A few days ago I read that several companies have decided to cut ties with the NRA, removing discounts that were offered before the Parkland, Fl. school shooting. This was not surprising, the usual fallout after every shooting is cries to “do something”, to demand tighter gun control, and then blame the NRA. Then today I read that Dicks Sporting Goods, a rather large supplier of guns and other hunting/fishing gear through out the country, decided that they would publicly support reducing gun violence, altruistic business decision or clever marketing ploy;
Dick’s Sporting Goods is banning sales of assault weapons across all its stores after the Parkland, Fla. school shooting.
The nation’s largest sporting goods retailer announced the move Thursday in an open letter and an appearance by CEO Ed Stack on Good Morning America.
Assault weapon sales ended at Dick’s-branded stores after the Newtown, Conn. school shooting in 2012, but the company was still selling them at its Field & Stream locations, which specialize in hunting and outdoors products.
“As we looked at what happened down in Parkland, we were so disturbed and saddened by what happened, we felt we really needed to do something,” Stack told GMA’s George Stephanopoulos.
The retailer will also end sales of high-capacity magazines and sales of guns to people under 21 years old.
The CEO seems genuine, but it’s naive to think that any business decision is not run through the filter of accelerating profits.
The change in policy is two-fold; taking assault weapons off the shelves and raising the age from 18 to 21, the age at which a person can buy any firearm from them.
There are several ways to approach this; consumer boycotts in general and the civil rights angle.
Although I’m a big advocate for letting my consumer dollars speak for me, as a general rule I think boycotts are stupid, probably because 90% of the time it is the progressives doing the boycotting over something innocuous that they got butthurt over. Some examples;
Walmart- because competition and having a successful business model hurts the mom and pop stores, even though the consumer benefits.
- Hobby Lobby- for daring to challenge (and win) the Obamacare contraceptive provision.
- Chic-fil-A- because the CEO had an opinion on Gay Marriage (counter views will not be tolerated).
- Waffle House- because the CEO contributed money to the Romney campaign.
- Carls Jr- because some commercials had scantily clad women dripping barbecue sauce.
When I read about these phony cause celebs I try to funnel my disposable income directly to those companies (too lazy to actually write the CEO with a ,”Way to go bud, I’m on your side”).
No, this door does not swing both ways. If some dopey gun nut wants to rally the troops and organize a Dicks boycott over this, they are on their own. These changes are cosmetic, more emotional virtue signalling and will hardly impact the bottom line.
But the change in age from 18 to 21 might prove trickier. Never mind that 16 is the age at which we can drive a car, the final assault weapon. Never mind that 18 year olds join the military and are trained in the use of real automatic weapons. Never mind that there is no age limit to buy a knife, fertilizer, gasoline, remote control switch or any other bomb part.
I can also see an enterprising young man use his attorney to sue Dicks over age discrimination. I wonder if there is a Dicks in Chicago and whether the manager there ever thought of the idea of banning firearms to black people, given the numbers of murders involving hand guns there? One could argue the same concerns, street safety. How about a Public Accommodations challenge.? Is it time to add “age” to the other protected groups?
TBH, I admire this CEO for actually doing something that might save a life, any life. Unlike the usual gaggle of politicians who bluster and foam at the mouth with righteous indignation, then come up with nothing that would be effective in stopping the next Parkland.
38 comments
I’m less shy about voicing my objections to corporate virtue signalling than some.
https://gabfiles.blob.core.windows.net/image/5a973374e293a.png
This measure won’t do that at all. I’m consistently amazed by the current trend of corporations willingly alienating their consumers for the sake of left-wing causes with meaningless feel-good gestures.
As mentioned in my post, profits more often then not (Ben and Jerry’s?) are the determining factor in business decisions. Dick’s is betting that this virtue signaling will inspire one side to patronize them for their ideals, while making marginal changes so that the other side will just go ,”meh”.
AR-15 sales probably don’t even add up to 5% of total guns sales. I’ve been to Dick’s, they are a hand gun store, at least here in California, so they are giving up very little here. The age change is significant and I wonder if the lunatic was 26 they would have changed their minimum age to 30.
Another factor they probably considered, gun owners don’t spend the repeat bucks that other sports enthusiasts spend. You don’t need special shoes or other special equipment to go plinking. And don’t most serious shooters press their own ammo?
If they did something drastic like blame all school shootings on the NRA and then give up their entire line of guns, I might feel as you do, but this was minimal action done for maximum affect.
Did you send a similar email to Dicks when they stopped selling AR-15’s in their branded stores back in 2012?
Hopefully you saved that email, you need to send it to Walmart as well;
http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-dicks-change-gun-policies-2018-2
Dick’s is going to feel the pinch in deer season. This decision is not going to lead to a single Democrat picking up hackeysacks for their kids, or whatever they do, but it is going to encourage conservatives to go elsewhere. This was not a business decision. The CEO did it for the feelz and he’s going to have to deal with the blowback. I don’t think a sporting goods store can afford to lose these patrons, but it’ll ultimately be up to the Board of Directors and shareholders if they want to put up with it.
Most active shooters who use semiauto rifles are middle aged, not teenagers. This is totally pointless.
I’m telling you: this was an emotional reaction, not based on any research. It’ll be proven soon enough.
This was minimal action for minimal effect. Dick’s CEO decided to insert the company into a political issue for no good business reason.
No, I did not. For a coupla reasons.
1. In 2012, my kids were too young to participate in any sports and I wasn’t planning to buy any sporting goods at all (nor did I). I don’t boycott businesses that I have no intention of patronising. I’ve written a lot on RVS about the NFL kneeling, but I didn’t boycott it or any of its sponsors because I don’t watch football anyway, for example. In 2018, I DO have an assload to spend on sporting goods and I think it’s perfectly acceptable to let Dick’s know why I won’t shop at one of their stores.
2. Corporate virtue signalling as attempts to sway public policy was still in its infancy in 2012. It has gotten to be fully out of control in 2018. I find myself fully agreeing with Kurt Schlichter here: https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2018/02/26/counterattack-hard-against-liberal-attacks-on-our-gun-rights-and-other-civil-liberties-n2454192
I don’t shop at Wal-Mart because of its shitty customer service. Haven’t for years.
Never been plinking, eh? Eye protection, ear protection, optics, laser sights, other sights (BUIS, Night sights, etc.), magazines, targets, range bags, rifle cases, holsters, belts, clays, clay throwers, ammo cans, gun cleaning supplies, bore sighting equipment, and that’s just off the top of my head.
Not even close. There are many, many shooters who have never reloaded their own ammo. You can find bulk deals that are cheaper than reloading, and more reliable. And even if you do “roll your own”, you still need supplies, gun powder, cartridges, etc. “Plinking” is a very consumable driven activity, and a lot of shooters don’t bat an eye at spending $200 or more on an outing, and many people shoot weekly, if not more often.
And yes, Dicks is just virtue signalling, and yes, it is to try to attract buyers by “doing something’. And no, this won’t save any lives. Let’s say Cruz went into a Dicks, and was told he couldn’t buy an AR from them. So he walks across the street, and buys one from Big 5, or Walmart, or Bass Pro Shop, or your friendly neighborhood LGS (local gun shop).
All Dicks has done is ensure SJW’s will want to shop there (for at least the next two weeks), and 2nd amendment enthusiasts wont ever shop there again. I wonder who has more disposable income to spend on sporting equipment.
Like I said, if Dick’s had based this on marketing data or anything other than the CEO’s desire to feel good about himself, this is one of the first questions they would have asked.
One should keep in mind that the Left considers anything that can fire bullets an “assault weapon.”
Also, I only go to WalMart for groceries.
Not for a while but I used to. But the public range provided all that, I just had to bring guns and ammo.
I think they are betting that many 2nd Amendment enthusiasts, like myself will see this as a pretty hollow gesture and after the cynicism wears off, go back to business as usual. As I said, I would feel differently if they went after the NRA and dropped all their guns, they did not do that.
At least we agree that the action was “minimal”, that is why I think most folks, including “conservatives” are not going to get to wound up over it.
Walmart followed suit, I expect Big 5 to fall in line. Soon your local gun store will have a monopoly, better for them.
I find it a monumental stretch to the point of dismissing it entirely to think that this action somehow translates into ,”them taking away our guns”.
From your link;
I guess its time to send the president that same email and boycott him;
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-vows-care-bump-stocks-executive-action/story?id=53421961
and
https://www.dailywire.com/news/27706/betrayal-trump-says-government-should-take-guns-ben-shapiro
What Dicks and Walmart are doing (more soon to follow) is nothing compared to this.
Which is exactly why we should be fighting back now.
Trump will respond to his base. It’s all he has. But what we need to do is challenge these attacks within the culture. If corporations want to align with political policies, then I think it’s perfectly fair to shop accordingly. I’m not sure why you want to reward people who hate you.
