Misrepresentative marketing from GAK

ICBM

I'd be very disappointed if the guitar sounded as muddy and crap in reality as the video does.




More seriously - it does come across as a bit deceptive *if* you assume the soundtrack is the guitar being shown, but I'm not sure I would have associated it with the guitar, since there's no indication at any point that it's even being played - it doesn't even sound really like a Tele to me, even though it apparently is...

There's absolutely no way I would have bought any Telecaster based on that sound, but I would have just assumed it was someone who likes to roll the tone control off and put a pile of blankets over the amp, so the sound on the video would have played no part in the decision.

birtner

Whether it’s innocent, negligent or fraudulent there’s a strong argument to say it’s a misrepresentation under law. The regulator would rule on the likely effect the video had on the purchaser and not GAK’s supposed intentions (they may try and argue showcasing the athletics using generic music). Hard to want to give GAK any money all things considered. Shame as it’s not what the industry needs 

RandallFlagg

birtner said:

Whether it’s innocent, negligent or fraudulent there’s a strong argument to say it’s a misrepresentation under law. The regulator would rule on the likely effect the video had on the purchaser and not GAK’s supposed intentions (they may try and argue showcasing the athletics using generic music). Hard to want to give GAK any money all things considered. Shame as it’s not what the industry needs 

There it is, That's the point. Wis'd. It's simply bad form and unnecessary. They went to the time and trouble to video the guitar, why not record some audio to go along with it?

Are we to believe that this is the sound of the Custom Shop Les Paul in the video below or as some post above, does the casual viewer automatically believe that is is NOT the sound the guitar in the video and would be wrong to assume it is?

RandallFlagg

Schnozz said:

You paid £4k for a Tele?

Yes, well a bit more in actual fact. Is that a problem?

ThePrettyDamned

Wazmeister said:

I think it is poor form AND deceptive; unacceptable, especially for a £4000 geetar

4k for a tele, a guitar designed around being easy and affordable to build? 

Yes, GAK did a bad. I assumed it would be half that tbh, didn't realise they ran that high. 

A guitar of that value must mean big margins. If they do a video, they could at least be honest about it... 

To the op: I'm glad you love the guitar, and hope it gives you many years of joy!

Edit: I've listened again and it doesn't sound much like a tele to me, maybe it's my ears but it sounds quite muddy and a bit dull... 

monquixote

ICBM said:

I'd be very disappointed if the guitar sounded as muddy and crap in reality as the video does.




More seriously - it does come across as a bit deceptive *if* you assume the soundtrack is the guitar being shown, but I'm not sure I would have associated it with the guitar, since there's no indication at any point that it's even being played - it doesn't even sound really like a Tele to me, even though it apparently is...

There's absolutely no way I would have bought any Telecaster based on that sound, but I would have just assumed it was someone who likes to roll the tone control off and put a pile of blankets over the amp, so the sound on the video would have played no part in the decision.

Yep agreed.

I wouldn't have assumed that was the guitar being played as it didn't especially sound like a Tele anyway.

John_P

If they are going to make a video of a particular guitar rather one that covers the model then it's pretty reasonable to assume the sound in the video is also that specific guitar.      Pretty poor form imo. 

richardhomer

RandallFlagg said:

Schnozz said:

You paid £4k for a Tele?

Yes, well a bit more in actual fact. Is that a problem?

Not at all - it shows you still have a great sense of humour.

AlexO

Would you miss the Tele if it went back. I would send it back on principle and the half arsed effort of an apology.
If it’s a keeper and you have bonded with it, well it’s poor on there part but hopefully you ended up with a guitar that sounds better than the video.

RandallFlagg

richardhomer said:m

RandallFlagg said:

Schnozz said:

You paid £4k for a Tele?

Yes, well a bit more in actual fact. Is that a problem?

Not at all - it shows you still have a great sense of humour.

I have more money than sense of humour I think. Custom Shop ‘59 Les Paul is next on the list...but not this year.

Wazmeister

monquixote said:

ICBM said:

I'd be very disappointed if the guitar sounded as muddy and crap in reality as the video does.




More seriously - it does come across as a bit deceptive *if* you assume the soundtrack is the guitar being shown, but I'm not sure I would have associated it with the guitar, since there's no indication at any point that it's even being played - it doesn't even sound really like a Tele to me, even though it apparently is...

There's absolutely no way I would have bought any Telecaster based on that sound, but I would have just assumed it was someone who likes to roll the tone control off and put a pile of blankets over the amp, so the sound on the video would have played no part in the decision.

Yep agreed.

I wouldn't have assumed that was the guitar being played as it didn't especially sound like a Tele anyway.

 I would expect that most people would assume that the video is of THAT specific guitar.

Here's the ad;

https://www.gak.co.uk/en/fender-custom-shop-ltd-60-hs-tele-custom-relic-aged-ocean-turquoise-over-3-tone-sunburst/937881

Philly_Q

Having read the OP before watching the clip, I'm not sure what I think....

