Excellent point. As we can be dead sure SEs sell in greater quantities than the rest of the line, they can be seen as subsidizing the bespoke jewels that come out of Stevensville. And I'll bet that, with so many SE units over so many years - a massive user base aggressively play-testing the product - the flow of experiential information has gone back the other way as well. Nother words, just as the experience gained in 15 years of making the Cores informed and improved the SE breed, likewise 20 years of SE experience have surely provided lessons then applied in Stevensville, improving that breed.Had he not launched the SE line, I can not imagine PRS being in the position it is in at this time. It always amazes me when I am window shopping online, that a site will have 30 F or G guitars, and 100 PRS! SE gave him that penetration IMO!!!
As long as someone is paying attention (and I think it's obvious that Paul is, and that the company culture instills the practice of curious attention), all parts of the operation serve to support and improve the others.
As for the stocking quantity, let us not forget what a stroke of genius it was to consciously and aggressively deploy the variation in grain and figuring across every single guitar-sized piece of wood - in conjunction with creative dyeing - to differentiate not just model specs, but every individual guitar. You just stock more variety to provide more choices - because when a shopper starts deciding between two cosmetically different versions of the same model, he's already decided to buy.
Had that been PRS's only shtick, it wouldn't have supported the company for so long - but on top of the inherent design and build quality underneath, it's a kind of addictive icing on the cake that keeps even guys who already have a given model hungry.
I don't know if that was a conscious and calculated plan from the beginning, or whether it just grew out of Paul's pleasure in the cosmetics and was then adopted for its superlative marketing energy - but either way it's a kind of genius. It's Jimmie Webster at Gretsch, with the sparkle and bling and show - but with a better filter for what's a good idea (especially in hardware innovation) and what's just a wild one.
I also notice that when Paul explains a feature or announces a new spec or build detail, it's not a long dissertation with obsessive explanation of the technical nuts and bolts. The reason for its deployment is so simple: it's either "it just works," or "it sounds good." (Let's contrast that with "our market surveys have shown that...")
I've gotten similar answers when I ask an artist why they chose a particular color or shape, a brilliant musician how they decided on a particular element in an arrangement or composition, a graphic designer how they decided on a font or placement and size of page elements - or a guitar builder (or specifier) why they made a particularly inspired decision. I know all these people are versed in the tools and tricks of their trades, and that they understand at least a sufficient part of the theory and mechanics underlying their work.
But the answer is almost always some variation on a kind of blank look, as they realize I'm asking for a decision tree with its rationales and calculations, and wonder why I'd even think in those terms. I almost see all that play across their faces for the moment it takes them to mentally wave it all away and give the right answer: because it was right, because it works, because it's better that way.
Such a simple focus, and such profound consequences. And it looks so easy, sounds so offhand. We think there has to be a trick. Maybe, to those gifted enough to make those right decisions virtually every time, it is easy. Maybe the trick is just to be someone with the innate ability (informed by intuition and experience) who, when confronted with choices, just knows which is the right way to go - and who knows when even something seemingly small is not as good as it can be, and goes looking for improvement.
Them folks is rare!
Last edited: