- Joined
- Jul 1, 2006
- Messages
- 299
- Reaction score
- 0
I never expected to hear that the new forum claimed bass would have joined the Thumb family. As a marketing advisor (and a true Thumb bass addicted freak) I think that the name Thumb for a product lacking the shape of a Thumb it's a gross mistake, and I'll explain why.
The Thumb Bass (together with the Streamer) has made the Warwick history as one very particular instrument both for its design and for its phisical and acoustic characters. This fact has thousands of implications within Warwick's brand equity, which is the longer lasting and most important value of a product when it's tied to the emotional perception the consumers have of it. Our emotions are consequently tied to the design of that product, thus it's easy to understand why an unexpected association between an historical name and a new design may result in an historical mistake. Each Warwick brand (Thumb, Streamer, Corvette, Infinity...) has its own mass of followers and fans, technically called the segments, and they are there for that special design and feel, a completely new product that it's likely to talk as a re-definition of that particular concept can endanger their view of the brand because it violates a known relationship between them and their favourite instrument. Forgive me if it seems I am rowing on the opposite direction, especially beacause the new bass is being launched at NAMM right in these days but, being a loyal Warwick user, I believe the whole operation could have gained even more importance and attention if the new instrument would have gotten just a different name, more suitable to a completely different instrument, it could have been even thought as a cross-segmented product. In other words something never seen before should have a name never heard before. My best compliments anyway to the Warwick guys, the new bass it's really amazing and with such a lot of wood I believe it has tons of sustain and long lasting growls.
Best regards,
Daniele
The Thumb Bass (together with the Streamer) has made the Warwick history as one very particular instrument both for its design and for its phisical and acoustic characters. This fact has thousands of implications within Warwick's brand equity, which is the longer lasting and most important value of a product when it's tied to the emotional perception the consumers have of it. Our emotions are consequently tied to the design of that product, thus it's easy to understand why an unexpected association between an historical name and a new design may result in an historical mistake. Each Warwick brand (Thumb, Streamer, Corvette, Infinity...) has its own mass of followers and fans, technically called the segments, and they are there for that special design and feel, a completely new product that it's likely to talk as a re-definition of that particular concept can endanger their view of the brand because it violates a known relationship between them and their favourite instrument. Forgive me if it seems I am rowing on the opposite direction, especially beacause the new bass is being launched at NAMM right in these days but, being a loyal Warwick user, I believe the whole operation could have gained even more importance and attention if the new instrument would have gotten just a different name, more suitable to a completely different instrument, it could have been even thought as a cross-segmented product. In other words something never seen before should have a name never heard before. My best compliments anyway to the Warwick guys, the new bass it's really amazing and with such a lot of wood I believe it has tons of sustain and long lasting growls.
Best regards,
Daniele
Last edited by a moderator:

