Expanding the line

[Black Mask]

Re: Expanding the line

Originally posted by Newc:
Exactly, which is what Black Mask's point was - Jackson needs a new buyer group. If the same old same old keeps buying only the same old same old, Jackson will only make the same old same old and will wither and decay. Jackson needs buyers for the USA, Pro, X, and MG series, and they need model variations in those lines to attract the people who are buying ESPee and Ibenhad and Spamick and PRSsss.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Right! Exactly.

[Sunbane]

Re: Expanding the line

Hmm. As for Les Paul-ish models, I think the Jazz'R would make a good platform to build on. The body shape is nice - it's even more appealing than the JJ IMO. Imagine it as a neck-thru' MAH/MAH with a large radius speed neck, a JB or Distortion at the bridge, the perloid tuners/knobs replaced with metal ones and the full Jackson logo on the headstock. You'd have a screaming rock guitar right there, still with full shred potential.

While on the topic on the Jazz'R, I looked at the specs of the current model and said "WTF? SPRUCE???". I never thought of spruce as a tone wood. How does it sound?

'bane

[straycat]

Re: Expanding the line

Bane most acoustic guitars have a spruce top its a great tone wood.

[zeegler]

Re: Expanding the line

I would be interested in a JJ model with an arched top with bound body, neck and headstock, and some nice inlays (ala Les Paul). Since the JJ already exists, then it's simply altering an existing design, and giving it a more classic, and classy look.

[pro-fusion]

Re: Expanding the line

Jackson might want to expand the amount of variation within its current lineup, but I don't think they need to start producing pseudo Les Pauls or PRS to satisfy the whims of the market right now. You have to think long term in this business, I would think. Jackson has a very-well established identity and should focus its innovation on serving that market (metal, 'extreme music') better. After all, ESP is serving essentially the same market, and nobody's talking about them withering away.

For perspective, some of the younger folks here might not remember when Gibson was down in the dumps back in the mid '80s. Nobody wanted a Les Paul and you could hardly give them away. They were staid and 'yesterday's news.' All the metal guys wanted Jacksons and all the regular rock guys wanted Strats. But then Slash came along with his '59 flametop, and all of a sudden LPs were hot again, the prices doubled virtually overnight and suddenly Gibson became a hot property again.

In other words, all it takes is one influential player to bring a brand back to life. Jackson might be well-served to make sure that it preserves its strong legacy and makes well-thought out incremental improvements to existing models. Tastes WILL change, and there is no reason that Jackson can't be on top again. The guitars are too good for it not to happen.

[lerxstcat]

Re: Expanding the line

Charvel and Jackson were born from and bred for metal, so it's not easy to reach out of the genre and attract buyers. It's more like the copmpany's fortunes will mainly rise and fall with the metal market.

Look at the Charvel 625C. A very nice acoustic-electric for the money, geared towards a electric guitarist who needed a part-time acoustic. They discontinued them after a few years and they now sell used dirt-cheap on Ebay (the last one I saw ended at $127.xx a week ago). People were basically not interested in a Charvel acoustic guitar because CHARVELS ARE METAL!!! Same thing to a lesser degree with Surfcasters, though the high end Surfcasters do sell for a lot more. It's still within the C/J community that
they sell though; most in the general guitar community would go Rickenbacker and consider a Surfcaster as a "copy" even though it's only "influenced by" the
Rick.

I think they'd sell more JJs if they'd use the regular logo and not the ransom note logo they have. It's not that they couldn't expand their line, but to suddenly start copying their competitors'
designs would cheapen what Jackson Guitars mean to the rest of us. Fender won't allow the use of "Gibson" shapes, so what do they do, make Jackson Jagmasters? It's not that easy to jump into that niche for Jackson.

[ November 21, 2003, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: lerxstcat ]

[weeaustin]

Re: Expanding the line

lets remeber folks that fender now owns jackson, and fender have the strat and tele style market totaly covered, they also own guild now this will cover hollow bodied guitars nicely too, the reason fender got jackson is becasue the needed someone to compeat in the metal market and jackson do indeed make metal guitars. just because of this i cant see jackson trying to make strat copys. and now that fender has put loads of money into the company i think they will be advertised alot more. it would be cool to see some totaly new body designs tho.

as for bring in a big name player i would be happy if they didnt do that. i would rather see people buying jackson guitars on the fact that they are fantastic guitars rather than doing an ibanez and have people buying joe satrianis guitar just beacuse its joe satrianis guitar.

[Inazone]

Re: Expanding the line

I think that Jackson is headed in the right direction, but until they learn to market and distribute better, some of their best guitars are going unseen by the people who would be interested. The SLSMG is, to my eyes, perfect for almost any metal player who doesn't want a Floyd -- mahogany construction, TOM bridge, the requisite "dark" appearance. The DKMG(T) and DXMG seem to be pretty popular from what I can tell, but again, they have a fairly conventional appearance. Who is buying Warriors or KVs, outside of the death metal underground and existing Jackson fans such as many of us here? People see my KV2 and say "wow, nice guitar, but it's too pointy for my tastes".

The SweeTone line needs to either get a marketing push or be replaced. Maybe make them part of whatever USA Charvel line is in the works, with an appropriate headstock redesign. The current Charvel imports LOOK nice in pictures, but who the hell carries these things? I go into Guitar Center and see six different Dinky models, an import Soloist or two, and every now and then, a WRXT or KVX10. The last time I saw a USA Jackson in either of the local GCs was when I bought my RR2...and that had hung on the wall for 4-5 years.

I like the suggestions about fixing up the JJ and using hardtail bridges -- bring back the JDX string-thru hardtail! I personally won't buy a guitar with plastic sharkfins (I also despise Schecter's plastic overdose), but I don't need a figured maple top. How about just using natural finishes over existing body woods? Alder and mahogany can look good with the right trans finish color, and if Ibanez can make basswood Satch models look decent, I'm sure Jackson could too. Hell, how about ash bodies? Maybe reintroduce the Stealth line? Lots of possibilities that would probably be more appealing to new buyers, without losing the current market niche.

[weeaustin]

Re: Expanding the line

i need to agree with you about the guitars not being marketed or distributed very well. i live in the UK and i ended up ordering my kelly from an american website ebcasue they shops that i had tryed the kelly out on only had one finish (and the fact that us brits get over charged on guitars). but it is rare to see a selection jackson guitars on shops in the UK.

having a non floyd option on all models would also increase sale alot since most people these days tend to be too lazy to look after a floyd style bridge.

[Hamner1]

Re: Expanding the line

Realistically how much more can the electric guitar be innovated/reinvented. Look at all the other companies out there and this is what you get: pickups (a multitude of combinations + passive, active, or synth), bridge types (personally I like the string-thru without the tailpiece/plate), construction (neckthru, set-neck, or bolt on), then wood types (alder, maple, ash, etc, etc.), after that it is body shape. Jackson has the best body designs that I have seen. I doubt Jackson or any other company is going to dream up a design that will become the new standard that everybody will want.
So they should focus their marketing to deemphasize the 80's virtuosos that played and adored these instruments because of their tone and playability. As stated before they need to get one big name guitarist to jump on board and bring Jackson back to prominence. Obviously these guitars are one of the best out there now it is time to let everyone know that a country player, a Jazz player, a Metal player, a blues player, etc can get some awesome tone and great playability out of a Jackson.

[jade]

Re: Expanding the line

This may have been hit on before, but what-with Fender buying Jackson and Gretsch recently they probably figure diversity is there. Unless you just have to, must and will not stand for anything else but a Jackson name on the guitar -- then you're sh*t out of luck -- as I have found out in my hunt for my perfect dream-axe.

The two makers of guitars I enjoy the most are Ibanez and Jackson, there's something about the feel of those guitars that's just so comfortable. So with that being said, the closest thing I've been able to find that fits my needs is my current guitar and Ibanez SCA. (hardtail)...

Which brings me too the idea that Jackson should make a line of nothing but bloody hardtails!! Like they have the MG series. Do a bloody HT (hardtail) series will ya! A nice Dinky with SSH and a hardtail. Then another with HH and a hardtail. The Kelly with a hardtail. And the V with a string-thru design. And keep the pointy standard headstocks those are the best IMO. I think they would be surprised at just how many they could sell if they gave them a chance!

Also I hope they don't dive into the stupid idea of 3 piece necks and announce they're better than one piece, like Ibanez suddenly has. I don't buy the theory that it adds strength and sustain to the neck. And I won't buy a guitar like that. To me that just says they have scraps of wood lying around and decided to save money by making a 3 piece neck out of it. DON'T DO IT JACKSON!!!

And that's the end of my rant. lol

I feel better now.

