DIME Working Papers on INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Sponsored by the Dynamics of Institutions and 6th Framework Programme Markets in Europe is a network RIGHTS of the European Union of excellence of social scientists in Europe, working on the eco- nomic and social consequences http://www.dime-eu.org/working-papers/wp14 of increasing globalization and the rise of the knowledge economy. http://www.dime-eu.org/ Emerging out of DIME Working Pack: ‘The Rules, Norms and Standards on Knowledge Exchange’ Further information on the DIME IPR research and activities: http://www.dime-eu.org/wp14 This working paper is submitted by: Thierry Rayna* and Ludmila Striukova** *Imperial College London Email: [email protected] **University College London Email: [email protected] Engineering vs. craftsmanship: Innovation in the electric guitar industry (1945–1984) This is Working Paper No 68 (May 2008) The Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) elements of the DIME Network currently focus on research in the area of patents, copy- rights and related rights. DIME’s IPR research is at the forefront as it addresses and debates current political and controversial IPR issues that affect businesses, nations and societies today. These issues challenge state of the art thinking and the existing analytical frameworks that dominate theoretical IPR literature in the fields of economics, management, politics, law and regula- tion- theory. Engineering vs. Craftsmanship: Innovation in the Electric Guitar Industry (1945–1984) Thierry Rayna, Imperial College London Ludmila Striukova, University College London 11th November 2007 Introduction The topic of innovation has attracted a lot of attention in the past several decades. The focus of the innovation analysis is, however, usually on high- technology innovation, and innovation in low-tech and medium-tech industries (LMT) has rarely been examined. Von Tunzelmann and Acha (2005) define LMT as often being ‘mature’ industries, with little change in technologies and market conditions, for example, the oil industry (Gulli, 1995), food and drink industry (Martinez and Briz, 2000; Menrad, 2004) and retailing (Brown, 1990; Keh, 1998; Tamilia and Reid, 2007), among others. Due to its extensive usage of high-tech, the music industry is often discussed in the innovation literature. Music, however, is not only about recording; it is also about means to create music: the instruments. When it comes to high-tech, the instrument industry is the Antipodes of recording industry and most of the musical instruments are still very much the same as what they used to be centuries ago. Yet, the electric guitar industry provides a good example of a technological evolution which is both conservative and modern and the outcome of innovation in this industry greatly differs from other industries. In fact, the electric guitar represents an intense fusion between an already mature market, the guitar market, and disruptive technologies. Since its invention, in the early 1920s, the electric guitar has been the ob- ject of a constant struggle between conservatism and innovation. Its evolution also reflects the opposition between traditional labour-intensive craftsmanship, seen as a proof of quality, and the industrialised processes required by mass production. The history of the development and adoption of electric guitar is a testimony of these antagonisms. Primitive and mocked at first (the first mass-produced electric guitar was commonly referred to as “canoe paddle”), the electric guitar 1 experienced disruptive changes both in conception and production. It was then widely adopted and became an icon of the consumer society in the 1960’s. Yet, the two most iconic models of electric guitars, the Gibson Les Paul and the Fender Stratocaster, although both as successful, come from very different backgrounds. While they may, at first, seem quite similar, a closer look reveals a large number of differences, in both design and qualities, that reflect the opposition between two technological paths and manufacturing traditions. The study of technological change in the electric guitar industry provides an interesting case of the dominance of an incumbent, Gibson, that is under- mined by the entry of a highly innovative company, Fender, who, despite its technological advance does not completely wipe out the former market leader. At the same time, it relates the story of a strong market leader, Gibson, who has a leading expertise and a vast know-how, but almost loses to a newcomer, Fender, who knows almost nothing about guitars. In both cases, it shows the importance of the right trade-off between innovation and tradition. This article examines the development paths taken by the two main electric guitar manufacturers, Gibson and Fender, and explores the reasons that led to this way of development. In addition, the rate of innovation, and the evolution of this rate, is analysed for both companies. This research is based on two detailed case studies as well as an empirical analysis of the patent statistics related to these two companies. 1 A brief history of the electric guitar Although the guitar, as an instrument, evolved to its definitive form in the beginning of the nineteenth century, it remained, until the mid twentieth cen- tury, in the shadow of other, much more popular instruments, such as mandolin or banjo. The characteristics of the instrument were certainly appreciated (it would, otherwise, have disappeared as many other instruments did over the years) but its relatively weak sound output confined it to solo work or voice accompaniment and prevented it from being used in orchestras. Guitar had some advantages, though. In comparison to other instruments, it was cheap to produce, easy to learn and to carry around; all the ingredients to make it a popular instrument. This is then not surprising that the growing success of guitar has corresponded with the democratisation of music that began during the start of twentieth century. Although the growing usage of guitars among jazz, blues and folk players put guitar in the spotlight, its lack of loudness was still a major obstacle to a large adoption. Starting from the 1920’s, attempts were made to solve this issue by the means of electric amplification. However, it rapidly became clear to the early inventors that a different technology had to be used in the case of guitars and that simply using existing technologies, such as the one used to amplify voice, would not be sufficient. Before World War II, only a handful of electric guitar models had been successfully produced (among them, the famous Gibson ES-150 “Charlie Christian” model). However, most of these models were, in 2 fact, nothing more than standard acoustic guitar models on which a magnetic pickup had been fitted. These early models of electric guitars had serious shortcomings. They were very sensitive to feedback, which meant that the volume of the guitar amplifiers had to remain low. In addition, the opposite vibrations of the strings and the pickups, placed on the guitar soundboard, did not allow for efficient amplifica- tion to take place. Shortly after the war, attempts were made to correct these two problems. The root of both of these issues was related to the hollowness of the guitar body and, since hollowness was not needed anymore, due to the fact that amplification occurred through an external amplifier and not the through the body, the idea of a “solidbody” guitar came to mind to several inventors (among them, the famous guitar player Les Paul, whose early prototype using the solidbody principle was built in 1940). However, the first mass-produced solidbody guitar was released not by a major player in the guitar industry, but by a newcomer instead. Fender, a company formerly producing electronics, released the Telecaster model (then known as the Broadcaster) in 1950. The success, though, was far from being immediate (the Telecaster looked radically different from other guitars and was, at first, mocked and called “canoe paddle” or “snow shovel”). Nonetheless, it became, eventually, evident that the solid body was the last ingredient missing for guitars to become the most popular instrument. Since the hollow body is the part that requires the most craftsmanship, replacing it by a “slice of wood” made solidbody guitars particularly fit for machine industrial mass-production and cheap to produce. Furthermore, it is also one of the most fragile parts that is replaced by a block of wood, making the instrument very resistant and durable. Gibson, market leader at the time, released its first solidbody (the Gibson Les Paul) in 1951. Three years later, Fender released its most successful model, the Stratocaster, which was (and remains to this date) so successful that it actually identifies what an electric guitar ought to be. By the mid 1960’s, solidbody electric guitars had taken over almost the entire guitar market and guitar became the most popular instrument. Electric guitar became an icon of consumer society. In spite of its popularity, however, electric guitar never managed to fully replace acoustic guitars. Apart from the, obvious, reason that the latter do not require electricity to function, which is, sometimes, more convenient, the actual reason is that these are, in fact, different instruments. Electric guitars were meant to produce the same sound as acoustic guitars, but louder. Technological limitations were such, however, that the sound produced by electric guitars was quite different from the acoustic soundIndeed, these technological limitations made electric guitars successful, in the sense that they allowed to create new sounds (such as distortion, sustain, etc.). By failing to reproduce accurately the sound of acoustic guitars, electric guitar became an instrument in its own right. 3 2 Early technological trajectories in the electric guitar industry: Gibson vs. Fender (1948–1958) Gibson and Fender have been the market leading brands of electric (solidbody1) guitars since these were introduced in the 1950’s.