adorshki
Reverential Member
Absolutely NONEI guess that's one way of looking at it... but OTOH,
What's the difference between endorsing a product for a paycheck, and endorsing a product for merchandise?
That's a pretty big assumption; there's all kinds of compensation that don't necessarily involve cold hard cash such as assuming touring costs.... I'm pretty sure that DD is getting paid for being on the Guild team (as much as he does like Guilds, I am sure there is monetary value for his endorsement...)
And for all we know maybe Cordoba will consider free instruments where NH didn't (assuming that was actually the case).
It may have been they simply couldn't justify a freebie to anybody at the time, even if they were owned by Fender; heck Doyle himself may have said "I want to pay for the guitar, compensate me in another way".
We may never know, and no snark intended but I don't really care... I think Guild's approach as Drumbob described was the most sensible.
Most fans assume if an artist is endorsing the brand then the maker's supplying 'em with at least one free instrument, but it's gotten a lot more complicated since then.
But yes it does seem to render the question of conflict of interest ("bribery") somewhat pointless.
If for example Doyle was tasked with maintaining a Facebook page and posting a certain amount of Guild references each month then I'd say "Yeah, actually for that he should be paid".
Same with in-store workshops, but again, all of these things can be and are compensated in a variety of ways these days.
I never meant to imply it was.Why is a paycheck somehow more legitimate?
And BTW here's some discussion on the AGF about this very same question (how endorsements are compensated) , and apparently Taylor has a flexible attitude about what's free and what's not, and for who, too:
https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=271308
:friendly_wink:
Last edited: