Big League Exposure For Practical Shooting?

[Patrick Sweeney]

OK, you may recall that my wife and I got a 50" digital TV. (We're never gonna leave the house!)

One of the first shows we tuned to was....Mr. Olympia. (Accidental, I swear.) I used to pump iron, but holy shjt, these guys were huge. And ugly. And a little scary, in an alien, check the basement for pods kinda way.

And it was on TV.

Which got me to thinking and asking questions:

What kind of viewer base does it take to get a cable provider interested?

What would it take to make practical shooting interesting for the viewer?

Would we like the sport that came about from the changes?

Would we like the exposure?

Would we like the influx of new shooters?

A few insights, or tidbits: The effect of media exposure is quite often to drive the people you'd like out, and lure in the kind you wouldn't like. I've got nothing against snowboarders personally, but if the ones I've seen are any indication, I don't want them on the range with me.

And money does scary things, especially when it lures in the "reflected glory" crowds. You know, the golfers who pay big money just to try out for the cut on a tournament that a big name will appear in. (If they can even do that.) I golfed. I was pretty good, with a single-digit handicap 30+ years ago. I probably could have gone pro. I just didn't love it. And I only had to hear the pros talk once about the non-skilled upon whom their livelihood depended, and I didn't want to be there. (Vermin would be a kind term.)

So, for all the exposure we can get on TV, we have to ask: what do we want out of life?

[Deuce]

I just had a discussion ... sorta ... about this yesterday.

If I have any goal with respect to guns, it's to do my part in making handgun shooting about as popular, feared, and ignored as bowling.

The way I see it, our guns are under constant attack. I know there's a lot of people who think that's just NRA propoganda. But, the Klinton '94 hi-cap ban still exists.

And, with public hunting land disappearing and shooting ranges getting forced out by suburbanites, there's simply going to be less and less shooters every year.

Not that it'll solve all our problems, but, maybe if people thought of shooting the way they do of bowling, maybe all the fence-sitters would think twice before voting for an anti-2nd candidate.

Anyhow, what else ya gonna do?

Granted, making shooting more popular WILL draw unwanted participants as well as unwanted attention (in some cases). Not to mention, the more shooters there are, the higher the odds are of having an accident. But, as it is, there's nothing preventing ANYONE, whether we like their kind or not, from joining us. Chances are, you can look around at your next match and find one or two you could do without.

The bottom line is, if a guy's lucky enough to own a couple thousand acres of prime hunting land, he can either keep it to himself and enjoy ... or, see to it that it always remains hunting land and not "resorts" ... maybe by creating a club ... maybe by leaving it to DU or the like.

I'm pretty confident I'll be able to shoot until I'm physically unable. But, I intend to introduce my boy to the sport and I'm not so sure he'll be able to do it as long as he'd like.

[short_round]

The effect of media exposure is quite often to ... lure in the kind you wouldn't like.

I have customers that I don't like and could do without. However, these people help pay for my bullets and my guns. As long as they are safe, even the people that I don't like have as much right as I do to participate in shooting sports. They also spend the money that helps keep our sport alive.

It would be interesting to hear stories from our pros of how many "unwanted participants" they've given classes to. As long as safety is not an issue, business is business.

I've got nothing against snowboarders personally, I don't want them on the range with me.

That's funny, replace "snowboarders" with "gun owners" and "on the range with me" to "anywhere around me or my kids" and you would have a conversation that I have had with some of my more liberal friends. Of course they always end it with "except of you " Right ...

[EricW]

I have mixed emotions about TV coverage. It would be nice to see some cash influx into the sport and see some deserving unsponsored shooters get a ride, but if the coverage is going to be along the lines of "OH.....DUDE......THAT'S....EXXXXXTREME!!!!!" (insert obnoxious guitar riff here), I'd just as soon see practical shooting remain it's obscure self.

[JWK]

I would like to see a weekly hour long program that featured USPSA/IPSC.

I would like to view World Shoots, Nationals and Area Matches.

I think it would be a great benefit to the sport and the public.

I don't worry about the anti's as they will slander libel and lie anyway.

As to "unwanted participants" I have absolutlely no idea what that means;

"unwanted attention" likewise.

While I am at it, I would like to for all the old Front Sights to be put online.

[BSeevers]

I am all for it.

Why do you think Chevy is on a NASCAR hood. Its millions of dollars coming and going, Tiger's NIKE hat costs about the same. So could Robbies BUD or Dodge RAM hat.

The leadership and officating would have to evolve along with the money. Its all about the money.

NASCAR went from hillbillys using their street rods on weekends to BIG money on sundays. They had to police and clean up their act.

I don't see a lot of new ranges opening. With big corporate money we would see ones with air conditioning and indoor plumbing. Now that's progress.

[MBaneACP]

Patrick;

Damn, I'm not sure where to start...

Here's as good a place as any: "Show me the money!"

Television is about money. The cost of producing televisions shows--even a small cable show like SHOOTING GALLERY--is staggering. As you move up the food chain, the costs escalates like an NYC taxicab meter. I did some consultiing for a History Channel series, and the producer was grousing bitterly to me that the show had a *crappy* $65,000 PER EPISODE* budget. Almost a million bucks per 13 show season, and the producer said it was a miracle they could deliver any kind of show at that price.

Audience = advertisers = money.

