Exclusive use of classic target

[LPatterson]

This discussion is truly a case where each side has a strong opinion and nothing either side says is going to change the other side. Sooner or later one side or the other will make a comment that starts us down the road of division which will suit the gun control establishment. If we do not hang together then we shall surely hang separately. The prior post about what the gun industry is worth doesn't mean much to someone like Mayor Bloomberg who is worth billions and got the law changed so he could run a third term. What would happen to this country if President Obama decided he want to run for a third term, afterall the Demcratic party has a majority in congress and might be able to push that down our throats like they did health care. United we might stand but divided we shall surely fall.

"If you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem."

[bbbean]

can you imagine our sport where winners would come home with a big fat check. ... can you in vision making a living shooting,... youngsters who win, get a check that goes towards thier college fund.

Why isn't that happening in Steel Challenge then? It's about as PC as speed shooting can get, even has .22. It's much more TV and spectator friendly, too. Now that it's owned by USPSA, it seems that would be the venue to test these sponsorship theories. If it's not happening there, it won't happen in USPSA.

+11!

[Charles Bond]

I guess maybe I am thinking chess and not checkers. Getting corporations involved would give us some finacial influence. The gun industry is a mere speck, in money terms, than what some of these corporations make. Take some of the largest gun companies, maybe they make 800million a year. whereas some of these non gun corporations make many billions of dollars per year. Alot of people don't know how small the gun industry really is in the scheme of things as a whole compared to big corporations. the NRA only makes up roughly 2% of the population. The only thing keeping guns in peoples hands is the 2nd ammendment, but we are hanging on to that with a piece of string. If big corporations who are against guns said they wanted no more guns, they would just cut that string in a heartbeat. Money talks, I am sure there would be protests, and a bunch of people upset, and that is the major reason they haven't tried to cut the string.

In my opinion I think we should look at getting some big corporations involved, as much as we can. It can only benefit us/gun industry as a whole, and it would also give us corporations with lots of money and political clout, to keep lawmakers at bay. But what I am saying is that coprotations will not come on board if they see targets that represent human beings. because why would they stick thier neck out on something that may keep them from making more money.

Getting corporate sponsorship outside the firearms industry is not as hard as we are making it. Harley should be easy since we have lots of bikesrs. Tree Gun Nation pulled in Polaris. Shooters buys trucks and Chevy and Ford have been big sponosrs of sporting clays and Ducks Unlimited. But you have to go to them and sell them on the fact that they will receive a response from the memberhsip if they sign on.

Purina had the dog food spot at Ducks Unlimited sealed up for years and then they dropped the ball and let another vendor come in an get it. The other vendor saw a huge increase in sales and they still have it. While we have only 18K members, in terms of what we might be able to do for say Polaris, we could make a dirrerence. And I would submit that this is what a potential sponsor is looking for rather than a headless target.

[raz-0]

I like shooting the turtle targets, I like having a stage or two with them thrown in for variety, but changing to them exclusively for the growth of the sport?

What is it going to get us? Sponsors, spectators, or members, because that's about all we care about.

Sponsors? I assume we are talking sponsors that don't already cater to the shooting community. You'd have to add a LOT of participants for them to care, like tack on a zero or two to our active membership count. Are classic targets going to do that? Even if they did, would you enjoy your match with a zero tacked onto the headcount for a squad? Know where we could come up with the ranges to add a zero to the number of host clubs? No? Me neither. So, you want sponsors, you have to add spectators then.

Spectators? Our sport is like watching paint dry. Sorry. Unless you really find stage resetting super entertaining. Heck, even if it wasn't like watching paint dry to non-participants, do most facilities have the ability to support parking for even a 2-1 spectator to shooter ratio? Got places to put bleachers in the shooting pits? The only place to put spectators is in front of their TV or monitor. First step with that isn't going to be like the superbowl, but on a channel where ad placements are purchased in bulk and they get served up whenever based on the number of eyes watching and the number of eyes paid for.

Membership? Lets just say that we are looking to double our numbers. Before we do, we should consider if we have the place to put them. If there isn't room to grow at existing clubs, or ranges to host new clubs, significant growth probably isn't a good thing to keep an all volunteer activity going strong. I'm certain the capacity for growth isn't the same everywhere. That aside, changing the product based on making ASSUMPTIONS about what imagined new customers might want is seldom a good idea. Myself, I ask for some actual evidence that any particular change has the ability to increase membership. Also, is our membership count somehow a problem? Are we running out of money? Not keeping pace with other shooting sports? Other than liking the idea of more people liking what we do, is there something about the membership that needs fixing because it is causing a problem?

Steel Challenge - no offensive targets, no running, two elements commonly "objected" to.

- is their membership larger than USPSA membership?

- is their membership growing faster than USPSA membership, or growing while ours shrinks?

- do they attract more sponsors than USPSA does to events or to top shooters?

- do they get more tv coverage, or attract spectators to match venues.

Pro-Am - no offensive targets. This is about as close as you can get to USPSA with out humanoid targets and without spectators having to squint and look for holes in paper.

- same questions as above

Edited June 7, 2010 by raz-0

[RobMoore]

I think you'll find that the group of people who are put-off by the targets being humanoid and the group of people who don't like guns in general are a similar set.

I don't think there are gun friendly sponsors or potential competitors out there whose only aversion to the sport is the Metric target.

I say down with the Amoeba.

[Bear23]

I think we should use targets in the shape of puppy dogs.

I think the whole argument is too 'PC'. Shooting sports will always be a little on the fringe of the sporting world. sort of like Curling and bodybuilding.

[sslav]

I guess maybe I am thinking chess and not checkers. Getting corporations involved would give us some finacial influence.

...

But what I am saying is that coprotations will not come on board if they see targets that represent human beings. because why would they stick thier neck out on something that may keep them from making more money.

Sean, you keep on saying that. But the facts do not support your statements. As was previously stated many times over Steel challenge and ProAm do not have targets that represent human beings. Furthermore they are both more spectator friendly. Where is the major corporate sponsorship for these events? What is holding them up this time? Why would they magically appear when we ban the metric target? (BTW I love the idea of naming it "Practical Target"). You are yet to answer these questions. Instead you are repeating "If you change it they will come" like a mantra. Repeating something over and over does not make it true. Where is the deep chess strategy here?

[vluc]

Those same groups that may reject us for using the targets we use (or the guns to shoot them) would be the same groups calling for boycotts on companies sponsoring us - if these supposed sponsors are out there.

Are we growing for the sake of growing or is there a plan in mind? What is the goal of USPSA growth - what does it mean to the C-B-A shooters out there?

[Steven Cline]

Those same groups that may reject us for using the targets we use (or the guns to shoot them) would be the same groups calling for boycotts on companies sponsoring us - if these supposed sponsors are out there.

Are we growing for the sake of growing or is there a plan in mind? What is the goal of USPSA growth - what does it mean to the C-B-A shooters out there?

I was coming here to post the same questions.

Define the growth, please.

[Steven Cline]

There seem to be some passionate feelings on this issue. This is NOT intended to show disrespect to anyone who has (or might) post, but my opinion remains unchanged, and I will just as passionately state my feelings. I believe we should use the classic target exclusively. Here's why:

The bottom line is that USPSA IS a game, regardless of its roots. Yes, I know it is a practical shooting sport, but any time you apply a rulebook, a timer, and an official, it is a game. I recognize that there are practical applications of the acquired skills, but I don’t envision the targets as muggers, burglars, sociopaths, or any other type of miscreant. They are targets. Nothing more, nothing less. You can say that the drop turner, swinger, or Max Trap evolved from such-and-such scenario. Yep, I get it. Football also evolved from gladiatorial/martial events, but we don’t feed the losers to the lions or eviscerate them to grease the axles of our wagons. We’ve moved on.

Actually what I attempted to illustrate was that there is practically nothing PC about our sport and once you begin to eliminate those things which someone finds offensive and pander for $ you won't be shooting max traps, drop turners, swinger or such and such, you might not even be shooting a gun, because you've moved on...

Someone will call you a curmudgeon for wanting to retain the old-ways; "They were sooo primitative, they actually shot guns at human silhouettes. The targets were brown, while the no-shoots were white- it was so racist." (Think about the hoops LE has to jump through reguarding their target color...) "No, they didn't sacrifice the losers and no one was intentionally harmed. But, it was so unenlightened, and dirty."

"They used to have to clean the guns which were full toxins and things bad for the environment. They left lead in the ground. They contributed to greenhouse gases. I am so glad we've moved on. Our battery operate lazer guns with replicated recoil and muted report audio is so evolved."

