Jesse Abbate a free agent

[ninemmbill]

I'm sure she will continue to do well no matter what platform she chooses.

[JThompson]

Guys, there is a story behind this, but it is Jessie's to tell. She will be fine, Glock will be fine, and all this speculation is making me dizzy.

I agree... You can bet Jessie and Billy have a plan. The water cooler is empty... back to work!!

[smokshwn]

As I stated in any competitive endeavor putting your name on a "performer" does not offer the biggest bang for the investment, more so if your potential market is small (ie 4-5000 competitive shooters vs. millions of golfers).

Champion shooters don't just sell guns to active competitors. When Joe Blow trots down to the gun shop to buy his first gun, he's more likely to buy Brand X if there's a poster showing World Champion Billy Badass shooting the Brand X Megaboomer. The fact that Joe Blow is going to shoot a half box of Wolf through the gun and then throw it in the bedstand to collect dust doesn't mean he doesn't want to shoot what the champs shoot. If he's seen name shooters on Shooting USA or Shooting Gallery shooting Brand X, so much the better. Similarly, if the competitive shooters at the range are shooting Brand X, it sells guns to the newbies with the rentals.

FWIW, the NSSF poll (http://www.nssf.org/newsroom/releases/2010/033110.cfm) indicated that roughly 18 million Americans currently engage in "handgun target shooting". I think USPSA has 16,000 or 18,000 active members, not to mention IDPA, Steel Challenge, NRA Action Pistol shooters, etc. Throw in CCW holders and new SD handgun purchasers, and our market is much larger than 4-5000 shooters. That's without counting the LE and private security markets, or military contracts that might be impacted by marketing.

Crux of the matter is that there are a lot of guns sold in the US, but there are only a small handful of "known" shooters. When you consider the growing number of women buying handguns for self protection, the marketing potential of a Jessie Abbate or Julie Golob is substantial. Which Leatham do you suppose your wife is more likely to identify with she she buys a new CCW pistol - Rob or Kippi?

So if this marketing is so effective and so economical, why did companies move away from having whole teams of Billy Badass' traveling the country to impress Joe and Jill Blow?

[Corey]

Guys, there is a story behind this, but it is Jessie's to tell. She will be fine, Glock will be fine, and all this speculation is making me dizzy.

I agree... You can bet Jessie and Billy have a plan. The water cooler is empty... back to work!!

cant we just refill the water? haha

just going to be weird watching videos of her shooting and her not having a Glock shirt on. best of luck to her!

[Dan Hefta]

HiPoint is looking for someone!

[bbbean]

So if this marketing is so effective and so economical, why did companies move away from having whole teams of Billy Badass' traveling the country to impress Joe and Jill Blow?

Ask them. Seems shortsighted to me, especially during a time when gun sales have gone through the roof. If I were in the gun biz, I'd want to be sure I had a handful of champs on my payroll, and would want a small army of shooters wearing my logo and carrying my product whenever the cameras were rolling.

But my primary points were that:

1) Just as NASCAR winners don't just sell cars and parts to other race car drivers, competitive shooters sell guns to casual shooters.

2) There are a LOT of handgun buyers out there.

[Bear23]

Not everyone that buys a handgun wants to compete in organized shooting events. I don't buy a handgun because someone looks cool shooting it.

[smokshwn]

So if this marketing is so effective and so economical, why did companies move away from having whole teams of Billy Badass' traveling the country to impress Joe and Jill Blow?

Ask them. Seems shortsighted to me, especially during a time when gun sales have gone through the roof. If I were in the gun biz, I'd want to be sure I had a handful of champs on my payroll, and would want a small army of shooters wearing my logo and carrying my product whenever the cameras were rolling.

But my primary points were that:

1) Just as NASCAR winners don't just sell cars and parts to other race car drivers, competitive shooters sell guns to casual shooters.

2) There are a LOT of handgun buyers out there.

Barry I get what you are saying but in your response you make a point about gun sales increasing. They increased with little to no marketing pressure from the industry, but due to a political climate.

my original points were that

a) As a marketing tool sponsoring individuals is a very expensive way to market. It can be effective but even when its effective it is not a primary tool for gun companies especially those who have huge market focus on LE and Military contracts. Selling guns to agencies and organizations is much different than sneakers and golf balls to the masses.

b)Regardless how effective it is, Jesse leaving (no disrespect to her at all) will not effect Glock's bottom line to any significant degree. I just didn't see all the drama concerning the decision.

take care

Edited April 19, 2010 by smokshwn

[hitman]

Marriage proposal on the way!

Oh wait it’s not a gun thing is it?

[rtr]

I'm not privy to specifics of any professional shooters sponsorship agreements.

However, according to those in the know that I have spoken with there are only a handful (if that) of practical shooters who get paid something approaching a reasonably salary solely to shoot for a particular firearms manufacturer. There are a lot of professional shooters who are sponsored by a firearms manufacturer but that sponsorship isn't a large source of income for those people. In addition there are several folks like Dave Sevigny who are sponsored by a company but also work for that company.

Many of the professional shooters I have asked say that the real money is in training.

[Gary1911A1]

I guess NCIS has sold more Sigs than Bruce Grey has so maybe the ones who suggest professionals shooters don't really sell that many guns have a point.

[XD Niner]

Not everyone that buys a handgun wants to compete in organized shooting events. I don't buy a handgun because someone looks cool shooting it.

You're right. I'd never buy the gun your Avatar is handling just because of her "cool" looks factor. Of course, I had gazed at the avatar for a good ten minutes before I even realized there was a gun involved.

[Ramas]

Good luck to Jesse with new sponsorship, awesome shooter!

[John Heiter]

Hmm, there may be an opportunity here. I wonder how much it would take to sponsor her for one match while she's between majors? Have to figure in the cost of a "Sponsored by John" Techwear shirt with my picture on the back. Something tasteful like me doing the double thumbs up Fonzie pose. Anyone want to donate to my cause?

[davidwiz]

I'm not privy to specifics of any professional shooters sponsorship agreements.

However, according to those in the know that I have spoken with there are only a handful (if that) of practical shooters who get paid something approaching a reasonably salary solely to shoot for a particular firearms manufacturer. There are a lot of professional shooters who are sponsored by a firearms manufacturer but that sponsorship isn't a large source of income for those people. In addition there are several folks like Dave Sevigny who are sponsored by a company but also work for that company.

Many of the professional shooters I have asked say that the real money is in training.

That's been true since the early days of IPSC. Rob Leatham was really the only person to really earn a living just shooting. The others relied upon sponsorship dollars (barely enough to cover shooting expenses - travel, entry fees, etc.), match purses (years ago, The Masters purse was hundreds of thousands of dollars, with the winner getting $100k IIRC), training (where a lot of the money is now), and either working directly for the manufacture as an employee or doing consulting work.

[smokshwn]

I'm not privy to specifics of any professional shooters sponsorship agreements.

However, according to those in the know that I have spoken with there are only a handful (if that) of practical shooters who get paid something approaching a reasonably salary solely to shoot for a particular firearms manufacturer. There are a lot of professional shooters who are sponsored by a firearms manufacturer but that sponsorship isn't a large source of income for those people. In addition there are several folks like Dave Sevigny who are sponsored by a company but also work for that company.

Many of the professional shooters I have asked say that the real money is in training.

That's been true since the early days of IPSC. Rob Leatham was really the only person to really earn a living just shooting. The others relied upon sponsorship dollars (barely enough to cover shooting expenses - travel, entry fees, etc.), match purses (years ago, The Masters purse was hundreds of thousands of dollars, with the winner getting $100k IIRC), training (where a lot of the money is now), and either working directly for the manufacture as an employee or doing consulting work.

This is all true....your value to an organization simply as an accomplished shooter on an ad page is very limited. If you take a look at the guys who have actually made a living at it, they are working their asses off in many other endeavors associated with the company as the daily job (R&D, Marketing, Instructing, Product Development, etc) there really is no free ride simply on shooting results. In those same conversations with a couple of those folks "in the know" being that full time shooter is not exactly a picnic and walk in the park like many think it to be. To those folks who have succeeded in that environment my hat is tipped, as it is very apparent to me that it is a very hard road to carve out a living on.

Edited April 19, 2010 by smokshwn

[konkapot]

I've had this very discussion repeatedly with shooting buddies in the past.

I really wonder if there is any way to empirically track (or even reliably estimate) what impact Mr Leatham has on Springfield sales.

At some level...somebody....has to be asking "What exactly are we getting from our investment?"

I spoke at length to a representative from a medium sized 1911 manufacturer about this very thing; he said that it was NOT at all worth it for the company. Not by a long shot.

Mr Leatham, Mr Sevigny, etc. Not questioning anybody's abilities or value; just idly wondering what the balance sheet end of this looks like.

FY42385

[smokshwn]

I've had this very discussion repeatedly with shooting buddies in the past.

I really wonder if there is any way to empirically track (or even reliably estimate) what impact Mr Leatham has on Springfield sales.

At some level...somebody....has to be asking "What exactly are we getting from our investment?"

I spoke at length to a representative from a medium sized 1911 manufacturer about this very thing; he said that it was NOT at all worth it for the company. Not by a long shot.

Mr Leatham, Mr Sevigny, etc. Not questioning anybody's abilities or value; just idly wondering what the balance sheet end of this looks like.

FY42385

Spoke with an equipment manufacturer for our sport about sponsorship and its returns and whether or not it affected sales to any significant degree.

He couldn't stop laughing long enough to give me an answer

[bbbean]

So... The reason we see so many more Springfields, STIs, SVIs, Glocks, and S&Ws at competitions than SIGs, H&Ks, Tauruses, Rugers, Colts, etc is purely due to quality and design. Seeing the best shooters plastered in logos has nothing to do with sales?

I realize that those of us in this conversation have never even considered a pistol, part, or accessory merely because a name shooter used that - we're far too savvy for such a thing. But don't you think there might be a few shooters out there who are just a little more likely to consider the brand X Thunderboomer after hearing about how Jane Allalphasuperfast won 18 titles using the Brand X Thunderboomer? Even if they don't buy the Thunderboomer, you don't think some of these folks might linger in the brand X section just a little longer, or that a gun shop owner might be just a little more likely to put Brand X on prominent display and tell new shooters "Hey, some guy just won the world championship with one of those!"?

People have spent careers measuring the value of endorsers and sponsorships. Trying to measure the impact with one simple measure is like trying to measure the impact of one single piece of equipment on accuracy. Google discussions of the Q factor, or "value of celebrity endorsement" for more info.

Just like you wouldn't argue a gun couldn't possibly be accurate unless it had a 1 lb trigger, you can't argue that a manufacturer can't sell guns without sponsored shooters. There are too many other factors to make such a simple argument. But to deny the impact, exposure, and credibility gained from sponsored shooters would be similarly shortsighted.

[DWFAN]

So... ... to deny the impact, exposure, and credibility gained from sponsored shooters would be similarly shortsighted.

Exactly. There has to be some benefit to sponsoring shooters, or they wouldnt do it.

[rvb]

You could see the effect when Beretta had a team and Langdon was shooting for them, especially in the IDPA circles. I won't try to quantify it, but during that time frame there were a significant number of berettas on the line. Now they are rare and when I do see them it's usually some new shooter who's just using it to get him by until he can get a glock or SA or S_I, because those are what win.

There are some other factors there as well, such as beretta discontinuing the elite models, but I think having a winning name associated with them sold them more than a few guns, in and out of the match circuit.

Do you think we may start seeing more Sigs over the next couple years? There's almost none now. That'll be a good example.

-rvb

[bdpaz]

So... The reason we see so many more Springfields, STIs, SVIs, Glocks, and S&Ws at competitions (emphasis added) than SIGs, H&Ks, Tauruses, Rugers, Colts, etc is purely due to quality and design. Seeing the best shooters plastered in logos has nothing to do with sales?

The (unanswerable here) question is, does the company make a profit from the sales of those guns that occurred because of sponsoring a pro shooter - and not because of other advertising - after covering the cost of the sponsorship? You can debate the percentage but I don't think anyone believes that the competition market accounts for the majority of S&W, Springfield, and Glock sales.

Winning big matches and championships is significant to us but the reality is, that outside of active participants, USPSA type shooting is almost unknown. In my experience, the majority of shooters in Arizona have never even heard of Rob Leatham - and he lives here!

As none of us have access to the gun makers' financial statements this whole discussion is meaningless (but fun ). My opinion (or guess) is that sponsored shooters do sell more guns in the competition markets but that the increase rarely pays for the sponsorship.

[Bear23]

So... The reason we see so many more Springfields, STIs, SVIs, Glocks, and S&Ws at competitions than SIGs, H&Ks, Tauruses, Rugers, Colts, etc is purely due to quality and design. Seeing the best shooters plastered in logos has nothing to do with sales?

I realize that those of us in this conversation have never even considered a pistol, part, or accessory merely because a name shooter used that - we're far too savvy for such a thing. But don't you think there might be a few shooters out there who are just a little more likely to consider the brand X Thunderboomer after hearing about how Jane Allalphasuperfast won 18 titles using the Brand X Thunderboomer? Even if they don't buy the Thunderboomer, you don't think some of these folks might linger in the brand X section just a little longer, or that a gun shop owner might be just a little more likely to put Brand X on prominent display and tell new shooters "Hey, some guy just won the world championship with one of those!"?

People have spent careers measuring the value of endorsers and sponsorships. Trying to measure the impact with one simple measure is like trying to measure the impact of one single piece of equipment on accuracy. Google discussions of the Q factor, or "value of celebrity endorsement" for more info.

Just like you wouldn't argue a gun couldn't possibly be accurate unless it had a 1 lb trigger, you can't argue that a manufacturer can't sell guns without sponsored shooters. There are too many other factors to make such a simple argument. But to deny the impact, exposure, and credibility gained from sponsored shooters would be similarly shortsighted.

I and others like me beat people at matches that wear the fancy shirts. I'm not a sponsored shooter. I'm just a Foot Doc that owns too many guns. The reason we see those guns at our matches because those are the guns that have survived the game and have proven their design. It took time for the XD to catch on with Glock dominating the market and now we see S&W with a sizeable market share of the uspsa crowd.

Guns are like cars, not everyone wants or can afford the Porsche, other cars can run with the Porsche for half the price!

[konkapot]

The glock was popular loooooooong before Mr. Sevigny started shooting. If Mr. Sevigny was abducted by aliens...or quit shooting...I bet that Glock sales would continue to be stable.

An interesting test would be if one of the less popular guns (HK comes to mind) went neck deep into sponsoring a team; say 10-12 M-GM shooters spread roughly evenly across the country. It would be interesting to fast forward 12-18 months and see what impact the team would have on sales.

It would also be interesting to grab the typical gun owner; if he's carrying a Glock ask him who Dave Sevigny is. Ditto for the guy carrying a Springfield...or Para.

STI owns a "fairly" large share of the USPSA market, but doesn't seem to have sponsored shooters in the formal sense.

Other than Mr Leatham who exactly is on "Team Springfield?" How many guys on "Team Para?"

My position has been that most of these Big Name shooters are "historical" or "legend" sponsored shooters; guys who have been around for decades and have such a name/niche in the industry that they're sponsored.....well, because they're The Man. (Miculek, Leatham, Jarret, etc.)

Look at how many rock solid shooters that have come into the game since 2000 or so and aren't sponsored.

This might be one of those unanswerable questions.

FY42385

[Corey]

How many of the "sponsored shooters" out there do NOT work for their respective gun manufacturer? thats a question to ponder. I would be willing to guess most of them work for the company and thus shoot on their factory shooting team.