[slayer]

Re: Expanding the line

No fake plastic inlays on USA Jacksons [img]images/icons/frown.gif[/img] I would like to see a 1 Hum Solist, preferably in 24.75 scale, but if it is Select Series, 25.5 would be alright also [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] Dots are fine, as long as they are real MOP. Birdseye maple boards are sweet, especially with abalone dots. I too am for diversity in guitars, but don`t get rid of the classics and the typical Flouyd Soloist, Rhoads,KV,Kelley, etc, keep them and expand on them. Tunamatic stopbar models of these would be cool in the Select Line, I don`t really like string trus, unless they are older Hamer sustain block bridges, awsome design!! Jack.

[labelscott]

Re: Expanding the line

I also thought that the Ransom lettering on the JJ was cool.

Originally posted by lerxstcat:
Charvel and Jackson were born from and bred for metal, so it's not easy to reach out of the genre and attract buyers. It's more like the copmpany's fortunes will mainly rise and fall with the metal market.

Look at the Charvel 625C. A very nice acoustic-electric for the money, geared towards a electric guitarist who needed a part-time acoustic. They discontinued them after a few years and they now sell used dirt-cheap on Ebay (the last one I saw ended at $127.xx a week ago). People were basically not interested in a Charvel acoustic guitar because CHARVELS ARE METAL!!! Same thing to a lesser degree with Surfcasters, though the high end Surfcasters do sell for a lot more. It's still within the C/J community that
they sell though; most in the general guitar community would go Rickenbacker and consider a Surfcaster as a "copy" even though it's only "influenced by" the
Rick.

I think they'd sell more JJs if they'd use the regular logo and not the ransom note logo they have. It's not that they couldn't expand their line, but to suddenly start copying their competitors'
designs would cheapen what Jackson Guitars mean to the rest of us. Fender won't allow the use of "Gibson" shapes, so what do they do, make Jackson Jagmasters? It's not that easy to jump into that niche for Jackson.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">

[charvel750]

Re: Expanding the line

Bret Dennis had a slew of famous players who were not metalists but went to C/J for their guitars, I can recall but a few: Allan Holdsworth, Dave Amato, Davey Johnstone, Shawn Lane, Frank Stepanek, Jeff Healy, Jeff Beck, and Dave Mustaine. Cause Dave wasn't a metalist, right? [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

So C/J did in fact appeal to a wider range of players than some of us have posted here. And I love one of Jackson's opening paragraphs to a recent catalog: "We make no bones about it, you probably either love us or hate us. And we wouldn't have it anyother way." I think that says it all.

[Newc]

Re: Expanding the line

Then there's that Country player who uses a PC-1.

Plastic inlays - MOP costs $$$, and that cost triples at the store (retail markup). Ibanez and ESPee both made fortunes using plastic (anybody ever hear of the JEM and KH models?). There's a large difference between Ego and Pride. My ego doesn't dictate that I'm too good to play on plastic, but pride dictates that I won't play Ibenhad or ESPee.

I can farily understand the issue of bringing in a top-name Metal player to advertise the Jackson name, much like Fender has Clapton (and Beck, Yngwie, Hendrix, etc), Gibson has Slash (and Joe Perry and Jimmy Page), Gretsch has the classic rockabilly heroes, etc etc, but who to get? Mustaine was the highest-profile player recently, and other artists with a solid history keep jumping ship (Danny Spitz, etc). Sorry, but Scott Ian is not a household name despite Anthrax's contribution to Metal. Who's this Dan Fastuca guy? He looks about 40+ in the pics, but I swear I never heard of him.
There's not a high-profile Metal player to bring to Jackson that wouldn't be a White Elephant (Mustaine, Hetfield, etc) and it's suicide to back a relative unknown unless he's the next Rhoads.

Yes, Jackson serves that niche market Fender has always been locked out of, but under Fender's direction, will Jackson ONLY serve that niche market and not compete fairly and openly with Fender? As was mentioned, there are a few outside of the Metal genre who play Jackson, just as there are some inside the Metal/Virtuoso genres who play Fender (Yngwie), so crossing over lines is not killing anyone. Fender has the history to survive a head-to-head fight with Jackson in the same marketplace, and Jackson needs the market exposure and the money from a high-profile marketing blitz to survive. If not, Fender will have to keep dumping money into Jackson to shore it up, until finally all the best builders will leave for other companies, and Jackson will be an empty husk with a glorius past.

Newc