Edited June 10, 2010 by Steven Cline

[Sean Gaines]

here are the sponsors of uspsa

http://www.frontsightmagazine.org/09sponsors.html

here is the sponsors for steel challenge

http://steelchallenge.com/sc-world-match/sponsors/

Here are the sponsors for Bianchi

http://www.nrahq.org/compete/bianchi_sponsors.asp

Here are the sponsors for IDPA

http://www.idpa.com/sponsors.asp

I am sure someone could dig up more sponsorship info, but there seems to be more sponsors in Steel Challenge more than any other shooting sport. Like someone said, we could argue about this till we are blue in the face. We all have our oppinions, and I don't think anyone on this forum is going to swayed one way or the other by this debate.

[Rob Boudrie]

Since the "Metric" target is no longer permitted in IPSC matches and, therefore can only be used in USPSA matches, we should change the name to something less ridiculous and more descriptive.

A bit of history. When the Classic was first introduced, I stated it was the first step towards elimination of the more realistically shaped target. A prominent member of the IPSC president' council said I was off base. I believe he was being honest with me, and that there was no specific conspiracy - but certain courses of events have a way of unfolding in a predictable manner.

Since then:

• Behind the scenes pressure was brought to bear on a World Shoot host club that planned on using a mix (a region reportedly argued "we'll get in trouble back home if our own government finds out we shot those target while out of country")
  
• The targets were re-ordered in the rulebook so the metric target appeared second
  
• The metric target was left out of some region's rulebook printings
  
• IPSC made a decision to request removal of the best stage diagrams ever done (Cebu, 1999, Philippines - see them at http://www.uspsa.org/mr/members/match_index.php?year=1999&match=World_Shoot_XII_-_Cebu ) since one nation expressed concern their competitors would get in trouble if their home government saw an accurate depiction of the nature of the competition they were attending. The merits of this request can be debated, but the fact that it was made, and honored, is part of IPSC history
  
• The metric target was allowed, but the illustration not printed in the rulebook
  
• The metric target was removed as an authorized target
  

I also predicted that the next step after removal of the Metric target would be to tone down stages, starting with "descenarioization", followed by removal of props that suggest the use of a defensive sidearm in an interpersonal encounter.

This path, if we embark upon it, leads in only one direction.

[sslav]

here are the sponsors of uspsa

http://www.frontsightmagazine.org/09sponsors.html

here is the sponsors for steel challenge

I am sure someone could dig up more sponsorship info, but there seems to be more sponsors in Steel Challenge more than any other shooting sport.

And yet in the list of all those sponsors there is not one major corporation that is not a firearms manufacturer. So where is that mystical corporate sponsorship? What does steel challenge need to do to get it? Go from rectangular and round plates to ovals and triangles? Paint targets pink? Make contestants wear plaid pants? If you want to change someone's opinion you need to support your position with facts. If facts are lacking how do you expect to change people's minds?

Corporations do not sponsor anything out of goodness of their hearts. They do it for advertising. Our sport will never attract the kind of participation and spectator levels that would warrant big time corporate sponsorship. Steel challenge and ProAm might. If they do it will not be because of the target shapes or any other silliness but simply they are more visually interesting for spectators. Period, end of story.

[Schutzenmeister]

I haven't seen the entire list, but I understand that Linda and Larry have put together several "non-firearms" corporate sponsors for the upcoming IPSC Pan American SG Championship. It should be interesting to see how that plays out.

Edited June 9, 2010 by Schutzenmeister

[wgnoyes]

Stage 5 of this year's Area 6 Championship, "Face Off" (which featured metric targets), was sponsored by the Atlanta Trashers NHL team.

[Charles Bond]

Stage 5 of this year's Area 6 Championship, "Face Off" (which featured metric targets), was sponsored by the Atlanta Trashers NHL team.

But having headless targets was not a requiremnt of their sponsorship..........only toothless!

[Dave Gundry]

I'm with Phil & Sean on this. Anything we can do to encourage sponsorship will have a positive effect on the sport - from Level 3 matches to individual pro shooters all the way down to club matches. If the big event's aren't getting enough exposure - how are the local events ever going to? It's not about being PC - no one that cares about that crap even knows about our sport. It's about growing the sport and protecting it's future (monetarily).

To me, this is a game, nothing more. If I wanted to be more practical/tactical/defensive/whatever - I'd go shoot the other sport. But I won't, because I could care less.

I don't care what we shoot at as long as I can try and do it more accurately and faster than the next guy.

