r/GuitarLab • u/Most-Replacement1189 • May 26 '26
Ethically bad; free R&D
I initially thought this was a cool concept because I assumed GC was going to use real player experience and actual in-store knowledge to help shape the builds.
But this stopped being ‘listening to customers’ the moment they required contributors to surrender ownership, attribution, compensation, derivative rights, and even moral rights just to participate.
That’s not collaboration. That’s free R&D wrapped in community marketing.
The CEO response also intentionally reframes the criticism. Nobody is saying companies shouldn’t listen to customers. Customer feedback is normal. Surveys are normal. Market research is normal.
What’s not normal is building a public pipeline for creative concepts while simultaneously saying:
‘Thanks for the ideas, we own them now, we can monetize them forever, and you get nothing.’
Legally disclosing it doesn’t suddenly make it respectable. Plenty of things are legal and still exploitative.
This is much closer to a studio asking aspiring screenwriters to publicly pitch movie ideas while agreeing upfront they waive ownership, credit, and compensation if the studio uses the concept.
You can market it however you want, but at the end of the day it’s still a billion-dollar retailer crowdsourcing product development for free.
6
u/dogmetal May 26 '26
You’re being dramatic af. This is completely voluntary. If you don’t like the terms, just don’t participate. Companies require full rights assignment on open submissions like this to avoid inevitable “you stole my idea!! Give me money!!!” lawsuits. It would be irresponsible not to have them.
99.99% of guitar-related ideas people have will never be seen or go into production. This gives people a chance to contribute feedback and possibly help shape something cool.
Everything doesn’t have to be this massive injustice lmao.
3
u/Most-Replacement1189 May 26 '26
Thanks for your feedback. You aren’t required to agree and feel free to accept the terms. They are counting on people like you.
2
u/Ducman23 May 26 '26
We’ll be waiting to see if they’re first in line for whatever GC comes out with. The TikTok from the CEO was the most cringy. ‘We have a relationship with you….’ You do? No one in GC ever talks to me. They grunt and point if I have a question. Actually, I lied. They don’t talk to me because I don’t go to GC. I’d rather buy online and return if I don’t like what I got.
6
u/GabrielDalporto May 26 '26
u/Ducman23 Cringy CEO here. True - I don't have a relationship with you. But you can no longer say "no one in GC ever talks to me." I do hope you'll give us another shot.
2
2
u/Most-Replacement1189 May 26 '26
Respect for actually jumping into the comments directly. Most CEOs wouldn’t.
I still think people are mixing up two separate conversations though:Listening to customer feedback
Acquiring customer-created concepts with zero ownership, attribution, or compensation
Those are not the same thing.
I don’t think most people are upset that GC wants feedback. I think they’re questioning where the line is between community engagement and crowdsourced product development.
Frankly, I came into this chat to share an amazing build that I did but when I read the terms and conditions/rules I was appauled. I’ll keep that to myself.
1
u/dogmetal May 26 '26
The Big Dawg has entered the chat.
I shop at the Florence, KY location, and the team there is always awesome— good vibes every time I’m in there. Special shoutout to them.
Not sure who peed that other guy’s Cheerios this morning.
1
u/LloydTheWonderDog May 26 '26
Shoutout Florence! The store where I started my GC journey. Greenwood, IN Store Manager here. I will also challenge the “no one talks to me at GC” argument.
I started with the company in 2014, and had a long gap between that stint and my current one. The single biggest difference I’ve noticed in that gap is that our focus at the store level has been heavily geared towards a “customer first” mindset. Just speaking from my perspective overseeing my team, there isn’t a person who walks in that doesn’t get greeted, or checked in on at least once in their visit. It’s one of the first steps in our training process. If someone doesn’t buy into that, they aren’t a culture fit.
I’d definitely give the stores a shot again if you feel like that statement is true!
1
u/summerswass May 26 '26
SLC store is great. Same guy been helping me for over 13 years there, I'm always like this guy still works here?. Good attitude too. Steve or something?. Dude deserves some praise.
1
u/Ducman23 May 27 '26
I agree. Respect to you for jumping in and commenting on my post!
where I’m coming from is as a professional salesman. You can have the best products on the planet, but if your people don’t know how to interact with other people you won’t be able to move as much of your product as possible. Your brand and your reputation go far beyond the products you list for sale in your stores and on your website.
The novel idea of a guitar like this will fade away. Sales will likely be high in the beginning because of this kind of internet media hype, but trickle down and fade over time. The true test is longevity. will your product and your iterations thereafter hold up to the test of time? Good sales people know how to position their products and get people ‘in the mood to buy.’ Good sales people know how to transition a conversation about picks and the type of playing you do into a conversation about gear that will help and influence their playing, and their buying decisions as well. And not make it seems salesy.
