Just a public service . . .

[flamin lib]

We’re all marketed to. It’s a fact of life and something I made a living doing for 30 years. If you’re good at it nobody notices, it’s a case of telling the truth in the most advantageous manner. Big Pharma is particularly good at it; ‘Ask your doctor if your heart is healthy enough for sex’ (sales speak for ‘You’re gonna wear her ass out!’) and ‘An erection lasting more than four hours’ (sales speak for ‘just like Prom Night 1969’). That said, it is rare to get an inside look at the strategy behind the marketing.

The Violence Policy Center has a number of research articles on the gun industry and its various marketing strategies. Yes, it is a pro control group but the cites from insiders and industry publications are illuminating and worth considering. Advertising works. That’s why so much money is spent on it. It helps to be aware of when and how you are being targeted.

This article is about the marketing of military style or military appearing guns, both long and short. I post it for your consideration only, not to start a flame war.

http://vpc.org/studies/militarization.pdf

[hack89]

1. The civilian gun market has always been militarized

those hunting rifles that controllers so graciously will let us keep? Identical to the weapons that killed millions in two world wars. The notion that there is a clear line between military and civilian weapons is absolute nonsense - civilian gun technology has always influenced military weapons and vice versa. Men wanted to own and shoot rifles that they were familiar with - rifles that many were first exposed to in the military. The AR15 has been around for 55 years - for two generations of American men, it is what immediately comes to mind when they hear the word "rifle". VPC is once again displaying their ignorance of guns.

[flamin lib]

2. You missed the point. It's not about the gun.

It's about how the marketing is making them so desireable. It's about how gun enthuaisasts are manipulated into buying what manufacturers have to sell to people who already have guns that meet their needs.

Read the PDF, it's interesting.

Edit. BTW I was trained on the M16 and find the AR dirivatives boring and pointless. Not good for home defense not really good for hunting and not much good past 100 yards unless conditions are optimal. Personal favorite is the 7.5 Swiss.

[hack89]

3. And that is a major revelation?

we are a consumer society - the market forces that influence the actions of auto, alcohol and TV makers also influence the actions of gun manufacturers. Who would have thought!

Here is something to consider. Having ten guns does not make someone anymore dangerous than someone with a single gun. I have a long list of guns I would love to purchase for various reasons. If I want to buy them then what's it to you? Or the VPC?

[flamin lib]

5. Let me repeat, it's not about the gun. It's about why people want them.

You want various guns. Fine. Do you want them for your own reasons or because you are marketed to? And how do you know? Advertising works. It makes you want things that without it you wouldn't. That's why so much money is spent on it.

It's rare to get statements from the marketers themselves and from industry publications not meant for general consumption.

[hack89]

6. Does it matter?

I guess I fail to see the significance of this.

[flamin lib]

8. Then you are the ideal consumer. nt

[hack89]

9. No - I am a very informed consumer

I understand very well what advertiser are trying to do to me. The fact of the matter, though, is that I am frugal with my money and do not live an extravagant life style. I never buy impulsively.

Is the point of the OP that advertising to consumers needs to be curbed or restricted? Or just advertising for guns? What is the salient point here?

[blueridge3210]

11. From what i could pick up from the VERY long article

the VPC doesn't want the gun manufacturers to advertise "ugly" guns. YMMV

[flamin lib]

15. Did you miss the Big Pharma part? nt

[SQUEE]

33. I agree.

I and MANY other dedicated gun owners are often amused by the guns that show up at our local ranges, I often shake my head at the Tapco-fucked monstrosities and psuedo Tier1 rifles on display.

I also find that many times I wish these people were into something else, and want the ability to take their guns away as they really seem to be clueless as to what they are doing.... It passes quickl, since i believe in freedoms.

That same reasoning when applied to free speech, or religion or the vote? That would be repulsive to most here wouldn't it...
or would it. I see an alarming amount of elitism from people claiming to be liberal lately.

[blueridge3210]

4. Just a few thoughts:

I hope marketing works, otherwise someone is wasting money.

Very long article; lot's of attempts to gin up fear of "the other", those who would purchase so-called "Militarized weapons". First picture is of the .50 sniper rifle; with a note of "No meaningful regulation". Since it is a regulated as any other firearm and costs about $6,000+ and each shot costs about $10 I'm not sure how much more regulation is needed. Maybe I missed the huge number of drive by shootings and bodega' hold ups using the Barrett.

Next is the "manufacture, sale and/or import" of civilian version military rifles that would otherwise be illegal to sell to the public. In other words, functionally no different than any other legal semi-automatic rifle, pistol or shotgun. Also the comment regarding how these weapons have "no legitimate sporting purpose". Apparently a walnut stock makes a weapon legitimate for sporting use; ugly plastic not so much.

It seems the author of the article's main problem is that the firearm industry is capable of manufacturing weapons that the public wants to buy and communicates that fact by way of advertising. I've read or viewed a number of marketing campaigns in print, radio or television; I've yet to be compelled to purchase something against my will. Perhaps people could be treated as competent adults capable of making their own choices in life.

[flamin lib]

7. Sigh. It's not about the gun. It's about how the industry markets to people who

already have guns that meet their needs. It's about why so many gun owners own so many guns. To have quotes from marketing pros and industry publications not meant for the general public is rare and can be educational.

Yes it is a long article. Thanks for reading it. I don't hate guns and have no interest in yours.

[blueridge3210]

10. Yet the article focuses on the specification on the guns.

Who is to decide what another person's needs are? Many people collect many things that they don't "need". Since approximately 99% of legal firearm owners are not causing any problems it seems clear the problem is not the guns or how the look or feel; the problem is who has the guns and why. Address the ill-advised "war on drugs" and some of these issues would likely clear up.

[flamin lib]

12. Apparently it's the gun manufacturers that decide what people need. That's what the

article was about, not taking away guns, not controlling guns but how the industry convinces buyers that they need more and different guns. Marketing isn't an evil thing, its a fact of life and should be realized as such and taken into consideration.

Like tabacco companies the gun makers have an interest in increasing sales and nothing else. We all need to be aware of it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. VPC has *also* decided what people need - and want that made law

The article is just another way of marketing their ideas and convincing people
that bans of currently legal firearms are a good idea. Like you said:

Marketing isn't an evil thing, its a fact of life and should be realized as such and taken into consideration.

Never offer up a dish that you yourself wouldn't care to eat...

[flamin lib]

14. The article is a rare look inside the strategy of gun manufacturers with quotes from industry

insiders and industry publications. It is neither good nor evil, it is what it is. If the VPC has decided anything in this article it is that gun enthusiasts should be aware that there is a concerted effort to influence the buyer's decision on what kind of and how many guns to own. Don't read more into the offering than is there. There's a lot of VPC publications that are as you say, I didn't post one of them.

Take from the article what is useful to you and make it part of your shopping decision. Do I want this because I want this or because they want me to want it? Its a valid question. Just as we should evaluate the arguments for limiting access we should evaluate the marketing that make us want things that we otherwise wouldn't .

That's all the OP was about.

[friendly_iconoclast]

16. Fair enough, but please don't act as if VPC is some disinterested observer

They are marketing their political viewpoint just as gun manufacturers are marketing
what they produce.

That said, I found that article the best sort of propaganda
in that there was some actual information to be gotten from the reading of it.

[flamin lib]

17. I did not act as if VPC were a disinterested party. Acknowledged it in the OP.

On this topic there are no disinterested parties. Why invest the energy if you have no interest?

Like Dad said, keep an open mind and people will throw all sorts of stuff in it .

'Course he also said if ya seen two ya seen em all but I'm still trying to verify that one . . .

[blueridge3210]

18. *snort*

Well played, sir.

[Eleanors38]

25. The AR-15 seems now to be the weapon of choice for Texas pig hunters...

I don't know what psychological hidden persuaders compelled these hunters & their guides to choose this rifle, but the .223 ammo is adequate, cheap, of low recoil, and range isn't an important factor. Many do in fact double as varminters, a shooting sports gun, and SD weapons, and are amenable to rebuilding for different calibers.

More important than any ominous ad strategies is the overwhelming change within the "gun culture:" American civilians are re-arming, choosing a new, modular utility weapon. Once, the gun was a knock off of the military Springfield or Krag; now, it is a knock-off of the M 16, although a more distant relative since the AR isn't even full-auto. Similarly, the handgun of choice now is a semi-auto, most likely following the "lead" of the military and police.

I just don't see the significance in gun ads & marketing strategies; some are tasteless, others appeal to empowerment, others the rugged outdoors, etc. Meh. I'll stick with my Rem .270, Ruger .357, 30-30, a clutch of shotguns, and a 1905 semi-auto .22.

[flamin lib]

26. In case you haven't read the other posts, its not about the gun. Its about the marketing. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

27. *Everyone* markets what they want people to buy

For example, this is Stop Handgun Violence marketing its views along
a heavily travelled stretch of the Massachusetts Turnpike-it's pretty well
known in the Boston area:



BTW, it will be gone by the end of the year, the founder of SHV sold the site:

http://www.wcvb.com/news/boston-gun-control-billboard-coming-down/26074650#!RGeWi

[flamin lib]

28. That too is about marketing. Know it for what it is. Just read the rest of the thread. nt

[Eleanors38]

29. I really don't get the significance you're driving at.

I merely pointed out a big trend in civilian buying trends which, IMO, increasing numbers of manufacturers are only catching up to. If you think there is something significant in this marketing, please explain.

[flamin lib]

30. Have you read the PDF? If so you should have seen the point of the OP. If not WTF? nt

[Eleanors38]

31. Yes, through much eyestrain. Better would be Your summary

of concerns and criticisms of the marketing approaches; how they differ (or not) from other products, what makes them exceptional, etc.
This might further the discussion. BTW, the last "new" gun I obtained was a Rem Wingmaster 870, a gift from Mom & Dad in 1961. I'm not much into new stuff and its attendant advertising & marketing approaches, though I am curious about some approaches, esp. the obsessing over pink colors for the female market. What strikes you as curious or disturbing?

[Jenoch]

19. My response to this topic is "Yeah, so what".

[flamin lib]

20. And your comment is noted. nt

[blueridge3210]

22. Actually I'm rather enjoying the exchange of ideas

without the annoying "gun humper", "penis substitute", collective guilt crap that usually surfaces. Also good not to have the "family reunion pictures" one banned posted was noted for displaying. We can, as adults, agree to disagree.

[Jenoch]

23. The reason for my response is because

all manufacturers try to get their current customers to buy more of their product. There is nothing remotely out of the ordinary with this article.

[blueridge3210]

24. True enough.

Given the recent history of the "gungeon" however, it is quite a relief to have any civil discussion of the issue. I too have disagreed with the tenor of the article.

[beevul]

21. The vpc does not understand people very well.

Do people buy corvettes and Camaros like them because of the advertising?

Do people buy campbells soup because of the advertising?

Do people buy a prius because of the advertising?

Do people buy air conditioning systems because of advertising?

Very little faith it seems the VPC has, in the ability of people to think, consider, and choose for themselves, based on criteria which they have decided are important to them in their own lives.

[Jenoch]

32. Actually, people do buy many goods and services because of the advertising.

Or at least, they consider buying goods and services because of the advertising. Why do you think the GEICO gecko has been around so long? It's because is causing people to consider GEICO as their insurance carrier. The same goes for all advertising. If it did not get people to respond, it would end, and it sometimes does.

[mog75]

34. I never wanted an ar15

I never wanted one until there was talk of another AWB. When I heard they might get banned I had to try one. Nothing to do with advertisers. Plenty to do with Dianne Feinstein. I would like to thank her, they are great and I now have 3 of them. If she hadn't proposed that legislation I would never have tried one. Up until then I didn't even know why anyone would want one.

[flamin lib]

35. A serious question. Why more than one? I currently have 5 mosin nagant 98\30s and a considered

Reason for that number. Why do you have 3 ARs?

[mog75]

36. I have two sons

Last edited Sun Jun 1, 2014, 11:19 PM - Edit history (1)

I only shoot one of my AR,s. The other two won't leave the safe until my boys are old enough for them. (2 & 5 yrs old right now). My wife also has one, but it has the pink magpul furniture so it doesn't really qualify as a scary black rifle.
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
Edit:added a pic. Someone let me know if it's not allowed. Doesn't really say anything in the rules.

[Duckhunter935]

38. whats your reason for the 5?

[flamin lib]

39. 5 grand children. nt

[mog75]

40. NT

What does it mean when someone ends their post with "NT"? I see that from a lot of different posters here, and I'm just curious.

[Duckhunter935]

42. No text

other that the title so you do not need open it

[mog75]

43. Thank you. NT

[Duckhunter935]

41. Cool nt

[NYC_SKP]

37. Interesting, but pretty narrow in scope.

They fail to account for a lot of other major factors over the past 40 years, including:

The impact on the industry of the end of the Viet Nam conflict.

The militarization of local police, and how that impacts civilian interest in gun ownership.

The failed and still failing war on drugs.

And so many who want to fight gun violence with a similar war on guns.

It ain't gonna work.

It will backfire.