Warmoth not an innovation leader anymore?

[stratamania]

But Bosch does do stuff for Audi...


Also the OP said everyone wants a Mercedes, I don't I want an Aston Martin...

 

[Cagey]

Bosch does stuff for a lotta people. They're productive little rascals. I have a generous mittenful of their tools here. Fine stuff.

 

[Day-mun]

It has been said before, but I'll say it again: the problem with comparing guitar parts to these things is that they are not these things.

 

[stratamania]

Bosch does stuff for a lotta people. They're productive little rascals. I have a generous mittenful of their tools here. Fine stuff.

Indeed, i have some of their tools too, and there probably are some of their bits and pieces in my car. They do a lot of good stuff at different price points.

It has been said before, but I'll say it again: the problem with comparing guitar parts to these things is that they are not these things.

Yes guitar parts are different and more specialist. But we like tools

 

[bagman67]

Bosch might be a poor analogy with a $335B market cap. Since it's a privately held concern I have no way of knowing, but I suspect Warmoth might be a $10M company. Probably less. Hell, Fender's market cap is only $369M, so they're roughly a thousand times smaller than Bosch. How much smaller than Fender is Warmoth?

I think the analogy is apt inasmuch as Bosch manufactures auto parts (among many other things), not cars - and won't venture into cars.  And at the retail level, they're kind of a higher-end parts maker.


But really, I think the primary problem with the OP's position is not that he wants a complete guitar, but that he wants stuff that is fundamentally at odds with W's core business:  mass-produced, Fender-licensed parts.  The premise he proceeds from is a faulty one - Warmoth is not a fundamentally innovative parts-maker.  They do come up with some nifty products that are somewhat out-of-the-ordinary, and the quality of the products is generally very high - but the basic offering is bolt-neck guitar bodies and necks.  The degree to which you can customize same is much higher than with Fender, but for individual consumers, if you can't do it on a CNC machine with existing programming, you are invited to find it elsewhere.  No harm done, no offense intended nor taken - that's just not what they do. 


Now if you are, say, Yamaha, to cite a useful example, sure, you probably bring enough capital and need to the table that it's economically sensible to outsource design to the CNC programming talent you don't already have, and adapt tooling to the big buyer's requirements - but one guy with one hard-on for a non-existent design just cannot afford what it takes to pull the lever on his custom fantasy parts the way Warmoth builds them. 



Put another way:  I can't get fried chicken at the coffee joint I favor, even though the skills to make it definitely exist back in the kitchen - it's just not on the menu, and unless I want to engage them to cater a very large event, they're not gonna open the cookbook to the fried chicken recipe for me.  Doesn't matter how much I like fried chicken, nor how good I bet theirs would be.


Now I'm hungry for some fried chicken.  Dang it.

 

[TonyFlyingSquirrel]

Investment is only worth it if their is enough demand in the market place to substantiate it.
Believe me, Ken does his research and knows what sells and what does not.
I can't even begin to recall how many phone conversations I had with people about discontinued products, or the lack of other products in the showcase because the demand does not warrant making something just for it to sit in inventory for 6 years.  It's easy to attach some emotion to an item and then think that if they were made, folks would buy a million of them.  It's highly risky, and unless the demand is showing itself to be true in the market place, it's just not going to happen.

I had a rude awakening when it came to the topic of Signature Models from mainstream manufacturers whom are on friendly first name terms with Ken.

It's the inexpensive, standard off the shelf models that you'll find in your anywhere Guitar Center that keeps those shops in business.  Your average signature model might see 200 sales in a span of about one to five years, but to the fan of that artist, they must be selling truckloads.  The one rare exception would be the Gibson Les Paul (which has taken on just about every incarnation) and the Ibanez Jem (Steve Vai) as it does indeed see some collector value, but even that is limited.  All other signature models are a rare sell.

Take that into consideration when the one-off idea comes from someone who is emotionally charged when presenting the idea, and then look at spreadsheet after spreadsheet of sales figures and statistical data that is collected from multiple manufacturers and retailers.  You'll see quite a bit of difference.

It still comes back to supply and demand.  Sometimes an individual perceives a demand that warrants the R&D of supply, but it is rarely ever accurate.

 

[Cagey]

All good points.

Now I'm hungry for some fried chicken.  Dang it.

Off topic - If you want the best fried chicken you ever ate, get one of these...

Cutlery and More sells them for $99.95 in the box, out the door. Even if you only want fried chicken once every two months, the thing is free in a year relative to take-out. Plus, you can do lotsa other things with it. Highly recommended.

 

[Orpheo]

ADMIN Note: Careful with the racism.