We actually have the audience. The ratings for the ESPN2 Great Outdoor Games, which now exceed the X-Games, have proven that. However (and somewhat ironically) we're not all on the same bus. Most of the guns sold in the U.S. are sold for personal protection (with hunting a fading second). There is no consensus in the firearms media or the industry itself that competition, be it widely televised or not, is of any importance at all. In fact, one widely quoted figure is that *all* competition shooting represents only 5% of all ammo and components sold annually.

Those of us who have struggled for years to change that perception—myself, Paul Erhart, formerly of NSSF, now at SIG; Gary Mehalik and Scott Moore at NSSF; Chris Edwards at Glock; Ken Jorgensen, now at Ruger; Bob Morrison at Taurus, Dave Skinner at STI—have often found ourselves at odds with the rest of the industry and our own sporting organizations. I could tell you horror stories (and will, if you'd like, over a beer at SHOT). We are factionalized to death, and because of that we have very little, or no, voice in the industry, in the firearms media or in political considerations. An example...the excise tax on ammo and components goes almost exclusively for wildlife development and hunter recruitment, even though it can be used for range development or expansion. When I suggested at a recent major conference on the future of hunting in the U.S. that competition could be, indeed, needed to be an integral component of hunter recruitment, I was met with...something less than enthusiasm.

That said, my plan at this point is push for a nationally televised Outdoor Channel Practical Handgun Championship, possibly in 2005 but more likely in 2006. Right now, it's taking a back seat to planning for my second series, the Force-On-Force Games, which we hope to have on-line mid-2005. The rough sketches for the stages of fire draw from the major disciplines but are clearly designed for television—scenario-based, reactive targets, elapsed time scoring system, strategic decisions by shooters, an element of physicality, etc. We've also spoken to a couple major national ranges about their willingness to construct special bays to accomodate television cameras, and they're excited at the prospect.

The bottom line is that The Outdoor Channel has made a commitment to sport shooting. They have put their money, a lot of their money, where their mouth is.

Pie in the sky is all well and good; I say support the people who support the sport.

Michael B

PS: Yes, as a matter of fact, I do make money from this stuff. But let me make something really clear--I make a HELL of a lot less money at it than I could by simply shifting businesses. Every person listed above is in this industry because we love it and because ewe believe it's the right thing to do!

RANT MODE OFF!!!

[Patrick Sweeney]

Michael,

We're more on the same page than not on this one. I'm just thinking out loud, and letting the rest of you peer into the gears as they turn.

Thirty years ago, I stopped dead in my tracks when I read Jeff Cooper pose THE question concerning training or competition: "What are we trying to do here?" I stopped because it was/is the central question of the Scientific Method, and something I had not heard a single competition shooter express until that moment.

When you design stages to be camera-friendly, you change the competition. Some will be happy, some won't and some won't notice. Be sure some will complain, and loudly.

Being plastered with endorsements as a competition shooter a la Nascar may be fun. What do we do when we get (if we do) the beer-drinking crowd of fans with their "show us your t*ts!" signs? Or can we possibly skew the veiwership towards the more sedate gold crowd?

And when the Producer or Director tells the MD he has to move a prop/target/shooting box for a better camera angle, then what?

Getting exposure is not going to be all honey and milk. We'll have to work for it, and we and the sport will be changed by it.

[MBaneACP]

Ah, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle rears its ugly head (but can we look at it without changing it?).

One of the huge advantages of *creating* a television sport from the ground up is that it protects the existing sports' base. I saw three sports I participated in--windsurfing, Korean martial arts and triathlon--go through the Olympic grinder, and you're absolutely right...the sports were all changed, and not for the better.

That's the very reason I want, as much as possible, to control how shooting gets "ported" to teevee. The Great Outdoors Games is a pretty good example...the rifle competition was created by the same guys who did Sportsmen Team Challenge, and it's not a *bad* rifle competition...but it's a plate rack at 40 yards, with a dueling tree at the end. Realistically, the tree is pretty much superfluous, and while it's a darn hard course, it is about as visual as, say, whitewashing fences. Compare that to the archery course, which has pop-ups, moving targets, changes in position, etc. Think what a .22 rifle course designed by you or me would be like...it'd be all rock and roll, all the time!

The "brain trust" that I plan to use to design the new event includes Dave Arnold, Chris Edwards, Walt Rauch, Todd Jarrett, Lisa Munson, Jerry Miculek, etc. We *know* what we're doing...and we've done it before. All of us have big match experience. Plus, I consulted on the first X-Games, and my producer is from the X-Games, so we have a solid grounding in those types of television-based events.

The problem has always been that *television* has been in the driver's seat; if we're able to pull this off, *shooters* are in the driver's seat.

With, of course, the Dennis Miller disclaimer...

mb

PS: If this comes off, I'm going to use Eco-Challenge, rather than NASCAR, promotional standards...

[tightloop]

FACE IT, pistol shooting is not TV worthy..

[Flexmoney]

TL, would YOU watch it?

[rhino]

The key to shooting sports' success on mainstream television will be getting the right gimmicks. Something like my soon to be patented PantsCam® is just the ticket.

Who could resist the on-the-edge-of-your-seat suspense of waiting for the pants to fail? Or, will they last through the whole match? You'd have to watch all the commercials and everything to make sure you don't miss the moment of truth.

Then you'd have to stay with the program for the super slo-mo replays and John Madden using his telestrator to show what happened, whether it was a weak seam or shredded fabric ... was it stress applied while squatting, or did they just "go" of their own volition. YOU would be the first to know!

It would be glorious!