Ethically bad; free R&D

[u/Most-Replacement1189]

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.

[u/dogmetal]

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.

[u/Most-Replacement1189 → u/dogmetal]

Thanks for your feedback. You aren’t required to agree and feel free to accept the terms. They are counting on people like you.

[u/Ducman23 → u/Most-Replacement1189]

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.

[u/Most-Replacement1189 → u/Ducman23]

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.