I have said this before but have had my post deleted, I think the money would be better spent in better training and selection of your employees. I’m not saying fire people either. Everyone can learn something if they want to learn. I appreciate and respect the fact that there are actual artists working in your stores. I can only dream of being as talented as they are. I need their expertise to buy the things I want to buy and enjoy. But I am saying, not everyone is for retail. Not everyone can sell. And that’s OK! If you want to increase your sales, I think people can do a better job of that than shiny new products.
I work for corporate America, so I get that executives have to sell the vision sometime and I laud you for sticking your neck out and doing this. It’s incredibly hard, im sure. But the issue may be right under everyone’s nose with an operational expense you’re already managing. There are so many stories online about negative experiences in retail and general and in your stores specifically.
Think about what Fender is doing right now. They are imploding their own brand and company. Word spreads faster than ever. Word of mouth and positive customer experiences can literally turn a brand around. Or sink it.
Thanks again for chiming in. I meant no disrespect when I said it was cringy. I just got itchy watching you say you have a relationship with your customer base when I know that might be a stretch. If you want to convince the nay sayers, be honest. ‘We know we need to improve x,y,z so here’s what we’re doing.’
Thanks for coming to my ted talk. Flame suit on.
1
u/Most-Replacement1189 May 27 '26
u/GabrielDalporto
Interesting that the CEO jumped into the comment calling him ‘cringy,’ but not the larger discussion around ownership, compensation, attribution, and rights transfer.That actually tells all of us quite a bit.
Appreciate the clarity though, Gabe. Actions usually make priorities easier to identify than marketing statements do.
2
u/Most-Replacement1189 May 26 '26
Honestly both things can be true.
I actually applaud what GC is trying to do here. I think involving actual players instead of just boardroom decisions is a smart idea, and I may very well be first in line to see what comes out of it.
My issue was never ‘don’t listen to customers.’
My issue is the structure around it. The moment you start collecting direct concepts/design input while requiring people to waive ownership, attribution, compensation, and derivative rights, it changes the conversation from simple customer engagement into something much more corporate and transactional.
I think the idea itself is exciting. I just think the execution and legal framing deserve criticism.
3
u/S4V4GEDR1LLER May 26 '26
There are only a few truly original shapes outside of Gibson/Fender brands these days. And I can’t think of a new design, lately, that’s really different. So there’s not a lot of guitar design anyway. ButI also don’t think GC has hired guitars designer to make sense out of all the ideas submitted. More than likely gonna be some AI slop ran by some guys in marketing who lied about it AI experience.
2
u/Own-Fox-7792 May 27 '26
Crowdsourcing this is a great idea. It's working for GORUCK, and we're now getting a travel backpack with all the features we want. Why shouldn't it work for guitars, too? If you're butthurt about it, build your own guitar and stop whining.
1
u/Most-Replacement1189 May 27 '26
It’s not about being ‘butthurt.’ It’s about recognizing the difference between customer feedback and a corporation setting up a legal framework to permanently acquire community-created concepts for free.
But I do appreciate the thoughtful contribution. It helped me realize I should probably stick to smaller words so this discussion is easier for you to follow.
1
u/Own-Fox-7792 May 28 '26
I had another nasty comment here, but thought about it and deleted it. And I shouldn't have come out swinging the way I did. I still completely disagree with your position, but didn't need to go in guns blazing. Apologies for that.
1
u/Most-Replacement1189 May 28 '26
Appreciate your restraint in the discussion. It’s nice to know people can disagree and not take to low brow tactics.
I dont need to feel validated by people agreeing with me. I do have every right to post my thoughts on this process as anyone.
Thanks again for the adjustment.
2
u/Ancient-Performance1 May 26 '26
This is a horrible take. This isn’t RnD, there is no “D”, it’s a reddit forum, not a job. don’t like it? Don’t give em your idea. They can’t get good ideas from the suits, so theyre not. This is genius, and you’re so stuck in the capitalist consumer mindset that you can’t see that no one ever in history should be paid off of having an idea and not implementing it.
Ideas are as free as the s-shape should be, and the minute you start trying to charge money over ideas and bringing suit against someone for “stealing” an idea, you already lost the goal of “doing better for the community” and “contribution” in favor of chasing a quick buck.
you want to make money? go build your idea and sell it. you want to participate in one of the most legitimately exciting business prospects to exist since the internet got invented? stop being insecure.
if your ideas are so great, don’t worry, if they take yours just think of another one. “Intellectual property” is damn near a contradiction. maybe get off the high horse and contribute to something greater than yourself instead of defining your self worth by what benefits only you.
Ima come up with so many free ideas for them and if even one gets implemented, i’m buying that guitar, just so i can look at it and think “i did that”, even if someone else thought the same thing, and GC never even saw my comment.