If you really want to preserve our roots - pick up the Single Stack

Edited June 10, 2010 by Dave Gundry

[vluc]

LOL! We shoot a sport that prizes freestyle and creativity, that was created to take pistol shooting to its limits and beyond, that provides the ability to choose how we shoot and now we want to limit our choice of targets.

I can choose how to shoot it, I just can't choose what to shoot? Keep the options open. Frankly, I think it would be a hoot to MIX the paper targets on a stage. We have mini-poppers and plates and pepper poppers that we put into a single COF, why not have classic and metric together? Push the envelope, don't close it.

Edited June 10, 2010 by vluc

[Flexmoney]

If you really want to preserve our roots - pick up the Single Stack

Our roots aren't gun based (thought some sports are, and that is fine).

Our roots are based on the Practical use of guns. DVC

Anything we can do to encourage sponsorship will have a positive effect on the sport

I can't agree. First, you are working on an assumption...that if we'd just change, the sponsors would roll right in. Then, there is an assumption that these mystical sponsors would be positive for us. Yet, we are already talking about changing to suit them. What happens when they make real demands?

It's about growing the sport and protecting it's future (monetarily).

That is a nice sound bite. But, one must consider the costs. Again, it's not established that we'd get this growth, that is an assumption. But, if we did get growth...what does it cost us? Where do we draw the line?

Further, how many current customers do you alienate...for the promise of a new customer?

To me, this is a game, nothing more. If I wanted to be more practical/tactical/defensive/whatever - I'd go shoot the other sport. But I won't, because I could care less.

I don't care what we shoot at as long as I can try and do it more accurately and faster than the next guy.

Me too, for the most part. And, you get that here now. I once stated that I didn't care if we shot a pop cans...as long as the shooting challenge was there. You see, we get that. And, we also meet the desires of our members that see things in a slightly different light.

Like Vluc said...we have options. If you, as a Match Director, wish to run a match with all turtle targets...you may do so. Why would we take those options away?

[Sean Gaines]

If you really want to preserve our roots - pick up the Single Stack

Our roots aren't gun based (thought some sports are, and that is fine).

Our roots are based on the Practical use of guns. DVC

Anything we can do to encourage sponsorship will have a positive effect on the sport

I can't agree. First, you are working on an assumption...that if we'd just change, the sponsors would roll right in. Then, there is an assumption that these mystical sponsors would be positive for us. Yet, we are already talking about changing to suit them. What happens when they make real demands?

It's about growing the sport and protecting it's future (monetarily).

That is a nice sound bite. But, one must consider the costs. Again, it's not established that we'd get this growth, that is an assumption. But, if we did get growth...what does it cost us? Where do we draw the line?

Further, how many current customers do you alienate...for the promise of a new customer?

To me, this is a game, nothing more. If I wanted to be more practical/tactical/defensive/whatever - I'd go shoot the other sport. But I won't, because I could care less.

I don't care what we shoot at as long as I can try and do it more accurately and faster than the next guy.

Me too, for the most part. And, you get that here now. I once stated that I didn't care if we shot a pop cans...as long as the shooting challenge was there. You see, we get that. And, we also meet the desires of our members that see things in a slightly different light.

Like Vluc said...we have options. If you, as a Match Director, wish to run a match with all turtle targets...you may do so. Why would we take those options away?

sponsors come with hard work, someone must take the initiative to pursue them. They do not magically appear and they don't come knocking on your door unless you are doing something that caters to the masses and they feel they can profit from the exposure. I see USPSA as stagnant growth at best. I would love to see more shooters, more kids shooting, more females shooting etc, etc. I watch the outdoor channel alot, and I see pro fisherman, who are sponsored by all kind of companies, getting paid good money by sponsors and when they win an tournament. It would be nice to see that in the USPSA. If we leave the targets as they are, we must find a way to be able to get more shooters into this game. The more popular the sport is, the easier it will be to get these corporations to advertise with us. I googled pro gun corporations, and this is the only big name that I pulled up, this was an article:

can you imagine this corporation sponsoring a match, a multi billion dollar corporation, maybe this one will be the first one to jump on board. But it takes someone to do the work in getting them on board.

http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-022810-starbucksandguns,0,7110140.story

there seems to be more anti gun companies, then there are companies that will stick their neck out and choose a side.

