Looking at the new model introductions of recent years (and assuming that what we see on various Gibson forums is somewhat representative), I guess it is fair to say that the SG RI was a success (who'd have thought given that it is short scale and the SG-Z did so badly), the Doublecut/Money did alright and the Studio TBs flopped (which surprised me: I thought there was a market out there with people who wanted something better than an Epi and something less expensive than a reg TB IV and that the NU Metal brigade would eagerly jump on an available 5 string in TB shape).
So what is the recipe behind the SG RI success?
- People want a traditional look from Gibson and something that stays in the heritage, but sound need not be archaic, some versatility is appreciated. Not everyone has ten or more basses to choose from for various sounds.
- They don't want to pay a king's ransom for it, but they are prepared to pay a Gibson premium.
- They like something that is clearly identifiable as a Gibson at first sight and harks back to some - however vague - historical image.
If you look at the above criteria, they pretty much apply to the similarly successful TB IV too. So the lesson learnt should be that Gibson is most successful with traditionally looking instruments in one of their iconic shapes which are gently modernized to meet current player's demands.
Uwe
