be severely disappointed.

[Sephiroth]

I think that some of you are overlooking the effect that the Internet has had on brand perception in the musical instrument business. Sure, there's still a lot of confusion about where certain models were made over the years, which were the worst/best, and who was responsible for certain business decisions concerning the Jackson/Charvel brands. However, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that if Musician's Friend sells one Jackson for $299 and another for $2499, there are going to be some substantial differences. Furthermore, the abundance of guitar-related forums and the all-seeing, all-knowing Google means that it doesn't generally take long to find reviews about virtually every production model by virtually every manufacturer. How accurate some of the info is remains to be seen, but the same can be said about the intelligence of some prospective buyers.

In other words, anyone with a brain will understand that buying the cheapest Jackson available isn't going to give them the same results as a top-of-the-line model that costs four or five times the price. For those that don't have a brain, well, they're only buying based on appearance and price anyway, not build quality or tone.

I know that; my point for this topic was about the constant price increases, and since Jackson imports are now pushing USA-made guitar prices elsewhere, they need to throw in more features to justify that crap. I don't give two craps about the entry-level stuff because you're completely right about what to expect for the money, no disrespect for anyone who owns one of those, but for me a four-figure guitar should come with at least some features (like neck binding) found on guitars that cost half as much. The DK2 and RR3 have doubled in price in the past seven years, and I know not all of that is due to a case being tossed in. And why is the RR24 a $1300 guitar? It's a nice guitar but personally I don't see it as a $1300 guitar for an import.

The inflation of the high-end imports and even the prices of the USA models is the issue here; not what I can get on the cheapest models they make.

[Inazone]

The inflation of the high-end imports and even the prices of the USA models is the issue here; not what I can get on the cheapest models they make.

I didn't start buying Jacksons until `97, but even so, I can recall a period of time where Jackson prices didn't increase much, if at all. Meanwhile, the competition was raising prices more or less every year. I agree that many of the imports don't warrant the new, higher prices, but I think that a lot of J/C players got "spoiled" by paying less money for nicer guitars. Once Fender took over, it was only a matter of time before J/C prices were brought in line with the Fender pricing model.

The unfortunate thing is that they're more likely to just keep adding inexpensive entry-level guitars than rolling back prices (or at least freezing them) on the mid-level lines, and possibly discontinuing good instruments simply because they don't sell at the higher prices. That wouldn't surprise me one bit.

[Torment Leaves Scars]

I didn't start buying Jacksons until `97, but even so, I can recall a period of time where Jackson prices didn't increase much, if at all. Meanwhile, the competition was raising prices more or less every year. I agree that many of the imports don't warrant the new, higher prices, but I think that a lot of J/C players got "spoiled" by paying less money for nicer guitars. Once Fender took over, it was only a matter of time before J/C prices were brought in line with the Fender pricing model.

The unfortunate thing is that they're more likely to just keep adding inexpensive entry-level guitars than rolling back prices (or at least freezing them) on the mid-level lines, and possibly discontinuing good instruments simply because they don't sell at the higher prices. That wouldn't surprise me one bit.

My impression of Jackson is just the opposite. I always saw them as expensive guitars, especially their USA models. I'd never seen a USA Jackson model until sometime within the past 2 years, and when I saw it, it was like the second coming of Christ for me. My wife and I were at GC and she spotted a used one. She was like, "Check this one out!" I immediately noticed it was a USA model, and just about sh*t my pants.

I've always seen Jackson and Charvel as very high-end and expensive. :think:

[markD]

I didn't start buying Jacksons until `97, but even so, I can recall a period of time where Jackson prices didn't increase much, if at all. Meanwhile, the competition was raising prices more or less every year. I agree that many of the imports don't warrant the new, higher prices, but I think that a lot of J/C players got "spoiled" by paying less money for nicer guitars. Once Fender took over, it was only a matter of time before J/C prices were brought in line with the Fender pricing model.

i fall into this category. i paid $1299 for my SL2H blk ghost flames, $1299 for my trans red SL1, $1199 for a GMG SL1....shoot, my holoflake SL1 was only $1799 and i had a shit-fit because it was SOOOOOO expensive compared to what i had been paying for jacksons....

[wilkinsi]

I judge each guitar on its own merits. That's how it should be.

[Sephiroth]

I didn't start buying Jacksons until `97, but even so, I can recall a period of time where Jackson prices didn't increase much, if at all. Meanwhile, the competition was raising prices more or less every year. I agree that many of the imports don't warrant the new, higher prices, but I think that a lot of J/C players got "spoiled" by paying less money for nicer guitars. Once Fender took over, it was only a matter of time before J/C prices were brought in line with the Fender pricing model.

The unfortunate thing is that they're more likely to just keep adding inexpensive entry-level guitars than rolling back prices (or at least freezing them) on the mid-level lines, and possibly discontinuing good instruments simply because they don't sell at the higher prices. That wouldn't surprise me one bit.

I hope that never happens. The USA prices; well they are what they are. I am not entirely convinced that they're entirely justified though. It's the same with Gibsons. In both cases, they're not getting any rarer, and they're pretty much the same thing they were at half their current prices (LP standards were around $800 and US Rhoads were around $1000 when I was in high school), yet both keep going up to more than what I think they should cost now.

The higher-end imports are good, and their prices will be fine if they just add in a few more details (mostly cosmetic) to bring them to par with other instruments. I know they will never ever roll back prices, but at the least they could be more competitive with the features for the money they're asking for.


The lower-end imports are fine for the money. I have no complaints about them.

[Sephiroth]

I judge each guitar on its own merits. That's how it should be.

I do that literally. I've been wanting a Paul for like 15 years, yet have never ever found the one that just felt right. They're like f-ing pianos with no two being exactly alike, and I have never come across the one meant for me.

On the other hand, I bought the first US Rhoads I ever tried because it hit the sweet spot for me instantly.

It's like falling in love. You know it immediately if you fell in love or not. There's nothing to think about.

[lerxstcat]

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.

I actually think Jackson is being smart by updating the JS Series to include sharkfins and licensed Floyds. They have lost much ground in the last 10 years to ESP and Ibanez, which they need to try and regain. Kids like the flashy stuff like sharkfins and that immediately makes the JS more attractive to them. As Torment Leaves Scars said, that 16-year-old will get his folks to spring for a $400 Jackson that IS a Jackson - not an LTD or a Squier - and it's going to make him a loyal Jackson fan.

This is probably the best thing Fender has done for the Jackson brand since buying the company. There are a lot more people out thre who can swing a $400 purchase than can buy a $2500 USA Select or even a higher-priced MIJ import. Why not exploit thaqt market and try to bring young people back into the Jackson-for-life category? The 80s are gone' guys; they aren't coming back. But Jackson can become a bigger part of the market again with the right approach. The real thing was tainted by being passed around like a turnout whore at a biker blast over the years. At least Jackson is now owned by a company that specializes in building guitars once again. We all worried FMIC planned to put Jackson out of business when it bought the company; a;most a dcade has gone by since then and if that was their goal they are taking their sweet time about killing it off.

[Torment Leaves Scars]

I actually think Jackson is being smart by updating the JS Series to include sharkfins and licensed Floyds. They have lost much ground in the last 10 years to ESP and Ibanez, which they need to try and regain. Kids like the flashy stuff like sharkfins and that immediately makes the JS more attractive to them. As Torment Leaves Scars said, that 16-year-old will get his folks to spring for a $400 Jackson that IS a Jackson - not an LTD or a Squier - and it's going to make him a loyal Jackson fan.

This is probably the best thing Fender has done for the Jackson brand since buying the company. There are a lot more people out thre who can swing a $400 purchase than can buy a $2500 USA Select or even a higher-priced MIJ import. Why not exploit thaqt market and try to bring young people back into the Jackson-for-life category? The 80s are gone' guys; they aren't coming back. But Jackson can become a bigger part of the market again with the right approach. The real thing was tainted by being passed around like a turnout whore at a biker blast over the years. At least Jackson is now owned by a company that specializes in building guitars once again. We all worried FMIC planned to put Jackson out of business when it bought the company; a;most a dcade has gone by since then and if that was their goal they are taking their sweet time about killing it off.

Just wanna touch base on the issue of the "shark fins" and the appearance of the new JS Series.

I was just talking to a buddy of mine the other night who used to own a few Jacksons (had to sell'em to pay some bills) and he was talking about, "Yeah, mine were pretty nice. They all had the shark fin inlays and Floyds. They were real sweet."