Cheers

 

[Cagey]

I'm not sure he's being "cheap". In fact, I think he said something somewhere upthread about not caring about cost. The argument seems to be more about why Warmoth doesn't provide obscure features, given that they have a lotta talent available and make fine parts from scratch.

 

[TonyFlyingSquirrel]

I'm not sure he's being "cheap". In fact, I think he said something somewhere upthread about not caring about cost. The argument seems to be more about why Warmoth doesn't provide obscure features, given that they have a lotta talent available and make fine parts from scratch.

Doing so would require pulling someone from production which would remove significant labor that provides significant production.  Production numbers would suffer and the perceived profit would be offset by adversely.  This is most often referred to as "opportunity cost".  While in most cases, it is difficult to accurately predict opportunity cost, in Warmoth's case, they have their numbers pretty solid and can project reasonably accurately.  In short, if a profit isn't perceived, it isn't pursued.

 

[cooler23]

Hello all,

Thank you all for interesting points and thoughts. Honestly.

Let me ask you two simple questions...

Why did Warmoth introduce compound radius? Do you think that it was done because huge number of people asked to have this feature?

I see innovation as two way process. It brings value to the producer (less costs for production and warranty, shorter times etc.) and to the customer - more options, longer lifetime or service periods, higher comfort, in case of guitars playability etc. Bosch, Apple, BMW, Audi or the smallest local luthier do the essentially the same thing in the end - they are all trying to bring more value to the customer and by this to compete with others that may offer less value. That is how they survive and thrive. And innovation brings more value to the customer - nothing else. If you think about it innovation = change. If you change anything in the chain that makes somebody somehow more satisfied than you've innovated the process. It doesn't have to be always some kind of breakthrough. It can be a small thing, a refinement, evolution.

And this process of innovation can be also devided into two ways. You are either active innovator - and it is up to you to explain to the customer how this or that can add some more value to them. This is usually how the leaders in each business think and do stuff. Or you are passive innovator. You are waiting for the customers to ask for it (they saw it elsewhere - guess where?) and so they follow the leaders in the business segment who are coming up with new ideas, refinements, evolutions and from time to time even breaktroughs.

I think Warmoth was such active innovator. I wrote "was", because I don't see the effort anymore. Yes, I won't argue that to develop new bodyshape is very hard and time consuming process. But designing a car looking good and that my machine can cut the bonnet or the roof from sheet of metal is one thing. To be great driving car, with great engine, great brakes etc. (to stay with the car industry metaphor) takes more than desinging something that looks good. Where are the refinements? More new technologies that makes guitarist life easier every day? Which makes all of us be more satisfied players - regardless the looks?

Yes, maybe you are right. Maybe I should contact some small local luthier. Maybe. But I just simply thought that Warmoth was an active innovator at their time, maybe even a visionary company. I'm sad that they became satisfied with things how they are. That they didn't stay hungry - to use words of Steve Jobs. It is certainly good that they made an effort to introduce LP style guitar and some new shapes. But I don't think that this was the real reason that once set them apart from others. But I can - of course - be wrong.

 

[stratamania]

I would think compound radius is a solution to an actual problem. Let's say you have a traditional strat and like the comfort but the notes choke out when bending on higher frets unless you raise the action higher than you would like.

Then you pick up a friends Les Paul, which doesn't choke out as badly but doesn't have the ease of chording that the strat had.  Compound radius is the solution to a real world problem that actually existed and does exist.

You then in the early days of your company introduce this solution as part of your marketing. You become successful with that and a number of other options but at a certain point a business will be successful and further options will just simply not be profitable.

In some businesses it's the law of diminishing returns. Some products that have a greater potential market may rely on the latest thing. The guitar industry less so.  I don't think one is right or wrong as such but you have to be profitable in the market you operate in.

It's simple economics, I could spend just as an example $10,000 on R & D because a handful of customers say they want a better mousetrap. Let's say I then release it at a price of $500 and a profit of $100 and only two people actually buy and it flops. Where is that company headed ? Worse while doing this it has sacrificed production time and lost revenue on it's known to be profitable lines.

Henry Ford, once said you could have any colour you like, as long as it was black or words to that effect. Ford today have more options but they are still going to sell their current line, in the meantime what they are developing they will want to be winners out of the gate as much as possible.

At the end of the day it's supply, demand, profit and loss. If innovation matches into that model for a company in a particular sector they may do it, if not they will keep doing what is proven and profitable.

Now for the customer you have a choice of many suppliers, and if none of them offer what you seek you could yourself invest and start a company to offer the innovation you think will succeed. Perhaps it may but if there isn't a market it may flop.

Not much of the above really has anything to do with Warmoth, it's just general comment.

