Misrepresentative marketing from GAK

Iamnobody

Gulliver said:

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.

Compensating for what? He loves the guitar. Why do people always want compensation. It’s a fucked up world.

Nerine

Isn’t the audio of the same model guitar, though? 

Granted it wont be literally 100% identical, as that’s pretty unlikely and possibly impossible, but it’s pretty pointless to do a demo of each guitar in a different finish. The pickups and hardware are the same, are they not? 

So whilst the video of your guitar isn’t perhaps your actual guitar, it is a guitar of the same model/configuration albeit a different colour. So I don’t think it’s that misleading. 

Gulliver

Iamnobody said:

Gulliver said:

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.

Compensating for what? He loves the guitar. Why do people always want compensation. It’s a fucked up world.

If you're happy to let a company mislead you, that's your call.  i personally think that companies should be discouraged from dodgy practices.  The £250k spanking GAK just got handed means I'm not alone in that...

RandallFlagg

Nerine said:

Isn’t the audio of the same model guitar, though? 

Granted it wont be literally 100% identical, as that’s pretty unlikely and possibly impossible, but it’s pretty pointless to do a demo of each guitar in a different finish. The pickups and hardware are the same, are they not? 

So whilst the video of your guitar isn’t perhaps your actual guitar, it is a guitar of the same model/configuration albeit a different colour. So I don’t think it’s that misleading. 

Similar, not the same. Same neck pickup, different bridge pickup and different fingerboard.

If Joss Allen had my guitar on the day he filmed the video of those other 3 HS Teles I have no doubt it would have sounded very very similar through that Hughes & Kettner amp, maybe indistinguishable.

As for compensation, I have not suffered a loss to be compensated for. What I would like is for the Marketing Manager at GAK to explain what happened and assure us, the buying public, that any such future video of a specific guitar, where the audio and video are different guitars is made clear with a message in the video and the text description, or even better, just make sure that what we are hearing and seeing are the same instrument.

While it's not explicitly claimed that the audio and video are the same guitar it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the majority of people viewing the video would would assume they are.

The video was of a specific one off instrument that they had in stock, not a generic video of a series, such as the Fender American Professional Strat for example. 

As I said in the opening post, you can view this as no big deal or a big deal depending on which angle you look at it.

I was surprised to discover the audio from the other clip, when I heard it, I had a weird sense of deja vu, hang on I've heard that before haven't I? When I checked and realised it's the same audio I felt they had consciously and knowingly been a bit sneaky and underhand but it's not in the realms of the Volkswagen emissions scandal.

As for buying a guitar based on a YouTube video, I didn't. I had a list of specs for a Tele I wanted, this popped up in YouTube, caught my eye, so I checked the specs on the GAK website and it ticked a lot of boxes so I moved quickly as the Limited Edition instruments sell pretty quickly. I evaluated the guitar when it arrived and made a firm decision that it was excellent in all ways and in fact exceeded my expectations in terms of the feel, playability and sound and met my expectations in terms of looks. I purchased safe in the knowledge that I could return it under the returns policy, in fact still can if I want to, before the end of this week. But, I made a quick decision that I definitely want to keep the guitar before I discovered the advertising audio issue.

Now, subsequently, if I had received a guitar with different specifications, such as a cheap Chinese bulk manufactured humbucker fitted for example but described as a Seymour Duncan SH-55 Seth Lover then things would be more serious.

Hang on, perhaps I should lift the neck pickup and check...

Neil

TBH I wouldn't care about a sound track to a guitar demo.

I could buy Jimi's old Strat but I wouldn't sound like him.

Likewise people use different amps/effects so guitar sound on a demo means very little IMO.

You order online, you can send it back if unsuitable but you love the guitar.

Yes, you can bang on about false representation etc but at the end of the day if you are pleased with your new purchase I really can't see a problem. 

tone1

I would have 100% expected the track to be played by the guitar being displayed in the video. I’m not surprised to find it isn’t though. I was involved in some TV adverts 20 years ago where even the rain was fake. 

Rich210

This is just why Gak got find. Given that the rest of the industry uses actual videos for very expensive guitars it would be reasonable to think that it was indeed the guitar. 

It's not difficult to record a snippet of an instrument and put it out there with an obvious link. Sound is an integral part of a guitar and will inform someone's purchase. 

I won't be buying anything from GAK any time soon. They're lazy and even after getting fined misrepresentating they not taken down such materials. 

Iamnobody

Gulliver said:

Iamnobody said:

Gulliver said:

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.

Compensating for what? He loves the guitar. Why do people always want compensation. It’s a fucked up world.

If you're happy to let a company mislead you, that's your call.  i personally think that companies should be discouraged from dodgy practices.  The £250k spanking GAK just got handed means I'm not alone in that...

But compensation suggest a loss or injury. OP hasn’t lost anything and could still send it back under distance selling regs if he’s that bothered. 

Although I’ve picked you up on it my comments are more around the whole compensation culture that’s been allowed to develop over recent times.  

Yes, there are time’s when it is appropriate - but I’ll respectfully disagree with you and say that I don’t see any reason/justification for compensation in this guitar buying experience.

RaymondLin

Nikon has been known to use sample images made NOT by Nikon, I think one time from Canon, in their ads when they launch a new camera…The PR department seemingly works in a bubble.

