Jump to content
Heritage Owners Club

The Heritage Buzz


FranzMohamitz

Recommended Posts

Why does Heritage seem to do so little in terms of brand awareness?

Sure, they've managed to get themselves published in a few mainstream guitar magazines but I've yet to see a single instance outside of this forum where they've publicly acknowledged any of the so-called improvements that have been made to the overall quality of the guitars.

Considering the fairly dramatic price increases that we've seen you'd think that they'd want to explain the rationale into what makes the product so much better all of the sudden. I truly don't get it, I mean it's plain to see that even here on a Heritage fan site that there's a very noticeable lull in interest and to be brutally honest it's buzz outside of this site is basically non-existent.

It seems to me that Heritage should follow suit with Gibson's recent move and find themselves their own "Director of Brand Experience" ala the Norman's Rare Guitars guy, Mark Agnes.

Whatch u folks say on the matter?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The old guard at Heritage didn't really do much in terms of marketing.   I think a lot of the really early stuff was the result of Lane Zastrow's work as a distributor.   When he closed up shop, he cleared out a lot of "swag" that some of us picked up, including shirts, picks,  and straps.   You also didn't see a lot of review samples going out to magazines, so they weren't in the public eye, except at places like NAMM.  Marv, Jim and Bill were luthiers first, so that's where their focus seemed to be.   

The new owners know that they will need to market, which is why you are starting to see Heritage guitars being reviewed in magazines. These two have been published in the past couple of months.   That's more than we've seen in the past couple of years.

https://guitar.com/review/electric-guitar/review-heritage-h-137-h-150/

https://www.guitarplayer.com/gear/heritage-h-535

I don't know if they need a "Brand Experience" guy.   Heritage is probably 1/100 the size of Gibson.   Bandlab has taken over distribution, so they will probably handle more on the marketing side.  They are taking baby steps,  trying to refocus the business.   

The thing that's interesting is that guitar geeks are up on ALL of the news.   They spend their time on TGP, HOC,  TDPRI, and MLPF obsessing over PIO vs Orangedrops, and germanium vs silicon diodes.   They all have their opinions and biases set.    

I know other guitar players who never read TGP or MLPF.     They play what they see in the music stores and in Musicians Friend catalogs.   They will occasionally read a magazine.   Getting Heritage into GC and MF is a step in the right direction.   The more times people pick up a guitar and play it,  the higher the chances of a sale.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TalismanRich said:

 

Thanks for the input TalismanRich! I'm glad you brought up the GC and MF thing.

It was a recent conversation with a fellow "guitar geek" friend of mine who called to ask me, WTF is with those prices? They look exactly the same to me.

I explain the recent changes in production that's led to higher quality, far better setups and a standard Factory plek. He simply responded big fn deal, why wouldn't I just buy a Gibson at that point. Quite frankly I couldn't argue his point with any real kind of an unbiased retort considering that I can still find the very same Heritage models for half the price used.

I mean have we heard an actual first-hand report from anyone who's purchased one of these newly built GC or MF guitars? I highly doubt they're selling very many of them considering that they haven't added a single detail that would change someone's previous impression of Heritage guitars.

Again, It just seems bizarre to me that they don't seem to be trying very hard at all to push the new "improved quality" narrative which could possibly bring a few new looks to brand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but I'm of the opinion that the increased prices are what is needed to turn a profit.  The new owners have spent a significant amount of money to relocate the manufacturing area while they refurbish the old building.   Those expenses include "environmental" improvements which were sorely needed for the employees.   That money will need to be recouped, or the brand will go away.   

These are still not made with CNC machines, they are all hand built, just as a Gibson custom shop would be.  Your friend could buy a Les Paul Classic or Special for a few hundred less than an H150. A Traditional is a few hundred more.  If you want to get up to custom shop model,  you'll fork over at least $1500 more than an H150. 

The old Heritage guitars were true bargains in years past.   You got a great guitar at a rock bottom price. Thats not a sustainable practice.   Now you should get a great guitar at reasonable price.   Compared to a lot of the boutique builders,  they're still a bargain.

Again, that's just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TalismanRich said:

 

 

Hey man your opinion makes a lot of  sense to me, maybe they ought to consider bringing you in as the "Director of Brand Experience"!

You might want to leave out the part about the prices going up to pay for the building Renovations though...... I for one, couldn't give a hoot about the tourist trap treatment they're applying to that place, I'm pretty sure the good majority of people buying their next guitar would feel the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't referring to the tourist portion of the building, just the manufacturing area.  

As for being too highly priced,   a Fender Custom shop guitar starts at around $3000 for teles and strats.   Gibson Custom shop guitars are $3500 and up.   (those are street prices, not MSRP).    Gibson sets the MSRP of a 59 VOS at around $10,000 and street priced is $6500.     At that price,  $2500 for a standard H150 isn't out of line.

I don't know if that extra $4000 is getting me that much better of a guitar.

That said, only you can say what value a guitar has.   I spent about the same for my Melancon tele as I did for my H157.   Both were hand made.  Both are excellent guitars.   For me, both are worth what I paid for them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pressure said:

Fender CustomShop Team built guitars might start at $3,000 but a MasterBuilt Fender CustomShop Tele is much closer to $6,500. A good musical instrument is not cheap. I think Heritage guitars are worth the cost.

I'm not trying to dispute the quality of the guitars or compare them to other brands.

I'm simply curious as to why they don't seem to want to talk about any of the recent improvements that have been made to the build process, it just seems to me like it would be a smart thing to do towards clearing the air with anyone who's previously had a not-so-great impression of Heritage guitars.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FranzMohamitz said:

 

Cool, I guess we can just delete the thread then.

 

Ha.. no , not yet.   It's gonna take more than one award. 

I hope to post the article when I find a good copy. It's an interesting read. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might as well talk about the elephant in the room. They don't advertise or market because they're embarrassed by the headstock. The Circle-H inlay was clearly an attempt to get people focusing on the silly logo instead of the silly headstock. Not even that level of shock-and-awe change worked.  It's all about the headstock, people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That headstock sucks!

With the possible exceptions of the models I've seen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Dick Seacup said:

Might as well talk about the elephant in the room. They don't advertise or market because they're embarrassed by the headstock. The Circle-H inlay was clearly an attempt to get people focusing on the silly logo instead of the silly headstock. Not even that level of shock-and-awe change worked.  It's all about the headstock, people. 

I wasn't a fan of the headstock but it's certainly grown heavily on me in the past couple of years and I don't mind it.  Still, when I take mine out I hear the negative comments about the "ugly headstock" and comparison to Gibson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The jarringly shocking headstock is definitely a point of contention.  A deal breaker.

I like it. 

My only exposure to guitar stuff is the hoc. I don't social media and don't visit guitar Shoppes. It's kinda weird, the only guitars in the world right now are Heritage and some uninteresting brands that get mentioned here occasionally. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Dick Seacup said:

Might as well talk about the elephant in the room. They don't advertise or market because they're embarrassed by the headstock. The Circle-H inlay was clearly an attempt to get people focusing on the silly logo instead of the silly headstock. Not even that level of shock-and-awe change worked.  It's all about the headstock, people. 

Thirty lashes with a used guitar string for you,  young man!  

Now, go to your room!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, FranzMohamitz said:

Alrighty then, I guess the Heritage Buzz is alive and well.  Carry on.

Franz, I know what you are missing.  I miss it too but it had to happen some day and it has happened.  The Heritage brand has lost it's Mojo.  The old timers were the Mojo and it is gone, along with it's best guitar builders who created that Mojo.  Now Heritage Guitars is just another business.  You can still get a nice guitar from them but it ain't the same.  I drove 11 plus hours to visit that factory -so many times.  I made great fiends.  Now I don't even have a desire to ever darken their door steps again with my shadow. 

While many on this forum will defend the new Heritage brand I don't like it.  They can keep their plaza.  I sure as hell will not be visiting their bierhalle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, High Flying Bird said:

Franz, I know what you are missing.  I miss it too but it had to happen some day and it has happened.  The Heritage brand has lost it's Mojo.  The old timers were the Mojo and it is gone, along with it's best guitar builders who created that Mojo.  Now Heritage Guitars is just another business.  You can still get a nice guitar from them but it ain't the same.  I drove 11 plus hours to visit that factory -so many times.  I made great fiends.  Now I don't even have a desire to ever darken their door steps again with my shadow. 

While many on this forum will defend the new Heritage brand I don't like it.  They can keep their plaza.  I sure as hell will not be visiting their bierhalle. 

I wouldn't dare debate the mojo or lack thereof around here these days. The sunshine brigade (all 10 of them) has grown to powerful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congrats, Franz.  Nothing new here, but this thread addresses core "issues" among the faithful, and you've managed to draw out some of the HOC "heavyweights" to respond.  Though nothing new's been plowed up, there's a lot of essential truth and insight, as well as a bit of scar tissue, on offer here.  Thread's a pretty fair distillation of the alpha and omega of The HOC since the transition to the new ownership.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

And my $.02 regarding your question: "I'm simply curious as to why they don't seem to want to talk about any of the recent improvements that have been made to the build process, it just seems to me like it would be a smart thing to do towards clearing the air with anyone who's previously had a not-so-great impression of Heritage guitars."  When I joined The HOC twelve years ago, Q.C. (and build time) was perhaps the "Big Issue."  Pretty basic stuff (like bad nuts) was a consistent gripe with new guitars; little things do mean a lot.  However, I can't imagine a potential customer responding positively to an ad campaign which is based on the idea that, "The new guitars are better (and more expensive) because we're not screwing up the easy stuff anymore!"  I don't think a new Heritage is necessarily better than an older good one, but I suspect that high quality is much, much more consistently achieved.  And, as has been stated above, as the the boutique builder market expanded (and boy has it!), Heritage guitars were underpriced.  And that simply wasn't sustainable.

 

   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, yoslate said:

Congrats, Franz.  Nothing new here, but this thread addresses core "issues" among the faithful, and you've managed to draw out some of the HOC "heavyweights" to respond.  Though nothing new's been plowed up, there's a lot of essential truth and insight, as well as a bit of scar tissue, on offer here.  Thread's a pretty fair distillation of the alpha and omega of The HOC since the transition to the new ownership.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

And my $.02 regarding your question: "I'm simply curious as to why they don't seem to want to talk about any of the recent improvements that have been made to the build process, it just seems to me like it would be a smart thing to do towards clearing the air with anyone who's previously had a not-so-great impression of Heritage guitars."  When I joined The HOC twelve years ago, Q.C. (and build time) was perhaps the "Big Issue."  Pretty basic stuff (like bad nuts) was a consistent gripe with new guitars; little things do mean a lot.  However, I can't imagine a potential customer responding positively to an ad campaign which is based on the idea that, "The new guitars are better (and more expensive) because we're not screwing up the easy stuff anymore!"  I don't think a new Heritage is necessarily better than an older good one, but I suspect that high quality is much, much more consistently achieved.  And, as has been stated above, as the the boutique builder market expanded (and boy has it!), Heritage guitars were underpriced.  And that simply wasn't sustainable.

 

   

Lots of good sense here and I can absolutely see where you're coming from!

Thanks for the insightful comment Yoslate, it's easy to see why some call you the professor.

Truth be told, I was kind of hoping that you'd have rounded things out here with headstock jab....... only because I didn't get why folks were bringing it up and now it's become funny to me.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@FranzMohamitz Once upon a time, many years ago, we had a thread about the Heritage headstock. It got ugly. The thread was no gem either. I remain intrigued by the notion that guitarists play with their eyes, and won't consider a given brand because of something as non-critical to playability and tone as headstock shape. I mentioned it only to amuse myself. Which I try to do as frequently as practicable.  It was not intended as a commentary on your original question, which remains valid, 'though any answer I might give would be speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, FranzMohamitz said:

Lots of good sense here and I can absolutely see where you're coming from!

Thanks for the insightful comment Yoslate, it's easy to see why some call you the professor.

Truth be told, I was kind of hoping that you'd have rounded things out here with headstock jab....... only because I didn't get why folks were bringing it up and now it's become funny to me.

 

4 hours ago, Dick Seacup said:

@FranzMohamitz Once upon a time, many years ago, we had a thread about the Heritage headstock. It got ugly. The thread was no gem either.

Thanks, Franz.  And you know, the thought of taking a cheap shot at the headstock issue did cross my mind, but I chose not to for exactly the reason cited by the esteemed Mr. Seacup, above.  Too easy.  Too pointless.  And that unfortunate scab is plucked at regularly.  Welcome to the fold, by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectively speaking, the Gibson headstock is "silly." I mean, what the heck does an open book shape have to do with guitar? They built it into a highly recognizable trademark, though. Heritage's headstock is plain, but hardly "ugly."

Anyone who is "playing the headstock shape" is stuck on a brand image and probably not reachable.

For everyone else, I think the new Heritage is largely on the right path. Look, the founders were going to retire eventually; change was inevitable once that happened. It's just as likely the whole thing could have disappeared, but instead we have a deep-pockets guy who actually wants to make the company survive and thrive.

The old Heritage of under-the-radar, cheap custom-quality guitars is gone forever, but that model was never really financially viable and certainly not in the current era of boutique guitars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...