Lots has been said about whether R.Taylor should have retained the "Taylor" name, product differentiation, etc .... Lots of marketing speculation there that clearly can justify either end of the argument. But I personally think Bob and Co. did absolute the right thing by branding this upper echelon guitar the way they did. Not just for all the reasons already mentioned, but also for the solid and established brand that Taylor is in terms of the public's faith that the company will continue to exist and support its high-priced products. You just can't establish immediate public trust in an upstart company ...regardless of how the ad copy would have read, it is simply too risky for folks wanting to drop that much coin into a "luxury item," regardless of who is "behind" it, not to mention ad copy is simply perceived as that: advertising spin. If one is spending high dollar on a discretionary product, they want to know they can trust it not just at point of sale but well down the road.
Whatever people's opinions are on R.Taylors and whether they are "worth it," none cannot deny that they are made and backed by a strong, innovative company that not only has stood the test over decades (particularly in this down exconomy), but exudes corporate "health" as evidenced by everything it does. Taylor's strength as a company, within the music marketplace, and in the public's mind are facts, not opinons; and I am willing to bet Bob, Kurt. et.al. were thinking this when trying to decide on the new moniker.
Edward
