From this Tuesday's Wall Street Journal:
Gibson®
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
Gibson Musical Instruments, market leading century old $500 million global manufacturer and distributor of musical instruments seeks an aggressive, performance driven entrepreneurial Chief Operating Officer. Applicant must have cross functional experience (Operations, Logistics, Marketing and Finance) and full P&L responsibility, including successful turnaround experience with under performing business segments. Candidate must have a minimum ten year track record of progressive career growth and responsibility in achieving aggressive growth and financial goals in global manufacturing, distribution and logistics driven companies. Position will report to the CEO. Role will involve travel between domestic and international business units. Candidate must be able to build and motivate a team of successful Business Unit Managers. MBA required.
This is a high energy shirt-sleeve position in a performance driven flat structured entrepreneurial culture. Only those applicants that are proven entrepreneurs driven to succeed, and who measure their accomplishments with mandatory daily win/lose performance metrics will be successful in this role and need apply.
Please send copy of resume with salary history (MSWord format) to: micki.kaleta@gibson.com. No Phone Calls Please.
If only I was half qualified. :wink:
I'd hate to have that job.
Gibson's CEO and board of directors are convinced that things like diluting the Gibson name by selling branded crap in discount shopping stores like Target and Wallmart is a good idea.
They are completely of the mind that cutting costs is the route to higher profits.
They completely fail to apprehend that the reason they're loosing market share is that they aren't delivering the quality experience their markup demands and that to fix that they need to build up the Q/A department to the point where customer service isn't even needed in the company. At the same time hiring expensive top-end luthiers to drive their premier products back through the roof in terms of both quality and artistic merit. And that they can either leave the under $1500 market to everyone else (which would be their best bet) or go nuts by spending money on some really high-end manufacturing refits so that they can compete quality wise in that space as well.
They want all the profit and market share, but they don't actually want to deliever either quality or cost competitive products.
My bet is that whoever takes the job will be out the door inside 18 months and won't have made an inch of progress.
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST
Yeah, I get the realities, but when I saw the ad, the allure of it just hit me - COO, Gibson Guitars. Wouldn't it be great to be part of the solution (if there is one)? And how much fun would it be to give your business card to your buddies!
Steve
Allure?
That has all the allure of working at GMC . . .
Failing companies with cluess directors don't have allure for me, regardless of their history and name recognition.
I guess my day job has sapped me of my idealism :)
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST
I'd hate to have that job.
Would you really though? I mean I dislike Gibson's current sideswiping of ignorant customers with poor quality control (that being said there are of course some great gibsons still out there so don't kill me if you just bought a gibson) as well as there pandering of those horrid horrid "gibson" guitars they put into targer/bestbuy/walmart,etc. But, first off, the job probably pays insanely well, plus you get to work around guitars and could potentially make a difference.
Guitarin' isn't a job, so don't make it one.
I have a job that pays insanely well.
I've had jobs that pay better.
I left them because of boards of directors that bought off on ideas as meritless as putting our brand name on a bad product and selling it cheap . . guaranteeing lots of people come to associate the brand with crap.
I like making less money working for a company that knows how to succeed.
Yeah, I'd really hate it. Corporate culture reality is this -- group think wins. Unless a company has crashed into the toilet and is in the process of ceasing to exist (Chrysler in the early 80's, IBM in the late 80's, etc.) the status quo will win out and "radical" ideas (which is anything different from what the CEO and Board of Directors already thinks) simply get you marginalized.
Maybe Gibson wil get lucky and hit the wall, tanking so badly that they have to revitalize in order to even survive, but more likely they'll continue to pull just enough profit from name recognition for another 20 years as they slowly sink in relivance to just another company that makes instruments.
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." -- HST
King's probably right.
They want someone who knows how to do a 'turnaround'... but they're not hiring the top dog. So a new COO might run the factory better, maybe even get the QC up, but the decisions that have an immediate impact on how the world sees Gibson - like selling the 'Signature' line to the mass merchants - are made by the CEO.
He's gonna stay put; he owns the place.
Gibson was nearly bankrupt 20 years ago when two guys bought it - the current CEO and the current president. They've already done their turnaround successfully, cured many of the problems that existed before them, and made the place profitable again for a while. So the big problems they have now are the direct result of their poor decisions (mass market guitars, insanely expensive direct MIDI guitars, etc.) - and those are going to be sacred cows.
Guitar teacher offering lessons in Plainfield IL
So the big problems they have now are the direct result of their poor decisions (mass market guitars, insanely expensive direct MIDI guitars, etc.) - and those are going to be sacred cows.
Reminds me of Harley Davidson back in the 70's with the whol AMF fiasco. If I am not mistaken it was the employees that bought out the ownership and turned the company around. Sometimes it takes a shareholder / employee revolt to change things.
Interview guy: What is the source of your feedback?
Neil Young: Volume.
(Voice from Heaven) Make a quality guitar at a price people can afford and they will buy. :roll:
If you know something better than Rock and Roll, I'd like to hear it - Jerry Lee Lewis
Didn't this happen to Fender a few times?
1) The CBS buyout?
2) In maybe the late 80's-early 90's?
If so, how did Fender get their quality back up to par.
Is it the current nostalga(sp?) craze of Fender that keeps their quality up?
The trouble is, when you get to that level you can be fired on the spot by the Shareholders. All it takes is one year where the dividends aren't higher than last year...
"Be good at what you can do" - Fingerbanger"
I have always felt that it is better to do what is beautiful than what is 'right'" - Eliot Fisk
Wedding music and guitar lessons in Essex. Listen at: http://www.rollmopmusic.co.uk