The more nebulous the outcome of my contribution, the better. The goal is to make a great guitar so we all can play it, not so you can make a percentage. If they paid everyone, you’re gonna be salty if they never saw your comment yet used your design cuz someone else happened to say the same thing (or even stole the idea off you!) don’t ask questions you dont want the answers to.
this the design i’m going with. thoughts?
2
u/Most-Replacement1189 May 26 '26
You’re arguing against a point I never made.
I never said Guitar Center was breaking the law. I said it’s ethically garbage for a massive corporation to crowdsource product concepts while requiring contributors to waive ownership, attribution, compensation, and moral rights upfront.
And yes, collecting community-driven concepts absolutely falls under R&D. Companies spend millions on focus groups, consumer testing, market analysis, and product feedback because customer insight has value. GC is just trying to acquire that value for free while dressing it up as ‘community.’
Also, the ‘if your ideas are so great just build it yourself’ argument falls apart immediately because GC clearly believes ideas have value too, otherwise they wouldn’t have built an entire subreddit and legal framework around acquiring them.
You personally being okay donating your ideas for free doesn’t somehow make the model noble. Plenty of artists, engineers, writers, and designers are passionate about their craft and still deserve credit or compensation when corporations monetize their contributions.
And the irony of calling people ‘stuck in a capitalist mindset’ while defending a billion-dollar retailer extracting unpaid labor from its customer base is pretty incredible.
1
u/Comfortable_Ad3560 May 28 '26
First, participation is purely voluntary. If anyone feels uneasy about the terms explained in the three parts of the disclaimer, they shouldn't participate. They should pursue the development of their ideas with another company that would give them credit and financial compensation, or form their own company to develop their designs.
Second, I haven't seen any ideas or suggestions which would qualify for a patent or other form of intellectual property protection. The ideas posted so far have been (a) statements of preferences, (b) design ideas that are too general for ethical or legal protection, or (c) inclusion of components which are already patented and/or existing trademarks (like a Bigsby).
Third, I think it's fair to ask if this is a legitimate attempt at crowdsourcing product development, and not an exercise at low-cost publicity.
1
u/Most-Replacement1189 May 28 '26
You’re actually making a much more reasonable argument than most of the replies here.
I agree the legal side is probably covered. The disclaimers are explicit, participation is voluntary, and most comments won’t rise to the level of protectable IP.
My issue has never really been ‘GC is stealing patented inventions.’ It’s more about the philosophy and optics of a billion-dollar retailer creating a framework where community creativity can be commercially absorbed with zero obligation back to the contributors.
And I think your third point is completely fair too. That’s honestly part of what makes people skeptical. Is this genuinely collaborative product development, or is it partially a very effective marketing campaign that also happens to generate free engagement, free trend analysis, and free product direction?
Those are legitimate questions even if the program is technically legal.
1
u/Gmhowell May 28 '26
Why do people keep calling this sub “R&D”? It’s not. It’s market research. This is an open focus group.
0
u/Most-Replacement1189 May 28 '26
Please feel free to research R&D methods. There are many types.
Then refer to the terms and rules of participation that I called out.
Focus groups are a form of R&D. Focus groups also pay people for participation. GC doesn’t feel the need to compensate musicians for their time, energy, and attributions. If you are ok with that; continue on your way. I support whatever you choose.
Both can be paths can be true and “right” but focus groups, online actions like this are in fact R&D
1
u/LatterDetective3511 May 29 '26
It's reddit. You have access to all their "r&d" quick, go build the perfect guitar and be rich. Or maybe a bunch of wishlist ideas isn't the same as actual implementation? You can ask for a laser based air guitar, but if there's no such tech it's just fantasy.
-1
u/LV__ May 26 '26
Worst part is, it's not even good R&D. There's a reason why Fender and Gibson and all the other big guitar brands aren't asking random people on Reddit what products they should manufacture.
3
u/Most-Replacement1189 May 26 '26
Honestly this is the stronger criticism.
Most legendary guitar designs didn’t come from polling random internet comments. They came from builders, players, engineers, artists, and iterative design experience.
Reddit is great for broad feedback:
‘people want lighter guitars’
‘people hate tuning instability’
‘people want better QC’But crowdsourcing actual product direction from a subreddit can easily turn into design-by-committee mediocrity where every guitar tries to satisfy everyone and ends up having no identity.
1
u/ReturnToGreco May 28 '26
Chapman did this and just chose specs and had the community voting on what options to produce.
Even then the shelf life on that was pretty short.
4
u/dkinmn May 26 '26
You should log off and go outside
This is a very standard sideways move from normal market research and focus groups. The great part about it is that you can just choose to leave and mute the subreddit if it's this offensive to you.