I was watching TV earlier, when this ad came on. For some reason, I payed attention to the headstocks of the guitars. How did a Gibson transform into an Epiphone with a strip of electrical tape blacking the logo?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSNpo9_r ... ure=relmfu

_________________
1984 Squier Contemporary Stratocaster
1986 Peavey Envoy 110
1967 Kingston Acoustic

I never saw that ad, but you are definitely right. And the fret inlays magically became dots too.

_________________

What is this TV sorcery??

_________________
1984 Squier Contemporary Stratocaster
1986 Peavey Envoy 110
1967 Kingston Acoustic

Ad people know that it is just stupid to bust up an expensive guitar. I am sure the epiphone did not cost near as much to break.

_________________
RK

2007 Fender Highway 1
2012 American Deluxe
2015 MIM Dave Murray HHH
2010 Fender Blacktop
1987 Fender Avalon Acoustic
2012 Marshall DSL 15 watt head

Ad people also make millions.

_________________
1984 Squier Contemporary Stratocaster
1986 Peavey Envoy 110
1967 Kingston Acoustic

I'm really curious about the reasoning behind this.

_________________
1984 Squier Contemporary Stratocaster
1986 Peavey Envoy 110
1967 Kingston Acoustic

Again, a corporation can. When you have billions at your disposal, you can.

_________________
1984 Squier Contemporary Stratocaster
1986 Peavey Envoy 110
1967 Kingston Acoustic

I'm not a corporation.

If money meant nothing to me, I wouldn't have a job.

_________________
1984 Squier Contemporary Stratocaster
1986 Peavey Envoy 110
1967 Kingston Acoustic

It all depends on how my company is doing at the time. If the company is fresh in the black, or the ad plug (Gibson logo not blurred) covers more than the cost of the guitar, why not? I don't want an acoustic anyways.

_________________
1984 Squier Contemporary Stratocaster
1986 Peavey Envoy 110
1967 Kingston Acoustic

1. It could be that Gibson allowed the guitar to be in the commercial but would not allow it to be broken, hence the tape over the Epiphone name. That would allude that Gibson is so cheap that a baby could break it within 2 seconds of playing with it. Not good for business.

2. Personally if I owned an ad company, I would not allow an 1800 to 2500 dollar guitar to be broken just for the sake of an ad; that could be the difference between vacationing in the Hamptons or in Aruba. When it comes right down to it, busting a cheaper look-a-like guitar serves the same purpose and saves money since most of non-guitar playing America will not even notice the difference.

_________________
RK

2007 Fender Highway 1
2012 American Deluxe
2015 MIM Dave Murray HHH
2010 Fender Blacktop
1987 Fender Avalon Acoustic
2012 Marshall DSL 15 watt head

You have common sense, yet you don't bother to inspect before you buy? I have common sense, I just would rather not waste my time with an acoustic. Does not sound pretty, and can't be cranked.

_________________
1984 Squier Contemporary Stratocaster
1986 Peavey Envoy 110
1967 Kingston Acoustic

I couldn't listen 10 seconds in.

_________________
1984 Squier Contemporary Stratocaster
1986 Peavey Envoy 110
1967 Kingston Acoustic

Acoustic or clean aren't things I do or enjoy commonly.

_________________
1984 Squier Contemporary Stratocaster
1986 Peavey Envoy 110
1967 Kingston Acoustic

I'm thinking that the Gibson might actually belong to Jimmy Fallon, who really does play guitar (he does a lot of comedy and parody songs on his show). Or perhaps the guitar was part of his payment for doing the ad.

Or maybe the Gibson went home with somebody else who worked on the commercial.

At any rate, switching out the valuable guitar with the cheaper Epiphone was smart -- the ad was no less effective because of it (I've seen this commercial a bunch of times and didn't notice the switch until it was pointed out here), and somebody, I'm sure, got themself a nice instrument.

Just because a corporation can afford to smash a valuable instrument doesn't mean they should for no reason. No use wasting money needlessly.

Kind of crazy the direction this whole thread took. It is obvious that the producer of this commercial, not Gibson BTW, did not want to smash a more expensive Gibson and substituted it for a cheaper Epiphone at the end. So what? Just good common sense if you ask me. Maybe the Gibson belonged to the actor and he did not want his pride and joy smashed so substituted it at the end just to make a cool commercial. All kind of silly if you asked me where this ended up in this discussion! Silly.........

_________________
Xhefri's Guitars
www.xhefriguitars.com