Fender Steel King

Tony Prior · Post by **Tony Prior** » 8 Apr 2006 9:14 am

without a doubt the first and foremost reason Peavey has such a wide window of users is that they HAVE had a dedicated Steel Guitar amp in manufacturing lineup since the 70's..

and still do...

and not only is the NEW market a target for Peavey Steel amps..

the USED market is HUGE for Peavey STEEL amps..

They have filled the markets with many varieties of STEEL amps, of which the only bad thing anyone ever has to state refers to size and weight..

never tone and reliablilty.

This does not take anything away from Fender amps or the Steel King..

But it is curious as to why Fender did not spend a bit more time over the past 30 years evaluating the Steel Guitar amp market..even though it is small compared to the 6 stringers..

Gary Lee Gimble · Post by **Gary Lee Gimble** » 8 Apr 2006 9:41 am

curious as to why Fender did not spend......more time...... evaluating

Probably the same reason the folks at Chateau de Beaucastel opted not to dabble with a share of the MD 20/20 market.

John Fabian · Post by **John Fabian** » 8 Apr 2006 11:29 am

Maybe word of mouth has surpassed the need to procure a marketing plan and the amp is selling itself?

Actually, word of mouth marketing (WOMM) is not new. It is now called viral or buzz marketing. The technology available today can make it very effective. Apple used WOMM very effectively in the '80's calling it evangalism. Marketing encompasses many different forms and mediums of communication.

Bill McCloskey · Post by **Bill McCloskey** » 8 Apr 2006 12:01 pm

"There are a host of other technical, personal, economic or other non-marketing reasons why a steeler might choose a Peavey over the FSK."

Well actually all of things fall into the purvue of marketing.

There are only two reasons one product sell better or worse than another. Product A is inferior to Product B, or Product A is not marketed as well as Product B.

Things like features, price, reliabilty, position in the community, name recognition are all functions of marketing.

So when you take issue with my statement that it's not the marketing that makes the difference between the two products, I can only assume you believe one product to be inferior in quality to the other product. Which is the reason I read your statement the way I did.

Jeff Agnew · Post by **Jeff Agnew** » 9 Apr 2006 6:54 am

Things like features, price, reliabilty, position in the community, name recognition are all functions of marketing.

I disagree. They aren't functions of marketing, they are product elements which can be marketed. There is a difference. Although I'll concede most contemporary marketers believe every portion of the business process should be subservient to themselves.

I can only assume you believe one product to be inferior in quality to the other product.

That's your assumption, based in my case on a faulty premise. It is not what I believe. But this helps illustrate why professional marketers often badly miss the mark with certain niches or paradigms - faulty assumptions.

I'll be happy to continue this discussion with you via e-mail if you'd like but I think we've beaten this dead horse into a pulpy mass.

Steve Feldman · Post by **Steve Feldman** » 9 Apr 2006 7:15 am

I hate marketing....[This message was edited by Steve Feldman on 09 April 2006 at 08:15 AM.]

Curt Langston · Post by **Curt Langston** » 9 Apr 2006 8:15 am

However their hands are tied by their prospective companies remains a mystery.

The steel guitar market compared to the six string electric is probably 3% at best.

If we would like to encourage Fender to implement more agressive steel guitar amplifier marketing, then perhaps we should do our part in promoting the instrument itself, as opposed to bashing the likes of Robert Randolph, who has given the community more steel guitar than it has ever seen.

No company wants to throw money down a money pit. It is obvious that Peavey has stood by the steel players more than anybody has.

------------------
I'd rather be opinionated, than apathetic!

Bill McCloskey · Post by **Bill McCloskey** » 9 Apr 2006 12:00 pm

"They aren't functions of marketing, they are product elements which can be marketed. "

No, they are functions of marketing, pure and simple. I suggest you read Peter Drucker.

But I agree, we've beaten it to death. I have no interest in pursuing this privately.