No range I know of provides optics, holsters, magazines, or most of the other stuff I listed that gun enthusiasts love to buy…repeatedly. The point being that there is much more equipment to sell a prospective shooting enthusiast than there is a jogger who needs a pair of shoes.
I would feel differently if they left it at “We aren’t going to sell semi-automatic rifles anymore.” They didn’t. They made it political.
Trump is 100% wrong to say take the guns before due process. Another example of the idiot’s mouth moving before he had a chance to think it through.
We got a dick here locally… heh, went in once to look around, price a few things, way over priced, most of the firearms were practically MSRP price. no skin off my ass, so they can do what ever they want, most of thier shooting customers are the high end got more money than brains crowd.
The super serious ones that try to get every bit of potential out of their own ammo, the vast majority just order bulk ammo.
i think this will be challenged. after all there is no law requiring one to be 21 to purchase a rifle. If A big Gas station chain decided on thier own to raise the age of tobacco purchase to 21, there be hell to pay, and legal action, thank god Dicks dont sell cakes..
another funny thing….
A AR pattern rifle is generally gas operated. one only has to remove the gas tube and it become a awkward straight pull action rifle.
To me this is hardly a fight. We agreed that this is small potatoes. If you want to make the slippery slope argument, when it gets to the point where I think the 2nd Amendment is seriously being challenged, then I will strap up and prepare for battle.
Because I don’t think they hate me and I think that is a really extreme position. Do they still sell guns, do they still sell ammo, do they still sell all gun equipment, have they taken crazy extreme positions like mandatory gun confiscations or limiting the 2nd amendment is any way? The answer is no. They made a business decision to not sell AR-15’s in the main stores (after making the same decision for their Field and Stream stores back in 2012) and to raise the age to 21. And now other stores and the president are thinking this is a good idea. No, they are not advocating gun bans. Personally, I think your hysteria confirms the stereotype those that really do hate us have about gun advocates, with all due respect.
The range that I went to provided ear protection, targets, and had a range master present to monitor the shooting. I brought my guns and ammo. The magazines are already attached to the weapon.
He is also in favor of a blanket raising of minimum age to 21. This is more pernicious to me then what Dick’s is doing. A store policy that can be changed when profits fall off a cliff (if this is in fact what will happen, I’m not betting on it) is far different than changing federal law.
Once again Trumps ol new york liberal leanings come out.
We did not agree. The action was minimal. That’s what virtue signalling is. It’s lazy. It’s weak. It lacks real meaning and doesn’t lead to any positive action whatsoever.
The 2nd Amendment is being challenged. If you can’t already see it, it will be far too late by the time you do. I’ve written tons about the attacks on free speech by the Left, particularly with regard to the tech companies. At what point will you realize that your civil rights are under attack and respond in kind if not now?
When a business attacks what you believe in and doesn’t care if it loses your business and dollars, it’s as clear an indication that they hate you as you’re going to get. That Dick’s is engaging in full-on kamikaze behavior should terrify you. They’re really that committed to putting policy preferences over profits.
Not yet anyway.
I strongly believe in the right of Americans to own weapons for self defense and believe that they are justified in owning semiautomatic rifles for that purpose. The people who you think are rational in this argument, such as the CEO of Dick’s, disagree. What do you believe?
This is where his lack of conservative values shows. Unlike Reagan, who developed his core values over the years, refined them, honed them, and could persuade on the merits, Trump is coming to conservatism as a neophyte. He needs direction in things like the 2nd Amendment, pro life, smaller government, a balanced budget, and the sanctity of our basic civil liberties.
I believe that what Dicks is doing does not infringe upon my right to “bear arms” any more than if Walmart decided to stop selling soda would infringe upon my right to drink Dr. Pepper. I believe that a company has a right to decide what products they want to sell and what products they don’t. I believe that a company can for any reason decide to discontinue selling a product, even if I think the reason is virtue signalling and will not achieve the desired goal. I believe that any consumer for any reason can decide what stores to spend their dollars in and what stores to boycott, even if I think the reason is dopey. And I believe that when gun advocates go off the rails and scream ,”They want to take away our guns” when any change, even from a private company, is put in place, even if that change is so minimal and will not in any way affect the practical application of the 2nd Amendment, this plays right into the false stereotype real gun confiscators think about gun people.
You’re living under the delusion that this has anything to do with capitalism. I’m sorry, but it does not. If it did, the CEO of Dick’s would say, “We’re a sporting goods store. We sell hunting supplies, which includes semiauto rifles with high-capacity magazines as allowed by federal law. You don’t have to buy one if you don’t want to. I’m interested only in maximizing profits for our shareholders and people buy these weapons. Sorry, not sorry.”
That’s capitalism.
This is not capitalism. It’s about determining what you can and cannot buy despite what the law allows.
Businesses that willfully choose to longer offer what their consumers want to buy should be destroyed. They’re begging for it. And I think the conservative thing to do is to help them proceed to oblivion by refusing to patronise their business.
Again: What do you–YOU–believe? Do Americans have a right to own semiautomatic rifles with detachable, high capacity magazines or not?
Sure it does, it is the very essence of capitalism, to provide products that people will buy. If discontinuing an item will maximize profits in all the other things they sell, why can’t they do it? You are just sure that discontinuing one single item will bring about Dick’s downfall. I’m not convinced. Further more, this just might turn out to be a very savvy business decision. You can dismiss it at knee jerk and thoughtless, but the most successful company in the history of retailing (Walmart) just followed suit. Are you going to try to convince me that they are business pikers and don’t put considerable thought into their business decisions?
Or it could be this , “We’re a sporting goods store. We sell hunting supplies, which includes semi-auto rifles with high-capacity magazines as allowed by federal law. We have come to a business decision to stop selling AR-15’s, we think our customers will understand our concerns and will reward us by spending their sporting good money in our store”.
Nobody is stopping you from buying it, just buy it at another store. See, no one is infringing on your right to bearing arms, even AR-15’s.
Every consumer decides for himself what is important to him and has a duty not to be swayed by the hysterics. If enough folks feel as you do and want to punish Dick’s for discontinuing AR-15’s, then business will suffer and they will decide to either continue and risk “oblivion” or moderate their position. Again, this is the very definition of capitalism.
Of course, have I ever voiced an opinion otherwise? You keep bringing this back to your 2nd Amendment rights being taken away where I think this is about a business decision.
The idea that this will maximize profits is something you’re inventing on your own. Nothing the CEO says indicates that is the case. Instead, he did it because he was “saddened.” This is about emotion, not serving the best interest of the shareholders. The latter is capitalism. What the CEO of Dick’s did is virtue signalling to favor one side of a political argument.
This sounds like something an apologist for ESPN or the NFL might say. “Oh, sure, we’ve been injecting politics at every turn into what we’re selling and ratings have been collapsing, but it’s not politics. Let’s keep the politics coming and I’m sure ratings will increase before long!”
Wal-Mart doesn’t have as specific as a consumer as Dick’s does nor are they as specialized in their products. They can get away with taking stances that Dick’s doesn’t.
Yes. Yes, I aim to do that.
Why do you excuse retailers surrendering to hysterics? As I explained, semiauto rifles are not the preferred weapon of choice for killers fitting Cruz’s profile. In fact, his mere possession of such a weapon wasn’t the key factor in the success of his attack. The failures of law enforcement was.
It’s the reaction of Dick’s that’s hysterical here.
Then quit calling people with my point of view “dopey” when we note that Dick’s position is grounded in hostility to our beliefs rather than a rational business decision. I’m criticizing the CEO for not serving the best interests of his shareholders. He’s anti-capitalist, not me.
Uh, right in your own post when you said this:
That’s a pretty clear statement that you agree with the CEO of Dick’s that the mere sale of these weapons creates a public safety danger.
It’s not a business decision! The CEO said clearly that he was doing it because he thought he had to “do something”. This is based on his political stance, not any traceable business decision. How do you figure that “Hey, let’s stop carrying one of the top selling firearms in the US” is a sensible business decision? It’s not. It’s based on the CEO’s emotions that not selling these types of weapons will save lives–an opinion you said you agree with.
It even flies right in the face of logic. Cruz bought a shotgun from Dick’s and didn’t even use it in the massacre. What do semiauto rifle sales have to do with anything business related?
The bottom line is that when the CEO makes decisions based on his political opinions, then consumers are fully justified in applying their own politics to harm his company. They’re not “dopey”. What’s dopey is claiming that a CEO making decisions based on his emotions and politics is somehow a rational business decision despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Schlichter is right. Corporations like Dick’s are at war with us. We need to fight back.
I’ll tell you outright what your problem is. You don’t use social media so you don’t understand just how fully totalitarian the far Left is these days and how far they’ll go to prioritize politics over profits.
Love this debate – if I can inject some insight from a position of this being basically my job…
Sometimes, a company can make a business decision like this to be able to influence a policy agenda. Obviously Dicks has a vested interest in whatever gun laws do or do not get passed, and my guess would be that taking this small step before anyone else positions them as a ‘leader’ and better placed to influence policy decisions in their favour. I’d bet the house on the fact that the Corporate Affairs team are in Washington right now.
And corporations virtue signal all the time. It’s called ‘Marketing’.
Marketing is intended to support a company’s business objectives. Sales goals, growth, etc. What Dick’s has done isn’t marketing. It’s cutting itself off from a marketing segment without adding a new one. I don’t see how a company wading into politics while pretending that it isn’t is a marketing decision.
There are exceptions to this. Ben and Jerry’s famously donates a portion of their profits to “world peace” or whatever. Being a couple of hippies is very much part of their brand. Dick’s hasn’t struck out with any sort of marketing campaign consistent with this CEO’s decision though. It’s not well-thought out.
See, here’s what you look at from a marketing perspective:
https://www.fox4now.com/news/local-news/gun-sales-up-in-cape-coral
That’s actual data. If you’re making decisions based purely on business decisions and maximizing shareholder returns as a good capitalist should, you keep selling the shit that people want to buy.
If you want to defend Dicks for trying to destroy itself because of happy feelingz, do it. Just don’t pretend capitalism has anything to do with it. The Shoot Center gun store in Cape Coral is a capitalist venture. Dick’s Sporting Goods is a lot of twattery.
Oh, come on, you can’t be that gullible. Of course he is going to be “saddened”, to appeal to the better angels of our nature. Do you really think he is going to say ,”Hey folks, I thought of a great way to maximize profits on the backs of dead children, and this is how I’m going to do it”?
Not satisfied with telling Dicks how to do business, you now want to run ESPN? Again, I think you are showing your lack of capitalistic understanding. ESPN made a business decision to inject some politics into their sports, and it backfired big-time. So they changed course, hoping to get ratings back up. It might be too late, but that is how capitalism works, you either give your customers what they want or you get buried.
How do know this? what evidence, anything at all, do you have to even suggest that this is a bad business decision? Is your position based solely on the fact that you don’t like it? It might turn out poorly, of course, but it might not.
Why do you think discontinuing one single item is surrendering to hysterics? Have they made any public pronouncements about the efficacy or legality or even work-ability of the 2nd Amendment? Have they banned guns? The only hysterics I see is going from ,”WE have made a business decision to stop selling AR-15’s” to ,”Oh my God, they want to take away all our guns”.
That more of a generic statement directed at all boycotts that I felt were dopey, I did not direct that at you.
Not what I meant. Since you have no crystal ball you have no idea if at some point this action does save a life. No correlation was made to suggest that AR-15’s are inherently more dangerous then say the handguns used by Seung-Hui Cho. Both things can be true, that the CEO would like a safer society, thinking this action just might do that, and that this action might be a boon to business. If I was unclear about the comment then thanks for letting me clarify that here.
Again, presenting facts not in evidence. Do you know anything at all about his political stances? Gee, if he was an anti gun guy, why sell guns in his stores all these years? Before the Parkland shooting, can you find anything at all of him saying ,”God, I hate guns, just waiting for another shooting so I can infringe of the public’s right to bear arms”?
You could be right, I don’t use social media. But I think you are wrong when you think corporations “prioritize politics over profits”, thinking that somehow this will lead to sustainable profitability. ESPN provides clear evidence that this is not a sound business practice. If you want to boycott Dick’s, be my guest. I don’t see the surrender of our gun rights over this. But it all comes down to how corporations want to do business. You don’t like what they are doing, don’t spend money there.
Is that what he owes to his shareholders? The “angels of our nature”? I’ve read Adam Smith and I don’t remember anything about capitalism’s invisible hand being guided by angels.
You’re again conflating the sales of legal, semiauto rifles with killing children. Yet you can’t understand why I call into question your commitment to the 2nd Amendment.
I’m saying it wasn’t a business decision at all. There wasn’t any thought put into this, just the quest for the Goodguy Trophy. It should be obvious that a business which appeals to sportsmen shouldn’t be alienating sportsmen with needless political gesturing. Didn’t work too well for ESPN, did it?
Because this decision is rooted in emotion, not facts. I’ve already explained that young mass shooters don’t typically use these types of weapons to carry out mass shootings. You can also add to this that juvenile offenders typically use firearms that are bought by a straw purchaser or stolen. Finally, there were many other factors that came into play with Cruz that had nothing to do with his selection of firearm.
When you’re not making choices based on reason and facts and instead succumbing to fear and knee-jerk reactions, you are being hysterical.
I’m actually less offended that you’re calling boycotts dopey than I am by you suggesting that corporate virtue-signalling is “capitalism”.
If this CEO could ban private ownership of firearms, I firmly believe he’ll do it. I also believe that there are many other corporate executives who agree with him. I want Dick’s to be made an example of. I want it so that any other corporation who even thinks about pushing a political agenda that strips American citizens of their right to purchase and own firearms reflects on what became of Dick’s and sits down and shuts up.
They do though. Hollywood keeps churning out anti-American propaganda. They get the worst box office performance in 20 years. Think they’ll change? They won’t.
The NFL knows that political protests by its players is harming ratings. Do they stop it? No, they donate to the left-wing cause the players want and refuse to change course.
ESPN knows that politics are harming its brand. Instead of changing course, they lay off a bunch of employees.
There are many more examples of this.
Modern corporations are helmed by people who have their own ideals. They prefer to use their power to work for social change or whatever. Then when they ruin the business, who cares? They still get their golden parachutes.
Any business that contributes to political polarization, particularly when it is taking a position that assaults the civil rights of the American people, at the expense of its shareholders must be destroyed. I’m genuinely suprised that you’re defending Dick’s, especially on the point that the sale of semiautomatic weapons kils children and should be prohibited.
Dick’s is trying to win on both sides of the court here is the way I see it. Despite what many in these parts may think there are liberals in the world and they shop too. It’s a small gesture, before being coerced by government overreacting to social media forces them to do something.
I’m sure everyone here was squealing like a stuck pig over the movements to raise minimum wage, too. The world was ending because no one could be competitive if there was a bare minimum employees should be paid. Well, businesses stay in business by being smart, not by watching Fox News until they froth at the mouth.
Companies like wal-mart quietly started raising wages, without a law to arm bar them into it. You can say they folded, but remember, there’s no law that says they can’t also lower the voluntary wage hike. So, they became a more competitive place to work and avoided a pissy pants hissy fit posture that surely would’ve resulted in raising wages forever, ever, with no takesy backsies.
This is probably where dick’s executive board heads are at too. They’ll shuffle off the AR-15s from the showroom floor and put them in the back, and when everyone calms down they’ll put them back on the shelf. Of course, this might mean losing a couple bucks from a hissy fit prone conservative group or two, but you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette.
As rich pointed out it’s probably a very small financial risk to them, and no matter what your political convictions are you’d be hard pressed to tell a child those exclusive air Jordan’s they want from dicks can’t happen cuz mommy and daddy are fighting the culture war on twitter.
Sure, there are, but Dick’s did not base this decision on its potential sales of Crossfitting equipment against the loss of sales of the firearms it still sells as well as hunting equipment. As I keep saying, the SJW’s that corporations keep trying to please because they make angry tweets don’t actually buy shit and, well, they’re never happy. Corporations keep refusing to see it.
And then Sam’s Club suddenly laid off 10,000 employees. THAT is what a business decision looks like.
This isn’t 3D chess. If they don’t think semiauto firearms are profitable then they should just say so. I’d say they’re wrong, but that would at least give the pretense of being a rational decision based on data.
I’d have to be a real degenerate to indoctrinate my children with the attitude that worship of consumerism and sports fandom is more important than doing what they believe is right. Jesus, no wonder we have young people chewing on detergent packets.
Yes, I would happily tell them no and explain why. If they really wanted those stupid, overpriced shoes I’d tell them to save up their allowance and buy it themselves. That’s closer to capitalism than anyone else here is talking about.
What he owes is his best ability to improve the company, appealing to sentiment, emotion, virtue signalling, whatever, if he can improve the stock price over time, his shareholders will be happy.
And again, you are missing his particular business acumen. Regardless of whether you or I think that AR-15 magically pulled it’s own trigger and killed those kids, there is a direct correlation in the minds of the public in this case between an AR-15 and dead kids. You can give me reasons why any gun, or a car or a bomb or anything at all could have done the same horrors, but here an AR-15 was used and this CEO is tapping in to that.
Some day you must share with us how you read people’s minds.
And if AR-15’s or just guns in general were the only items sold, then I would agree with you. And your ESPN example does not work. ESPN sells only one thing, sports, you poison that and you are out. There are a hundred different sports out there, and still they sell guns, lots and lots of guns, just not AR-15’s and you think they are on the road to bankruptcy for discontinuing one single item.
.
Agreed, but the AR-15 is the weapon he did use. This is analogous to a donut shop in Parkland who goes public with ,”We think it was dreadful that our sheriff’s dept. dropped the ball and ignored so many obvious warning signs so we will stop the practice of giving them free donuts from now on”, You would say ,”Ah, how could they let their emotions get the best of them”, when in practicality, the people in town might just agree with them and patronize their shop more.
What fear? Did any consumer group go to them with their outrage and demand they stop selling AR-15’s.? Did any consumer polling point to a loss of sales because they would not take a stand on AR-15’s. They were preemptive in making this move, could turn out to be absolute genius in the end.
I don’t know how many times I have to say this. I wasn’t calling all boycotts dopey, just the ones that I thought were dopey.
.
Based on what?
That leap was so colossal, it got me dizzy. How is Dicks decision to stop selling this one gun stripping citizens of their rights to purchase and own firearms? This is exactly what I meant by , “I can’t buy an AR-15 at Dicks”, to ,”They want to take all my guns away”.
And if those ideals harm the bottom line, then out they go. Google and Facebook are clear examples of this. They promote a political agenda that is in line with the board members. Some shareholders, like myself, don’t like the censorship and the political posturing. This attitude has not hurt profits, yet, so they have no incentive to change. If Dicks suffers material loss and profits are hurt by this decision they will be forced to either change course or go bankrupt.
I looked at Dicks stock price, they need something new to inject some enthusiasm, this just might be what the doctor ordered.
What if he doesn’t? You know that absolutely nothing is going to happen to him even if he tanks the business right?
The CEO is irresponsibly feeding that misconception and driving his business into the political realm, needlessly. It’s all the more reason that corporation should be devastated until he’s thrown out on his ass. He should not be defended for this.
Nope. Which is why this was utterly needless as I just said. But if you doubt that fear is driving this, take a look at the Dick’s official press release.
https://kek.gg/u/WT5f
How much tyranny gets justified in this country in the name of the chiiiiiiiiildren?
Nope. And that’s why it’s so baffling that they did this. It was unforced and driven by nothing but the desire to fulfill a political agenda.
Oh, I don’t know. Based on this:
https://kek.gg/u/zJJR
Yeah. They made their “business decision” and are now lobbying Congress to make it law. Anytime you want to start standing up for the 2nd Amendment here, I’ll be waiting.
Actually, they don’t. Who is the last executive who got booted for driving his company into the ground by appeasing Social Justice Warriors? I can’t think of one.
I want to help them go bankrupt.
Yes, embracing left-wing politics when at least half of your consumers are right-of-center always works for reversing negative trends. Were we saying something about the NFL, ESPN, and all that?
Great discussion, really enjoying it. Don’t really have anything to add but thought it was worth mentioning.
Well, William guess by reading your comment I’m convinced you’re better off never owning stocks in a company and are better suited taking extreme measures to match your extreme positions with your spending money.
Sometimes in this world bad things happen, and people demand action. In this case, a lapse in our social safety net allowed a fucking lunatic to roam freely among us until he was able ultimately do the harm to society that filled his black heart. In this particular example he got his hands on a highly politicized version of a weapon which has had an even more lasting effect to his carnage than he ever probably imagined in his wildest dreams.
Everyone plays a part in this event now, and you have to evaluate what role you’re will be. CNN is doing what they do, filling up the kids and teachers for the camera and coaching teenagers into convincing themselves to take away rights they don’t even have yet. Fox and the NRA are trying to puff their chests out and look like tough guys that won’t ever relent, and look like completely callous assholes. Liberal groups are no doubt making picket signs for the midterms already, and conservative groups are also posturing for the midterms by saying this is the beginning of the end of liberty.
Companies are right in the middle, with one distinction. They’ll inevitably get pulled into whatever bad idea comes out of this by LAW. If you’re a company, a LAW forcing you into or preventing your ability to do something is about the worst thing possible to have happen. So, even if it looks like they cave, xolubtarily moving in a direction is still better than moving a direction dictated by a flimsy and ill thought out law.
If they do something voluntarily there’s still the possibility they can change their minds later. However, if they put their foot down at the behest of some fickle, fair weather customers and take a side they’ll be out of business in no time. Just like I’m sure none of you patriots that bleed eagle feathers and liberty bells traffic CHik-Fil-A for every meal because you like how their CEO went dick out on the issue of gays, Dick’s also knows that if you can find an AR-15 down the street for ten dollars less your jihad won’t be as important as saving a couple bucks.
