Unsolicited advice for anyone who thinks they are gonna buy the Hamer name

[dragan]

Hamer to me was two young guys with long hair makin guitars you wished gibson made but didnt . I have know idea what kind of buisiness men they were , but the years from about 1980 -2000 were some tough years to keep up with musical trends. A lot of companies came & went during these years .

[anathemata]

Jol screwed Hamer as far as I'm concerned.

I'm a bit mystified as to why Jol is perceived as the person making all the decisions with Hamer. My sense in doing interviews for The Book was that wasn't the case. Sure, he had a part to play and he very much became the face of the company for the public, but that doesn't mean all ideas were his or that he was happy with every direction the company took.

It's been well documented and BEAT TO DEATH here that Jol turned down custom orders from some (like me) and then turned around and made the same goddamn guitar for someone else. I don't care what he says/said in THE BOOK.

I agree that it's been beaten to death. And that's my point. Everyone gripes about Jol and custom orders and somehow extrapolates that that was the reason for Hamer's demise. My understanding is that he didn't personally make all decisions about custom orders. Whether he did or not, I find it strange that HFCers harp on that issue when there are a lot of figures in the course of the company, no less pivotal than Hamer himself, Frank U, or Bill Kaman who played a larger part in the direction the company took and yet all that gets discussed is hurt feelings about denied custom orders.

[hamerhead]

When somebody else gets the guitar they previously refused to build for you, it's a pretty legitimate bitch.

Hamer's inability to focus on a direction probably didn't help things.

[anathemata]

When somebody else gets the guitar they previously refused to build for you, it's a pretty legitimate bitch.

Hamer's inability to focus on a direction probably didn't help things.

Sure. I'd be mad too. But is that the reason why Hamer failed to gain a larger portion of the market?

[cmatthes]

Although that may have been a contributing factor in some way, I agree with Joe that there's more likely bigger reasons that Hamer didn't grab a larger market share or attain the ultimate success we'd all have liked to see.

The model didn't work for a number of reasons, but in all honesty, nobody here has the complete picture - we only know what has been eyedroppered out and what we've seen, mostly since this site started in the mid-90s.

Whether the failings were blunders, by design, corporate intrigue or just bad timing, we can all speculate and discuss to death a million ways, but I'm not certain anybody here is qualified to conclusively pin it on any one strategy, quirk, or even one individual. Yeah, I was pissed that the order for a Standard headstock on a Studio Custom body with Prototype/Phantom electronics wasn't approved (until right when the doors were closing and I couldn't afford it!), but I still submitted that order at least once a year for close to a decade. Maybe that was just a running joke in New Hartford, who knows? I still had plenty of other choices to keep me happy. It's not like Gibson would put an Explorer headstock on a Les Paul for me ever.

This would make a great case study for a graduate business class though...

[zorrow]

When somebody else gets the guitar they previously refused to build for you, it's a pretty legitimate bitch.

Hamer's inability to focus on a direction probably didn't help things.

Sure. I'd be mad too. But is that the reason why Hamer failed to gain a larger portion of the market?

Neither the only nor the main one.

The main one was, to me, their lack of lust for growing. That might have come from Kaman, but of course I don't know. The fact is that they just wanted to remain small, so stopped giving a dime to endorsers, stopped doing effective publicity and so on.

Now, remaining small as a boutique builder means that you have to fully embrace the customization principle to succeed, right? Well, they didn't do so either, which implied they also failed as a custom builder. They tried to revert the situation when Jol left, but IMHO it was already too late –as the market was unfavorable when this happened.

[anathemata]

Whether the failings were blunders, by design, corporate intrigue or just bad timing, we can all speculate and discuss to death a million ways, but I'm not certain anybody here is qualified to conclusively pin it on any one strategy, quirk, or even one individual.

Totally agree. I certainly don't have all the answers. I just want to question the whole "Jol was the death of Hamer" way of thinking.

[jisham]

Jol screwed Hamer as far as I'm concerned.

I'm a bit mystified as to why Jol is perceived as the person making all the decisions with Hamer. My sense in doing interviews for The Book was that wasn't the case. Sure, he had a part to play and he very much became the face of the company for the public, but that doesn't mean all ideas were his or that he was happy with every direction the company took.

It's been well documented and BEAT TO DEATH here that Jol turned down custom orders from some (like me) and then turned around and made the same goddamn guitar for someone else. I don't care what he says/said in THE BOOK.

I agree that it's been beaten to death. And that's my point. Everyone gripes about Jol and custom orders and somehow extrapolates that that was the reason for Hamer's demise. My understanding is that he didn't personally make all decisions about custom orders. Whether he did or not, I find it strange that HFCers harp on that issue when there are a lot of figures in the course of the company, no less pivotal than Hamer himself, Frank U, or Bill Kaman who played a larger part in the direction the company took and yet all that gets discussed is hurt feelings about denied custom orders.

This whole thread talks about lots of reasons and speculations for Hamer's demise, and I agree with Cmatthes it came about for lots of reasons. However, I can only speak for myself and why I stopped buying Hamers. I find it strange you come on here and berate people like me with posts like this. I got screwed over by Jol, so you can defend him all you want because I don't care.

[zorrow]

Fender should resurrect Hamer USA as a Gibson killer, building limited runs of less expensive Gibson-like instruments, but of higher quality.

Secondary to that, custom Hamer USA models could be also built at the Guild custom shop, once the economy will allow it.

[MCChris]

Fender should resurrect Hamer USA as a Gibson killer, building limited runs of less expensive Gibson-like instruments, but of higher quality.

So.....do what Hamer did?

[zorrow]

Fender should resurrect Hamer USA as a Gibson killer, building limited runs of less expensive Gibson-like instruments, but of higher quality.

So.....do what Hamer did?

Maybe so at the beginning, but no longer so under Fender's wing.

[anathemata]

Jol screwed Hamer as far as I'm concerned.

I'm a bit mystified as to why Jol is perceived as the person making all the decisions with Hamer. My sense in doing interviews for The Book was that wasn't the case. Sure, he had a part to play and he very much became the face of the company for the public, but that doesn't mean all ideas were his or that he was happy with every direction the company took.

It's been well documented and BEAT TO DEATH here that Jol turned down custom orders from some (like me) and then turned around and made the same goddamn guitar for someone else. I don't care what he says/said in THE BOOK.

I agree that it's been beaten to death. And that's my point. Everyone gripes about Jol and custom orders and somehow extrapolates that that was the reason for Hamer's demise. My understanding is that he didn't personally make all decisions about custom orders. Whether he did or not, I find it strange that HFCers harp on that issue when there are a lot of figures in the course of the company, no less pivotal than Hamer himself, Frank U, or Bill Kaman who played a larger part in the direction the company took and yet all that gets discussed is hurt feelings about denied custom orders.

This whole thread talks about lots of reasons and speculations for Hamer's demise, and I agree with Cmatthes it came about for lots of reasons. However, I can only speak for myself and why I stopped buying Hamers. I find it strange you come on here and berate people like me with posts like this. I got screwed over by Jol, so you can defend him all you want because I don't care.

I'm not trying to "berate" you or anyone else. I thought this was a matter of discussion. You didn't say Jol "screwed" you. You said "Jol screwed Hamer." I was challenging you on that, not to defend Jol, because I have no horse in that race, but because I think it's more complicated than that. If that pisses you off, that's your perogative.

[Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame]

The lesson from all this, I think, is not "build it and they will come", but "identify who, exactly, you want to sell to and develop a plan to do that in a coherent manner".

Hamer buyers have always had a core group of players who were more serious about having a great quality guitar than worrying about whose name was on the headstock, or what your hero played.

But that wasn't a big enough group to keep the company profitable.

The changes from modern vintage to shredder to Better Fender back to modern vintage to boutique to Custom to Better Gibson back to boutique back to Custom, well, that just prevented too many people from ever really becoming life-long Hamer fans.

And then it didn't help Hamer that some of their biggest fans were people like me: I'm after bargains in guitars. That's it. I want the best guitar I can get for the cheapest money. And Hamer was so good that I can buy 30 year old Hamers based on just a few blurry pictures and be confident I'll get a good player for 1/4 what a new one costs. And never be wrong once.

So I was never going to send any money to Hamer, honestly. Or at most, maybe just for replacement parts and style objects like guitar picks and straps.

Their product was just so good that their used products were a great deal decades later. So for people like me, they were kind of a victim of their own success.

And I'm still not sure what the answer to that is.

[hamerhead]

.....perogative.

HEY! No using big words on this forum.

[BlueRedWhite]

.....perogative.

HEY! No using big words on this forum.

Relax guys..

Let's say that we all are for Hamer coming back in force and selling again shiny, beautiful instruments

I don't think it's anyone's intention to offend anyone else

i realised we are all a bit shaken with Hamer's demise...let's just hope a solution is found.

I want an Oceanburst one day...wiith bloomers, and reverse headstock...

and a Punisher....

[zorrow]

And I'm still not sure what the answer to that is.

Selling the new ones at a price point people like you (and me) will buy them --higher than used, but not soooo higher.

[django49]

"Fender should resurrect Hamer USA as a Gibson killer, building limited runs of less expensive Gibson-like instruments, but of higher quality".

But since folks are so focused on having the "G" on the headstock (and paying up for it), they should name it Gamer(?)

[anathemata]

.....perogative.

HEY! No using big words on this forum.

Relax guys..

Let's say that we all are for Hamer coming back in force and selling again shiny, beautiful instruments

I don't think it's anyone's intention to offend anyone else

You're right on. I certainly don't want to offend. Who doesn't like a little friendly debate? If we all agreed on everything, there'd be no point in discussion boards.

[veatch]

But that wasn't a big enough group to keep the company profitable.

Very well stated post, Nathan, and i think the statement above is a key point.

I'll ask this question because i honestly do not know - which current guitar manufacturers are profitable? Building guitars for a living is not a sane business model in today's economy. There are clearly not enough buyers and the low to mid end market is flooded with ultra-low cost alternatives. The high-end is pretty dense as well, frankly.

Tough way to make a living...

[jon67]

"Fender should resurrect Hamer USA as a Gibson killer, building limited runs of less expensive Gibson-like instruments, but of higher quality".

But since folks are so focused on having the "G" on the headstock (and paying up for it), they should name it Gamer(?)

Gamer Les Jol?

[Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame]

But that wasn't a big enough group to keep the company profitable.

Very well stated post, Nathan, and i think the statement above is a key point.

I'll ask this question because i honestly do not know - which current guitar manufacturers are profitable? Building guitars for a living is not a sane business model in today's economy. There are clearly not enough buyers and the low to mid end market is flooded with ultra-low cost alternatives. The high-end is pretty dense as well, frankly.

Tough way to make a living...

We can try to Fantasy Football this, just for fun. Cuz I like talking about guitars.

Obviously, there are Gibson, Fender, and PRS fanboys who care only about the name on the headstock.

There are Huber, Anderson, James Tyler, etc, buyers, who can afford to have custom guitars built by a boutique maker, because they have the money and want the cache (there are probably multiple competing reasons to buy from a boutique maker)

Where do the Rickenbacker, Robin, Heritage, and Reverend buyers fit in?

Then there are the people who buy Ibanez, BC Rich, Kramer, Charvel-Jackson, Schecter, ESP/LTD (probably the most successful import line, in my opinion), Cort, Peavey, Samick, Epiphone, Squier, First Act, Daisy Rock, Yamaha...

Obviously, there are dozen or more guitar makers I haven't even thought of.

Yamaha tried to create a line of quality guitars that undercut prices, starting from entry level up to top-quality professional guitars. They were so successful that Yamaha is now known as an entry-guitar maker, and their quality guitars are, if anything, more underpriced for the quality than Hamer is. That's saying something.

What group of guitar buyers is there that isn't already captured by one of the above? What market segment could a renewed Hamer dominate? Or if not dominate, then at least be profitable?

I may start a new thread for this discussion.

[bcsride]

I agree. Hamer should have remained in first instance a maker of production instruments built to higher standards than the competition's and retailed at a slightly lower price point.

This isn't really a sustainable business model.

[MCChris]

I agree. Hamer should have remained in first instance a maker of production instruments built to higher standards than the competition's and retailed at a slightly lower price point.

This isn't really a sustainable business model.

Agreed. Manipulating the marketplace's perception of the value of your brand is the way to go. And that toothpaste left Hamer's tube a LONG time ago.

[burningyen]

Hamer's costs drop $400 per guitar after Jol left.

Can you go into specifics?

[HSB0531]

"Fender should resurrect Hamer USA as a Gibson killer, building limited runs of less expensive Gibson-like instruments, but of higher quality".

But since folks are so focused on having the "G" on the headstock (and paying up for it), they should name it Gamer(?)

Hambson Les Jol