 

[Day-mun]

<redacted by admin>

Cheers

-Really, dude? -REALLY?  :doh:

 

[TonyFlyingSquirrel]

Well said Stratamania.

I will add to your final 3 paragraphs that an individual consumer rarely, if at all, will have an accurate handle on what SDPL (Supply-Demand-Profit-Loss) will look like for any particular company or market.  If any of these companies have a reasonably resourceful Information Technology person on staff, then they will have the tools to accurately report sales, and therefore trends in the market, taking rises and falls in the economy into consideration, and therefore, accurately and likely conservatively project production needs to supply the demand.

 

[cooler23]

I would think compound radius is a solution to an actual problem. Let's say you have a traditional strat and like the comfort but the notes choke out when bending on higher frets unless you raise the action higher than you would like.

Then you pick up a friends Les Paul, which doesn't choke out as badly but doesn't have the ease of chording that the strat had.  Compound radius is the solution to a real world problem that actually existed and does exist.

You then in the early days of your company introduce this solution as part of your marketing. You become successful with that and a number of other options but at a certain point a business will be successful and further options will just simply not be profitable.

In some businesses it's the law of diminishing returns. Some products that have a greater potential market may rely on the latest thing. The guitar industry less so.  I don't think one is right or wrong as such but you have to be profitable in the market you operate in.

It's simple economics, I could spend just as an example $10,000 on R & D because a handful of customers say they want a better mousetrap. Let's say I then release it at a price of $500 and a profit of $100 and only two people actually buy and it flops. Where is that company headed ? Worse while doing this it has sacrificed production time and lost revenue on it's known to be profitable lines.

Henry Ford, once said you could have any colour you like, as long as it was black or words to that effect. Ford today have more options but they are still going to sell their current line, in the meantime what they are developing they will want to be winners out of the gate as much as possible.

At the end of the day it's supply, demand, profit and loss. If innovation matches into that model for a company in a particular sector they may do it, if not they will keep doing what is proven and profitable.

Now for the customer you have a choice of many suppliers, and if none of them offer what you seek you could yourself invest and start a company to offer the innovation you think will succeed. Perhaps it may but if there isn't a market it may flop.

Not much of the above really has anything to do with Warmoth, it's just general comment.

Thank you very much for your response. I appreciate it very much.

Just few comments. When you are doing your first mousetrap - and you see many makers are already doing it - I think you better do something different in the world of mousetraps. Something that would stand out. I guess that is how any reasonable newcomer would do it. But that means risking is almost inevitable.

Now if you are a stable company with quite wide portfolio of mousetraps (from the cheapest to expensive and relatively hi-tech ones) then you either wait untill one of these new guys thinks of something revolutionary and then you try to copy him. Or you are the one who widens his portfolio and launch some new out-of-the-box-thinking mousetrap to preserve your lead on the market. Maybe in limited numbers for a small group of geeks at first. Or for the reason to become a leader. But certainly you don't want to stay and look how your market share is shrinking.

I think that law of diminished returns is not precisely what I had in mind. With a little help from Wikipedia: "For example, the use of fertilizer improves crop production on farms and in gardens; but at some point, adding more and more fertilizer improves the yield less per unit of fertilizer, and excessive quantities can even reduce the yield." I was kinda talking about improving the fertilizer itself.

Warmoth addressed the existing problem with the compound radius. That is great! That is why I love Warmoth. Lets say it is similar to air conditioner in the car. Before it - you were really hot or cold in your car. The first company which addressed this problem gained some edge in the market. Others copied them. But - does it stop here? Well, some time after that some car manufacturer introduced dual zone aircon. That meant that the driver could set his own temperature and the person next to him a different one. Was it an exising problem as such? Well, we could argue about that. The main problem of being too hot or too cold was kind of resolved with the normal aircon. But it can be done better - if you try and find ways yourself to improve it. And even without the huge demand from the customers. That's what makes you keep the edge in the market.

Yes, at the end of the day it indeed is supply, demand, profit and loss. But the question is weather to wait for the demand to come. Or simply make the demand. When someone designs a a fresh looking beautiful car - was it because there was a huge demand for this very design? Or does this design was so good, so persuasive that it has won hearts of many?

Ruokangas guitars are using moose shinbone as a nut. They've tried every modern or old materials available. They have tested all and find out that this one is the best. Even though they've chosen very old material I see it as an innovation. They made an effort to test, test and test again to find out the best solution for the customer, to add the highest value. And they have now the best possible material they CAN obtain. But only UNTIL something BETTER show up. And that is what I call active innovation. I feel from them that they are willing to change, to try new things, that they are already making effort before customers ask them to do it. Of course they could ask some ultra high-tech lab to make them some  super-hard and super-slippery guitar nut material - but I completely understand, that if such material only for nut would double the price of the guitar, then the value added would be much less then the value taken by the higher price. But that is up the the customer to decide. Alessandro amps - they offer all wiring in the amp in pure silver for insane amount of money. I don't belive many people have actualy bought the amp with such option. But they pushed the evelope and at least offer it. For the few who value such option so much that they are willing to pay for it.

Anyway - it think that all industries are more or less the same. All move forward. Only difference is the pace in which the industry develops. Certainly guitar parts in not as quickly moving forward as mobile phones or car industry. But as it is in F1 racing - we will see the technologies that are now in F1 cars in 5 years in luxury cars, and in 10 years in regular cars. But what I like is, that now even some of the technologies are not present in the F1 - they are in the new S class first. That is what I call active innovation. To be even better than F1 car (in some way). They could have said to themselves that it would be enough to just beat BMW.

We see more and more companies using baked (roasted) woods. These are still the F1 teams of the guitar world (Suhr, Anderson etc). But it will soon go to lower price ranges as well (my guess, I may be wrong). It has clear benefits and there is even scientific evidence to back it up  ( http://goo.gl/9ADAGU ). And that may be the time even Warmoth scratch their heads and introduce it as well. But that will be different from how they introduced improvements to the designs years ago - they were one of the first to do it. And that is the attitude I miss from them now.

 

[TonyFlyingSquirrel]

There are very few things that have actually created demand by those that could supply it, as far as the past 35 years is concerned.

Some of the more obvious ones would be.
The double locking tremolo, ie: the Floyd Rose patented design.
Amp Modeling
Variax Technology.

Innovation isn't something that happens every day, but rather here and there every decade or more.
This is why the core essence of the electric guitar has gone widely unchanged for so long.

 

[Cagey]

There are very few things that have actually created demand by those that could supply it, as far as the past 35 years is concerned.

You forgot locking tuners, roller nuts, noiseless single coils, polyurethane, straplocks...

 

[cooler23]

Innovation isn't something that happens every day, but rather here and there every decade or more.
This is why the core essence of the electric guitar has gone widely unchanged for so long.

I would not agree that innovation does not happen every day. Yes, breaktroughs do not happen every day. But innovation yes. Every half a year you can see NAMM or Musikmesse full of improved stuff. Which took months or years of everyday improving. Which is innovation process. Each time you do even the smallest thing better - you have innovated the process. Don't just look on the game changers. I don't need Warmoth to come up with a game changer.

The car if you look at it as a concept of metal cage with 4 wheels and seats inside hasn't changed a bit. Then of course - guitar hasn't changed at all. The car is still made of metal as the guitar is still made of wood. Nothing's changed. Or has it?

It depends how close do you want to look.

 

[stratamania]

Mentioning Ruokangas, I actually met and talked with Juha, the other day in Cologne. That was for me as a guitar player and someone who takes an interest in guitar construction a great experience. I also got to play some great guitars... Juha, is a great person to talk to by the way if you have an opportunity to meet him. We even discussed stainless steel frets and polishing them.

Now Ruokangas, is a small team of about 4 - 5 people, and Finland did start using thermally treated woods well before anyone else, and they were involved in a study of it for tonewoods. It was one of the subjects we touched on along with head stock strengthening and various topics. They build around 120 guitars a year, and so are a different type of guitar company to Warmoth and perhaps can offer options outside of a standard offering at a price.

This is where you have to look at differences between different manufacturers in different or similar industries, what applies to one doesn't alway apply to another. Vive la difference.

But there are some similarities with Ruokangas and Warmoth, they both have innovative web sites, with building and quotation tools although they are slightly different of course. They both offer stainless steel or nickel frets.

I was also at the MusikMesse, and I think in addition to some new products and innovations I saw a lot of variations on a theme and some stands with the tried and true...

The world does need innovation at times, but at times we also need the familiar and the dependable. Plus ca change, plus ce le meme chose, the more that things change the more  they stay the same.

I just looked at  the microsoft release event of the Surface Pro 3 and I think it's great. I may even get one... So I am not against innovation as such when it's needed.

I still say innovation is a bit of an overused buzz word.

Finally Unicorns do exist

 

[The Hun]

This thread is rather hard to believe.

Warmoth has recently released a batch of new body shapes and headstocks. This was in reaction to some negative BS, but such things spur innovation.

Proactively, the web-site continues to improve and new paint options like metallic bursts offered. Hopefully the chameleon metallics become a selectable future option...definitely not a crew that's coasting along, afraid of new things.