So, they’re going to get ahead of this thing until further notice and before the pedantic and callous tantrums of conservative groups make every business they want to bully look as callous to current events as they do. The honey badger right wing may give zero fucks about anything, but dicks has to try to keep the doors open, and they know your praise will ALSO end as soon as the cameras turn off.
If someone on the right were really smart, instead of being just really bull headed there’s a way to communicate the folly of passing ridiculous laws against choice. Liberals completely understand and can fathom the idea that prohibition doesn’t work and often frame it this way themselves in the context of drug prohibition.
I mean, seriously.., Drugs can kill you just as dead and even are probably in the Stoneman high school school grounds as we speak but you’d be hard pressed to find a liberal that would be so cavalier as to say they shouldn’t be in vending machines on campus.
If only someone could frame gun prohibition as a cause as hopeless as drug prohibition it might level the playing field a little bit. Nah, what was. I thinking? Let’s have dumbfucks like Dana Loesch make ridiculous and laughable scenarios up on live TV. Let’s put as much faith in your hero and savior president on this as you do shitting on the FBI defending him.
He’s shown incredible resolve too, huh? Lmao he’s already pissing in your face on the matter and supporting gun control.
Really great work, trumpalos. Really glad your tactics and ideology are what’s steering the ship. Lmao.
Maybe, maybe not. I agree that an incestuous relationship exists between many CEO’s and board members but that is not really the issue here, is it? CEO’s make decisions everyday based on what they think benefits the company. If this decision does not work and profits suffer, he will hear about it at the next shareholders meeting.
Says you, he has a different take. Your stridency on this issue is quite striking. Did you get all wound up when Starkist went ,”Dolphin free tuna”. How dare they inject politics into their product. This is how business is done.
I read zero fear in that press release, where did you see it? And from the press release;
Which totally negates your premise that he is a closet gun grabber.
Which goes to the rub of this entire exchange, when ever anyone wants to debate sensible gun reform or does not immediately attack someone who brings it up ,they are in your mind against the 2nd Amendment and deliberately inching towards total gun confiscation.
So you really think that shareholders will idly stand by and watch the company suffer because they think his heart is in the right place?
What I find interesting is that you accuse the CEO of ceding to his emotions, yet almost your entire exchange here has been emotionally based; You equate a business decision to remove AR-15’s from store shelves as a guerrilla tactic to circumvent all of the 2nd Amendment even though they sell a hundred other different types of firearms, you can magically see into the CEO’s heart and just know he is a leftie who wanted all along to take away your guns and was waiting for the right time to do it, and then you slam my commitment to defending the 2nd Amendment because I see this particular issue different from you. You made a great speech in another thread about working across the aisle and not demonizing our political opponents, how about not demonizing guys on your side who agree with you 98% of the time?
Ben Sasse, one of the good guys in congress, had a great line about Trump’s weak knees ,”We’re not ditching any Constitutional protections simply because the last person the President talked to today doesn’t like them,”
https://www.dailywire.com/news/27711/republican-senator-unloads-trump-take-guns-first-james-barrett
I heard a great line the other day, wish I wrote it ,”I like almost everything Trump has done, and dislike almost everything Trump has said”, pretty much nails it for me.
OK, how if I more accurately say ‘Brand Strategy’. I obviously don’t know exactly what is going on in this particular retailer – but dealing with these things is my job, and I can tell you that these decisions are very rarely for hippie feel good reasons. Starbucks doesn’t do all it’s environmental stuff because it loves the fact that the coffee costs more to make.
My guess would be that this move puts Dicks at the front of the queue for lobbying when it comes to firearms control at little to no hit on their actual sales. Put it this way – Marco Rubio can’t take a meeting with Wayne LaPierre right now. But a lunch with the CEO of Dicks? That would be a good political move for him….
This is a brilliant summation of the train wreck from yesterday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw3qcKwgnmg
Epic
http://tribunist.com/news/dicks-employee-pens-epic-resignation-letter-in-response-to-new-firearms-policies/
http://2yrwuo3kbyxz20xx02a4011i.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/oppo1.jpg
Oops
See, the 13 passengers thing is one of those topics I’ve seen both sides touting the importance of. The Left thinks the Right is stupid for making such a big deal out of a discount that so few NRA members use. The Right says Delta is stupid for pissing off so many millions of gun owners for a perk they were offering that nobody is using anyway.
Call me biased, but I agree with the Right on this. Delta could have waited a couple of months and just ended the discount on the grounds that nobody uses it or something, if they had to end it at all.
Comments are closed.