So long Wood & Steel

[donlyn]

We got that "swipe left" meant not for you, Don.  I will still pass.  The free PDF version is worth the price, IMHO.  No matter how pretty the photos are, I would not pay for something where only half of the content was interesting / worth reading, which was the point of my earlier post.

Gotcha.

Be well and play well,

Don

[Maple422]

Here is a small win.
I thought Taylor might put out a yearly model guide in print.
Today I went into my local guitar shop, they have a Taylor room, and in the rack that used to hold Wood and Steel was “Wood and Steel 2023 Taylor Product Guide”!
It won’t be the same as a quarterly W&S but it’s something. I assume they will be mailing it to registered owners.

Ps if anyone wants a subscription printed guitar magazine I suggest “Fretboard Journal” it’s not cheap but it is a great publication, a good choice to fill the printed guitar information void.

[Earl]

I figured that they would still do an annual "catalog" like they used to years ago.  In the 90's there was a slick annual product guide and the quarterly newsprint W&S.  Then they went to the glossy W&S with the winter issue becoming the annual guitar guide. That issue had more depth about the various series, tone woods, and other info.  I may have to swing by my LGS to grab a print copy, just for the archive.  But I will look to see if there is a posted PDF first, to save the auto gas.

[mgap]

They do plan to produce a hard copy of the product guide.
Quoting from the last W&S sent to me:
"We do plan to print an annual product guide edition in late January and distribute it to authorized Taylor dealers, so you'll be able to pick up a tangible copy if you like."

Well, at least there is that going for us.  Except I don't live near and AD, the closest one is Guitar Center, do you think they will have them available and laying around to collect?

[Earl]

I looked on the web site and could not find a PDF version of the 2023 guitar guide (yet).  Looks like I'll have to drive across town at some point to my local store and pick up a hard copy.  Or not.........

[SDTaylorman]

They do plan to produce a hard copy of the product guide.
Quoting from the last W&S sent to me:
"We do plan to print an annual product guide edition in late January and distribute it to authorized Taylor dealers, so you'll be able to pick up a tangible copy if you like."

Well, at least there is that going for us.  Except I don't live near and AD, the closest one is Guitar Center, do you think they will have them available and laying around to collect?

Yep, 2 posts above yours :
"Today I went into my local guitar shop, they have a Taylor room, and in the rack that used to hold Wood and Steel was “Wood and Steel 2023 Taylor Product Guide”!"

The W&S regular edition used to regularly be in a rack by the door at my local GC so yes, IF they have them then they'll be "available and lying around".

[mgap]

They do plan to produce a hard copy of the product guide.
Quoting from the last W&S sent to me:
"We do plan to print an annual product guide edition in late January and distribute it to authorized Taylor dealers, so you'll be able to pick up a tangible copy if you like."

Well, at least there is that going for us.  Except I don't live near and AD, the closest one is Guitar Center, do you think they will have them available and laying around to collect?

Yep, 2 posts above yours :
"Today I went into my local guitar shop, they have a Taylor room, and in the rack that used to hold Wood and Steel was “Wood and Steel 2023 Taylor Product Guide”!"

The W&S regular edition used to regularly be in a rack by the door at my local GC so yes, IF they have them then they'll be "available and lying around".

I hope my closest GC will have them, but I won't hold my breath.  This GC has only a small number of quality guitars on hand.  They don't have a Taylor room.  Rarely have I seen more than 5 Taylors and same for Martins hanging on the walls.  I don't believe I have ever seen a W&S there.  I am not hopeful for this particular GC to have a stack of Taylor product guides for the taking, But things do change, lets wait and see.

[Gabrielobrien]

No, W&S still exists, it's just moved to a wholly digital version. As someone who actually contributes to W&S, it's a much better delivery. I make video content, as well as occasionally writing, and this format allows videos to be embedded right into articles, which is great. It not only allows you to read about an artist, but also to see and hear them within the body of the article, or to see Bob Taylor answering questions by showing you what the answer is in Ask Bob videos. It's hugely useful.
Also, print is insanely expensive. I don't work at Taylor, but it's gotta be most of their marketing budget just going to print W&S issues as my estimates have each issue over $100K in printing alone, much less mailing them out. Also, so many don't get to people, get destroyed in the mail, or get returned to sender. And nearly all of it eventually ends up in the trash bin. I'm glad they're using the budget for other things. I've been traveling more to shoot for Taylor this year so far than any previous year, including artist content, the current piece about the Bluebird Cafe, and all kinds of stuff. I'm about to go film with Bob Taylor at Pacific Rim Tonewoods, which I've wanted to do for 5 years. Print is expensive and frankly really wasteful. Paper, ink, shipping - it's all so costly. Digital is a better format. It's how I read books now too because I can take my iPad on planes instead of trying to carry 3 books.