[vluc]

I would imagine USPSA believes they are marketing the sport and going for sponsors, at least that is what some of our membership money is going towards. Perhaps asking some of our AD's to comment on what USPSA is doing along these lines is a start, but that is a separate topic distinct from the classic target question.

I wrote to Starbucks thanking them for their stance. The reply was that they follow the laws. If you further followed the story, they also ended up facing a boycott, but could fall back on that stance of obeying the law. I will go so far as to say that if the law changed, so would they, so let's not get too excited about what they did.

What is so hard about recognizing that we are a niche sport, that we will not be in the Olympics, not on Television in a main way, not seeing major non-firearms sponsors or supporters? Do we as individual shooters need that validation and acceptance to feel good about our sport? Is it for ego/bragging rights that we need to have that? I don't want to see every Tom/Dick/Harry buying a gun and coming out to play because they saw it on tv or at the Olympics or in the prospectus of their favorite stock.

Edited June 10, 2010 by vluc

[Charles Bond]

I would imagine USPSA believes they are marketing the sport and going for sponsors, at least that is what some of our membership money is going towards. Perhaps asking some of our AD's to comment on what USPSA is doing along these lines is a start, but that is a separate topic distinct from the classic target question.

I wrote to Starbucks thanking them for their stance. The reply was that they follow the laws. If you further followed the story, they also ended up facing a boycott, but could fall back on that stance of obeying the law. I will go so far as to say that if the law changed, so would they, so let's not get too excited about what they did.

What is so hard about recognizing that we are a niche sport, that we will not be in the Olympics, not on Television in a main way, not seeing major non-firearms sponsors or supporters? Do we as individual shooters need that validation and acceptance to feel good about our sport? Is it for ego/bragging rights that we need to have that? I don't want to see every Tom/Dick/Harry buying a gun and coming out to play because they saw it on tv or at the Olympics or in the prospectus of their favorite stock.

The marketing effort of USPSA is led by a marketing committee headed up by the USPSA President. He far better than any individual AD would be in the best position to comment on USPSA marketing efforts. My opinion is that the time is right for USPSA to make a significant marketing push and allocate more resources to that effort but that is my opinion and I will leave it to others on the BOD to endorse that approach or not.

As to the decision by Starbucks, their decision is about what you are going to get from most national chains. Their "follow the law" stance is in one respect a passing of the buck off to the lawmakers. They sell coffee not ammo and as such, there is really no up side to them to take a stance on firearms issues. Were it the case that their main competition elected to ban concealed carry, then perhaps allowing it would have an upside but the fact is that they are just not going to see a change in national sales either way. But what they did do is show other national chains a way to deal with the issue and that is the real important message which was received.

But I diagree with you that we will not see shooting events on the television. We have more coverage now than we have ever had. Shooting USA, Shooting Gallary, Impossible Shot, Top Shot, Top Sniper, etc did not exist just 5 years ago. My take on that is that we feel less secure as a people since 9-11 and know in our guts that we, not the government, is responsible for our own safety. The bombing of the World Trade Center brought that home to folks who never before thought about it. For those that did not get the message at that time, Katrina proved that officer friendly is not going to be just minutes away when you need him and you had better get prepared.

None of these shows refuse to cover matches using headed targets. As these shows gain viewership the larger networks will notice. Reality TV grew out of shows produced in folks garages to the minor networks (History, Discovery, etc) to the major networks and the networks like them since they are cheap to produce. We will likely see the same thing with shooting.

Exclusive use of a target that someone who is not in this sports deems acceptable is not going to hasten this process. It is all about public perception and demand. Polls show attitudes towards guns have changed but we are not going to see instant results from that. Our targets reflect the true intent of our sport and there is no need to water that down.

[Schutzenmeister]

Has anyone thought about asking BP to sponsor us ... Right about now, just about ANYTHING would be an improvement for their image!!!

[sslav]

If we leave the targets as they are, we must find a way to be able to get more shooters into this game. The more popular the sport is, the easier it will be to get these corporations to advertise with us.

Why persist with the connection between targets and growth? What are the target groups of this growth? Who are we trying to attract to the sport? Has anyone done a meaningful survey of these target groups to determine what would encourage their participation? The same questions go for the sponsors. Instead it seems like the proposal to ban the metric target is motivated entirely by unproven assumptions.

[vluc]

Thanks, Charles. I'm not much for watching our sport on the tube, I'm more into playing it.

Those shows are no doubt interesting, but if they can't attract me as a shooter, don't see how they will attract a non-shooter!