Winny_Pooh

It amazing how many old men really are snowflakes when you get down to it

HAL9000

I think the video is unintentionally misleading. Had the audio been lift muzak then it would have been clearly just background, but when it’s someone noodling on an electric guitar with no accompaniment then things aren’t so clear cut. GAK’s reply certainly shows that they agree with the OP that there should, at the very least, have been a disclaimer. If @RandallFlagg is happy with the guitar then no harm done but I think some sort of compensation would have been a nice gesture. And I guess if he hadn’t been happy then it could have been returned under DSR.

Hattigol

I think that's appalling, I really do. I had seen the video before when the OP bought it and I fully thought it was the guitar in question. When it changes in the backing track to the bridge pick-up, you can tell it is a Tele (or derivative). It's an audio track of a guitar playing behind a video of a guitar that they are trying to sell - why would anyone think it wasn't that guitar??

I'd be seriously annoyed a) with them doing it and b) with their response. Although that email from them does seem to be a pre-cursor to 'would you like a refund?'

Personally, I'd send it back, get a refund and buy the identical one on Ebay for a grand less! But each to their own.

I've said it before - it is the only Tele I have ever seen that I would swap my CS one for. It is stunning.

ICBM

RandallFlagg said:

While it's not explicitly claimed that the audio and video are the same guitar it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the majority of people viewing the video would would assume they are.

This is what I disagree with. I may not be the majority, but I would not assume it was the same guitar.

You never see the guitar being played, and the soundtrack doesn’t even sound like a Telecaster to any obvious extent - it sounds like a generic backing track that could have been played on anything, with some annoying ‘swoosh’ noises added when the view changes - it’s a slideshow, not a demo.

Even if it was the actual guitar, it would be completely useless to assess what it really sounded like - it’s so muddy that there’s no distinguishing character of the guitar audible at all other than that it has two pickups - and I would have simply ignored it.

So I can’t see that it could be described as misleading.

Modulus_Amps

At £4k price tag it would be nice if it was the actual guitar, at a lower price bracket I would be happy with any audio that was representative of the range/pickups fitted.

The lesson here is that if you don't actually see someone playing that guitar, then the audio is not necessarily that guitar unless stated so.

When you watch a Arla Milk advert and they show you a cow, do you assume all the milk comes from that one cow?

Trude

Another way of looking at it - maybe they knocked the video together this way because of time constraints (say they didn't have any of their normal demo players in that day, or maybe they were demoing other stuff at the time and they couldn't fit it in). 

If they had decided not to do the video and wait until they had a chance to do it "properly" then you might not have become aware of the guitar at all, and could have missed out on the chance to grab what looks like an awesome instrument.  I'd call that a win.

WezV

Trude said:

Another way of looking at it - maybe they knocked the video together this way because of time constraints (say they didn't have any of their normal demo players in that day, or maybe they were demoing other stuff at the time and they couldn't fit it in). 

If they had decided not to do the video and wait until they had a chance to do it "properly" then you might not have become aware of the guitar at all, and could have missed out on the chance to grab what looks like an awesome instrument.  I'd call that a win.

I agree, its likely a decision they have taken based on:
A) having to do this type of video for a lot of guitars
needing some sound to go along with the visual representation
C) not understanding why it might be important, or even misleading, to the buyer.

Also, At what point during the making of a video would the guitar become "ex-demo" rather than "new"?

Sassafras

It does seem deceptive/misleading, then again, I wouldn't buy anything based on a YouTube clip.

stonevibe

I don't get why musicians buy guitars online when spending thousands on one instrument. It doesn't make much sense, if you want an instrument for its sound, surely you would go and play it?

I get it, if you just want a certain look though.

Philly_Q

tone1 said:

I would have 100% expected the track to be played by the guitar being displayed in the video. I’m not surprised to find it isn’t though. I was involved in some TV adverts 20 years ago where even the rain was fake. 

I'm not sure what point you're making.  What should they have done, turned up at the same location every day until it was actually raining, not too light, not too heavy?

Not everything we see on TV or the internet is 100% as it seems.  Gosh, hold the front page.

RandallFlagg said:
I was surprised to discover the audio from the other clip, when I heard it, I had a weird sense of deja vu, hang on I've heard that before haven't I? When I checked and realised it's the same audio I felt they had consciously and knowingly been a bit sneaky and underhand but it's not in the realms of the Volkswagen emissions scandal.

It's conscious and knowing, but I very much doubt there was anything sneaky or underhand about it. 

Someone at GAK has made a decision to produce these videos showing guitars being displayed but not played.  Maybe they think that displays the guitar a bit better.  It's also saving them time - if they filmed a playing demo mistakes would be made and they'd have to do retakes.

If they then did a separate audio demo, that would take loads more time - so they might as well just go back to filming someone playing it, and kill two birds with one stone.  

Which is why I personally wouldn't expect the audio to be that particular guitar.  Obviously other people have drawn different conclusions.

I shouldn't think it's ever crossed their minds that this issue would arise.  Now that it has, maybe they'll add a disclaimer or just film someone playing the guitars, like other dealers do.

LastMantra

I really think it's bollocks but that's the way things are. When brushing my teeth this morning I was looking at the bottle of shower gel sitting on the edge of the bath. It says on it...

100% NATURE 
Inspired fragrance.
 
Inspired?! Bollocks!

They're not breaking the law so it's fine innit.