I'm not familiar with GAK's particular style of video.  Go to the Peach site, and you see Jack playing the actual guitar.  Go to Wildwood, you see Greg Koch playing the actual guitar.  In GAK's case, you see video of a guitar with music playing in the background... I'm not sure I would have necessarily thought it was that guitar.

And to be honest, I don't think it's that big a deal.  With YouTube audio quality and recorded through who knows what gear, yes a Les Paul will sound different from a Strat.  But would I think that's the Les Paul (or Strat) I want to buy, because of the way it sounds on YouTube?  I don't think so.

birtner

monquixote said:

ICBM said:

I'd be very disappointed if the guitar sounded as muddy and crap in reality as the video does.




More seriously - it does come across as a bit deceptive *if* you assume the soundtrack is the guitar being shown, but I'm not sure I would have associated it with the guitar, since there's no indication at any point that it's even being played - it doesn't even sound really like a Tele to me, even though it apparently is...

There's absolutely no way I would have bought any Telecaster based on that sound, but I would have just assumed it was someone who likes to roll the tone control off and put a pile of blankets over the amp, so the sound on the video would have played no part in the decision.

Yep agreed.

I wouldn't have assumed that was the guitar being played as it didn't especially sound like a Tele anyway.

Under law the theoretical “consumer” would probably be the everyman guitar player, not the top 10% or whatever who can tell through mobile phone speakers it was a bogus overdub. Coupled with the fact that 1) the OP did buy the guitar on the strength of GAKs marketing which includes the video and 2) that the overdub is not far enough removed from the product in that it’s  a well used practice that encourages the consumer (who doesn’t actually have to be the eventual player/owner) to purchase the thing, is a compelling enough argument to conclude the advertisement is non-compliant with advertising standards and that is the issue. 

Anyways I’m grateful I know about this kind of practice now so thank you OP!

hollywoodrox

I would expect a guitar of this pedigree to warrant an accurate representation of its sound and looks if a video were being made to display its desirability. The special nature of it and it’s price demands more than a general idea of its ability.  

Even though in this case it matches or exceeds its expectations, the very element of the deceipt would leave a sour taste in ones mouth and a future distrust of future presentations and claims. 

I feel you have every right to feel vexed 

duotone

Philly_Q said:

Having read the OP before watching the clip, I'm not sure what I think....

I'm not familiar with GAK's particular style of video.  Go to the Peach site, and you see Jack playing the actual guitar.  Go to Wildwood, you see Greg Koch playing the actual guitar.  In GAK's case, you see video of a guitar with music playing in the background... I'm not sure I would have necessarily thought it was that guitar.

And to be honest, I don't think it's that big a deal.  With YouTube audio quality and recorded through who knows what gear, yes a Les Paul will sound different from a Strat.  But would I think that's the Les Paul (or Strat) I want to buy, because of the way it sounds on YouTube?  I don't think so.

I’m only familiar with these videos & Andertons which are the same, you hear what they are playing.

If the video was of a specific model, then I would assume that sound was coming from that model of guitar. I don’t think it’s wrong for @RandallFlagg to assume that.

Poor form from GAK. I also hate the “I didn’t know, it’s another department that deals with that” attitude. It’s shit.

Trude

For me, unless I see a specific guitar being played in the actual video then I view it pretty much as an animated photo gallery and I'd basically ignore the sound track.  I mean, if they went to the trouble of recording the audio for this guitar then why wouldn't they go to the trouble of videoing the performance too? I can see how some folks might automatically assume what what you hear is that guitar, but personally I wouldn't.

I also wasn't miffed when I learned that Darth Vader really had a West Country accent when they shot Star Wars. But then I didn't pay £4k to see that movie, so I'm not sure where I'm going with this analogy tbh...

Gulliver

If they just wanted some pleasant background music to show off the looks of a guitar - using ANY instrument other than an electric guitar would make sense. 

How long would it take to record a sound sample of the actual guitar?  Considering they have a video platform and produce content regularly - they are more than capable.

If an advert for a Renault Clio was soundtracked with a roaring V8 - that would probably come across as false marketing. It's still the sound of a car, just not the one featured.


I'd definitely turn the screws on GAK and see what they are prepared to do to compensate you.  It may be a stellar guitar, but the advertising is false.  Even if it's just £50 worth of strings it's worth bending them over to force their hand into changing their practices.

NelsonP

Also, it's been sold as a new guitar when clearly it's had a refinish at some point and there are several dings in the finish...

;-)

Lovely guitar by the way!

LPManic

This is another version of the "mint" debate when buying a guitar here online. 

mbe

The videos from GAK and Andertons are the modern equivalent of 1960s window dressing.

Yeah, remember those boys and girls who worked in retail shops decorating the windows with the latest products artistically arranged to entice folks in to spend money or pay on the never never. 

No guitar magazines back then. Maybe you were fortunate to get hold of a Bells catalogue advertised in the Melody Maker and everything was priced in guineas.