[SDTaylorman]

No, W&S still exists, it's just moved to a wholly digital version. As someone who actually contributes to W&S, it's a much better delivery. I make video content, as well as occasionally writing, and this format allows videos to be embedded right into articles, which is great. It not only allows you to read about an artist, but also to see and hear them within the body of the article, or to see Bob Taylor answering questions by showing you what the answer is in Ask Bob videos. It's hugely useful.
Also, print is insanely expensive. I don't work at Taylor, but it's gotta be most of their marketing budget just going to print W&S issues as my estimates have each issue over $100K in printing alone, much less mailing them out. Also, so many don't get to people, get destroyed in the mail, or get returned to sender. And nearly all of it eventually ends up in the trash bin. I'm glad they're using the budget for other things. I've been traveling more to shoot for Taylor this year so far than any previous year, including artist content, the current piece about the Bluebird Cafe, and all kinds of stuff. I'm about to go film with Bob Taylor at Pacific Rim Tonewoods, which I've wanted to do for 5 years. Print is expensive and frankly really wasteful. Paper, ink, shipping - it's all so costly. Digital is a better format. It's how I read books now too because I can take my iPad on planes instead of trying to carry 3 books.

HUGE respect for you Gabriel and for all you do but you're wrong about it being a "better format". Easier for Taylor to produce and distribute? Yes. Less costly? Yes. A "better format"? Multiple  studies show no, that we don't take in or retain the information the same way from a screen as we do in print. Due to that I will no longer read W&S. It's actually easier for me too...I just delete the email instead of reading the print magazine and having to walk all the way to my recycling bin. I wish Taylor luck with the future but sad to see them abandon the W&S in print as I'll never see it again (and many of my Taylor owning friends seem to feel the same way).

[Gabrielobrien]

I mean, that's fine no one is gonna make you read it. But as you said, yours was ending up in the bin. That's where most of them end up, as waste. People create a lot of waste and I'm all for cutting down on it as much as we can. Print magazines in general are going away. The inks have heavy metals in them and some of the glossy coatings are plastic, which makes paper non-recyclable. And again, spending that money to print and mail something 3x per year is extremely expensive. I'd have cut it years ago, the same way I cut billboard advertising when I was marketing director for a manufacturing company (saving them over $50K/year) in favor of digital ads.
We're here typing in a digital forum because we've long since moved into a digital world where 80% of Internet traffic is video alone. As a company they're more likely to have success investing in that. Print newspaper and magazine circulation have cratered and the same people who say they'd pay for W&S aren't paying for those things, they're not paying for paywalled news content either. It's a more efficient format, has a much wider potential reach, and while you may not read it most will. The stats already show that or they wouldn't have stopped print. And the benefits go down the line - constant calls and emails because someone who moved and never updated their address didn't get their copy, copies getting destroyed in the mail, copies getting returned because they were undeliverable - the loss is too much to bear and while some people say they'd be willing to pay for it, most aren't and those who are aren't gonna pay enough to make up the difference. So digital is yes better. It's more a much wider audience and is cheaper to make, which frees up money to make more for it.

[Edward]

Kudos to Gabriel: thanks for your insight from "within."  It is essential that other data points --and perspectives, to be sure-- be shared as it tempers animus, or at the very least, quells simmering resentment that is genuinely easy to brew in the echo chamber of net blogs.  Moreover, thanks for doing what you do because, after all, we love Taylor guitars!

The "better format" that is a digital medium is entirely better for the company: time, materials, and dollars spent where they find that they can save this capital and, may I assume, spend it on other company endeavors.  That this is "better" for the company is not hard to understand.  But "better format" is a claim that describes the company's stance, not the end user, let alone the potential consumer of these pricey goods. Better for "a" but worse for "b" is my point. 

Let us not confuse this contention.  There is no shortage of people who are not luddites; no scarcity of those neck deep in today's technology because it defines today's living, yet find innumerable advantages in what many call "analog" choices.  This often is not for their lack of understanding but for their conscious and reasoned choices.  I choose an analog watch, for example, knowing full well what a "smart watch" brings to the table.  Yet the one with hands is on my wrist.  It is the better choice because it suits my purpose.

So it is purpose, then, that drives Taylor's decision.  I get this; we understand the economic benefit of the move, I'm sure.  Likewise, it is a company's purpose to serve its customer base while trying to create the next one.  This is where a company can hit or miss.  I have long applauded Taylor's boldness and foresight to move the needle in a positive direction.  Taylor's growth suits players, but even more, benefits the industry as we have witnessed.  But not every move is golden.  Not for any company.  Whatever direction they deem "better" has to be mutually agreed upon by the marketplace.  This symbiosis builds a company; failing to understand this delicate balance is what brings industrial giants to their demise. 

W&S changing platforms is but one change, and alone will likely not deter a purchase.  But moves taken in sum, in a direction that alienates the very market that has built them, can be perilous.  All companies know this, but not all companies heed.  Time will tell. 

Edward

[ScottSD]

You know, I really appreciate Bob and Kurt's columns but the rest of their magazine does not resonate with me.  I'll read the bits I want on line.

My Bride has been involved with the printing and distribution of a local (color) magazine so I know how much everything costs from printing to postage.  It's outrageous.  To me, nothing compares with having a book or magazine in your hand but I can't fault them at all for deciding to go digital. 

What I wonder is if some bright independent printing house will rise to the occasion for all the folks who absolutely must have a print copy of their favorite publication.  You could $ub$cribe to them to have your favorite "Digital" periodical downloaded, printed and mailed to your home. Just a thought, I'm off to practice now....

Scott

[Gabrielobrien]

The first purpose of a company is to stay in business. You can’t serve your customers if you’re no longer there, and the generation of people deeply attached to print is, frankly, waning. Business needs change. When Taylor became a client of mine 6 years ago, they were years behind the industry on video content. They made almost none. I was one of two people working with them. Now they have an inside production team and work with 7 or 8 outside suppliers too. I’m about to travel to film content with Bob Taylor and others for a project. Telling these stories with words, photos, and videos is to me more valuable than seeing them on a piece of paper.

Kudos to Gabriel: thanks for your insight from "within."  It is essential that other data points --and perspectives, to be sure-- be shared as it tempers animus, or at the very least, quells simmering resentment that is genuinely easy to brew in the echo chamber of net blogs.  Moreover, thanks for doing what you do because, after all, we love Taylor guitars!

The "better format" that is a digital medium is entirely better for the company: time, materials, and dollars spent where they find that they can save this capital and, may I assume, spend it on other company endeavors.  That this is "better" for the company is not hard to understand.  But "better format" is a claim that describes the company's stance, not the end user, let alone the potential consumer of these pricey goods. Better for "a" but worse for "b" is my point. 

Let us not confuse this contention.  There is no shortage of people who are not luddites; no scarcity of those neck deep in today's technology because it defines today's living, yet find innumerable advantages in what many call "analog" choices.  This often is not for their lack of understanding but for their conscious and reasoned choices.  I choose an analog watch, for example, knowing full well what a "smart watch" brings to the table.  Yet the one with hands is on my wrist.  It is the better choice because it suits my purpose.

So it is purpose, then, that drives Taylor's decision.  I get this; we understand the economic benefit of the move, I'm sure.  Likewise, it is a company's purpose to serve its customer base while trying to create the next one.  This is where a company can hit or miss.  I have long applauded Taylor's boldness and foresight to move the needle in a positive direction.  Taylor's growth suits players, but even more, benefits the industry as we have witnessed.  But not every move is golden.  Not for any company.  Whatever direction they deem "better" has to be mutually agreed upon by the marketplace.  This symbiosis builds a company; failing to understand this delicate balance is what brings industrial giants to their demise. 

W&S changing platforms is but one change, and alone will likely not deter a purchase.  But moves taken in sum, in a direction that alienates the very market that has built them, can be perilous.  All companies know this, but not all companies heed.  Time will tell. 

Edward

[ScottSD]

Personally, I much prefer to ingest things that interest me in print and avoid most videos.

How many times have you started reading an article only to find the author has buried the bit you're interested in way down the near the bottom.  With print it's easy to "fast forward" paragraph by paragraph until you get to the part you're there for.  Try that with a similarly structured video. 

In general, it seems, at least to me, a lot of entities produce a video so they can insert ads into their content in order to monetize their audience.  Oh well, in another 25 years or so my opinion won't count near as much...

Scott

[Edward]

...In general, it seems, at least to me, a lot of entities produce a video so they can insert ads into their content in order to monetize their audience.  Oh well, in another 25 years or so my opinion won't count near as much...
Scott

That bold part is me right now, lol!  So I will continue to opine, knowing all the well I have long fallen outside Taylor's demographic for future sales. So I have nothing to lose (well, not completely true as Taylor still is unrivaled in customer service for owners, so this is still important, but as for selling me a new guit, nah!).  I am not ignorant of the fact that business must churn profit if it desires to continue serving its base, and cost cutting is survival; this is basic grade-level economics that really warrants no clarification.  Simple point: all businesses make these economic choices with every "thing" they do.  The very point of a "loss leader," for example, is to take a hit here so you can gain there.  Ahhh, a reasoned choice to lose small in order to gain big.  It's a risk; all business is a risk.  The most intuitive are the ones that thrive.  My hope is Taylor keeps the main thing the main thing. 

Edward