It's not only the 16 year olds that gravitate towards a guitar for its appearance. IMO, "shark fins" give the guitar a significantly better upper-scale appearance than just dot inlays. To me, dot inlays look cheap (save for nice ones like abalone) on some guitars. One of the main cosmetic features that pulled me towards the Warrior were the "shark fin" inlays. The guitar just looked so "Metal," I couldn't pass it up. The combination of the rosewood fingerboard, "shark fins," black paint, and chrome hardware is just insane. It looks like the ultimate Metal guitar.

As a Metal fan, the appearance of my instruments is important to me. While appearance doesn't equate to playability, I do enjoy playing an attractive guitar over a plain one. Even though I'm not in a band, that doesn't mean that I appreciate a badass-looking axe any less than a touring musician.

Thumbs up to Jackson, Fender, whoever, for really hitting this one out of the park.

For the record, I think Fender (or Jackson) did right by leaving the Jackson name on the headstock. When I see a company distancing itself (Fender/Squier, Gibson/Epiphone), it sends a negative message that a company is "hiding" under a different name because they don't have confidence in their cheaper products.

FWIW, I just got into biking last year, and I bought a Schwinn. The first thing everyone here is going to think is, "Congratulations on your Walmart Special." Well, a lot of people don't know there is Schwinn, and then there's "REAL" Schwinn. Go to Schwinn's website, and you will NOT find ANY "Walmart Specials" there.

I'm sure most of you are probably clueless when it comes to biking (or maybe not...), but FWIW, my Schwinn has a full carbon fiber frame and a Shimano 105 drivetrain. It's a 56-58 cm bike and weighs 20.x lbs. As a comparison, my wife has a 49 cm bike that weighs more. Take my word for it, this Schwinn wasn't $129 at Walmart.

In the case of Schwinn, they've done unrepairable damage to their reputation by offering less-than-quality products under their name. Had they gone the "Jackson Route" and offered quality entry-level bicycles and kept them under the Schwinn name, they'd be in a much better position reputation-wise. Instead, unlike Jackson, they've desecrated their name, and have probably lost most of their supporters.

[lerxstcat]

I like Sharkfins too, and wasn't saying that ONLY kids like them. But if they want to bring a new generation of fans into the fold, they definitely help attract the kids. I'm not really against dot inlays, I have a PS-2 with them, and a DK-2S with sharkfins and binding, and of course the Sustainer. I'm just saying that the flashier look will help bring back some entry-level kids from LTDs and Ibanezes and the will hopefully aspire to an upscale model just as you are.

[Animus]

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.

Interesting aside. brand image is everything. I have a irrational bias against Charvel. Why? Because every time I heard the name I instantly thought of Carvel ice cream cakes. lol I don't want to buy a guitar made by people who make ice cream. It's not metal at all, unless you put razor blades in some Rocky Rhoads (pun intended).

As far as Jackson branding I have to admit I was confused at first when sorting out all the different models, which were imports and not, when I first started getting interested in Jackson. I am kind of the opinion that they shouldn't have tainted their brand name with inferior quality imports. I have one of those Sam Ash SL2h imports and while it is actually pretty nice (archtop) it's still "different" than the real SL2h I just got.

My only two criticisms of Jackson Usa are no archtop production models (the regular soloists are too blocky for my tastes) and I don't like the tuners that come stock. For the premium you pay I would expect some good locking Shallers with a higher gear ratio. I replaced my tuners with some Shallers and I like it much better, and I have become spoiled in not having to wind strings.

[Animus]

I hope that never happens. The USA prices; well they are what they are. I am not entirely convinced that they're entirely justified though. It's the same with Gibsons. In both cases, they're not getting any rarer, and they're pretty much the same thing they were at half their current prices (LP standards were around $800 and US Rhoads were around $1000 when I was in high school), yet both keep going up to more than what I think they should cost now.

The higher-end imports are good, and their prices will be fine if they just add in a few more details (mostly cosmetic) to bring them to par with other instruments. I know they will never ever roll back prices, but at the least they could be more competitive with the features for the money they're asking for.


The lower-end imports are fine for the money. I have no complaints about them.

Inflation accounts for some of this I am sure. A 2k Soloist today probably cost about S1200 in 1992 adjusting for inflation (just guessing on price).