FS Article

[BrianH]

I wanted to get some opinions on the Front Sight article "How USPSA can learn from SASS". Although I feel a FEW good points were made, I'm afraid it is a poor comparison of two very different diciplines.

IPSC competition has its roots in reality; i.e. practical use of a pistol in a defensive scenerio.  Whereas SASS is a fantasy-based game; playing dress-up and pretending to be a cowboy.  This alone will make it more appealing to the masses (nothing wrong with that.).  ".....once the shooting stops for the day, the cowboy side of SASS comes in force....".  Well, practical pistol is a competitive sport, not a carnival.  If you are not there to compete, it's only going to hold a spectators interest for so long.

Also, regarding the difference in membership numbers....the article mentions "active" USPSA members; probably 4 to 5 times that many people have come and gone (I've done it twice in 12 years).  

Many different things lead to this, but I think one of the most significant is how the sport is manipulated by marketing; to the point where the rulebook gets changed so companies can sell their products (that outer belt everyone wears, used to be illegal.....that sub-machinegun mag your open and limited pistols take, used to be illegal.  Your "Jerry Barnhart Walkthrough Strap" is still illegal in my opinion-implies a holster that violates the holster test criteria.)

I know the companies won't make money if they can't keep selling us their crap, but this can also be accomplished by selling their products to new competitors, not just the existing shooters.  When shooters start the sport, spend the money, then find out they need to do it all over again in 6 months or a year, or need new gear to get past B class, they get pissed off and quit.  And I know there are a lot of them; I joined USPSA in 1989, and I see maybe a dozen shooters throughout my state who've been shooting more than 5 years or so.

Okay, this has gotten plenty boring.....just help me find the big picture......PLEASE!!!!

[EricW]

I thought the article in Front Sight was very to the point and quite correct.

For one, I think USPSA clubs don't do a good job of publicizing what they do.  Right now, the only information that most people get about IPSC/USPSA is from the sour grapes contingent that has gone to IDPA or quit competitive shooting altogether.  I sat on the fence for years because of all the nasty things I had heard about IPSC. USPSA and its members really need to evangelize the sport.  The belief is that there is no possible way for someone to have fun unless they have $5000 worth of gear and can shoot the El Prez in 2.5 seconds.  After that fine introduction, most never bother to look into it any further.

Two, the ranges are not set up for spectators at all, so even if people did come, they'd just have to sit in back and stare over people's heads.  Not big fun.  To get big-name sponsors and advertising, you need spectators.

Three, because USPSA is non-profit, most everyone in it has a day job and that SEVERELY limits the amount of effort that can be put into marketing, range setup, etc.  Non-profit status may be noble in some respects, but somehow I think if USPSA was a business with financial and membership goals, that life would be very different.  

People also need to realize that they're now competing throughout the summer with dozens of other spectator events that never used to exist before:  "extreme" games, hydroplane racing, airshows, concerts, festivals, etc.  

Airshow promoters have learned the same hard lesson as USPSA.  Thirty years ago, it was nearly impossible to have an unprofitable airshow.  They were the only game in town.  Not so anymore.  On any given weekend an airshow is competing with 2,3 or more major events.  USPSA/IPSC competes for the same crowd as running, rock-climbing, water-skiing, motorcross. etc.  If you're not as polished and exciting as your competition, you're going to lose...

Marketing needs to be USPSA's numero uno concern.  I think that if people put their heads and hearts in it, USPSA and IPSC shooting could have the same strong following as SASS.  

Why can't we brazenly market to the non-traditional shooters: women and minorities?  Lots of women probably would like to shoot, but feel intimidated by the machismo factor.  How can we overcome this?  Sporting Clays magazine is now featuring ads directed specifically at women.  That's good, now we just need to get ads into Redbook, Mademoiselle, and Better Homes.

Why not have a band or music at the larger events?  Unique/good food vendors?  Why not have a beach party after the shooting's done for the day?  Have a theme.  Make it fun.  

What we can do to build IPSC/USPSA is only limited by our imagination and dedication.  But I think it will really take a number of full-time, "this is my life" staff to actualize IPSC's resurgence.  The scope of the job is too big to do during evenings and weekends.

If we build it (and market it) - they will come...

Eric

[Patrick Sweeney]

We also have other limitations, one of which is corporate structure.  As a corporation for profit, SASS can and is run as a benevlonet dictatorship.  As long as the dictators do what the shooters find fun, everything is fine.  When they don't, attendance will drop off.

As a members-run non-profit corporation, the USPSA is more unwieldy.  Also, SASS doesn't have to wrangle with an international organization and the desires of the shooting organizations of other countires.

We can, however, learn from their success.  The question is, will we?

[Ron Ankeny]

BrianH:

I don't shoot SASS but I shoot IPSC with several guys who shoot in both. From what I can gather, SASS appeals to a different mind set (in general) and I think comapring the two is like comparing apples to oranges. While the FS article made some good points, I think it overlooked some major differences.

[John Thompson]

Brian H.,

You should like the new production class. Real holsters, guns etc.  I made B class shooting production minor out of a security holster so I think that if someone really wanted to get into A class limited they'll do a little self reflection, do a lot of work, and quit rationalizing about why what their currently doing isn't good enough.  The myth that you have to have a $3,000 gun stoot into A, M, or GM is killing our sport.  I made A class lim with a used para and only about 500rds a month shooting.  I did it with a LOT of dry firing.  I got out of it what I put into it.  

[BrianH]

RE: Corporate vs. Non-Prof

Another point made that I am concerned about......

I think that the current structure was created to keep USPSA from getting preoccupied with profits, instead of being concerned with the will of the shooters; and I think over the years the BOD has done a pretty good job of doing that.  Once they incorporate, we must have faith that the "benevolent dictators" will actually be benevolent, and not merely concerned with what makes them the most money.

For those who remember back far enough, USPSA had a chance to leave IPSC, and didn't do it.  Are we better off?  I don't think so.  Worse?  I don't know.....

[Rob Boudrie]

Once they incorporate, we must have faith that the "benevolent dictators" will actually be benevolent, and not merely concerned with what makes them the most money.

USPSA is already incorporated, specifically as a 501( c )(3) IRS recognized non-profit. There are two issues with benevolant dicators: Money and, more directly relevant, SASS and IDPA do not have the benefits (and drawbacks) of a "membership based" organization. Members to not elect IDPA officers, and the territorial governors elected in IDPA serve in an advisory role.

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

Although I've not seen the article yet, I must respond to two comments in order to avoid this turning into a "political" thread, which are specifically banned in these forums:

Patrick Sweeney: Also, SASS doen't have to wrangle with an international organization and the desires of the shooting organizations of other countires.

BrianH: For those who remember back far enough, USPSA had a chance to leave IPSC, and didn't do it.  Are we better off?  I don't think so.  Worse?  I don't know.....

While I would not categorise the dealings between IPSC and the USPSA as "wrangling", whichever way you describe that relationship has no bearing whatsoever on the conduct of the domestic operations of the USPSA, which runs it's own show, as do all other member Regions. Moreover, given the fact that the USPSA uses a variation of the IPSC rule book, there's even less reason to point a wayward finger at IPSC.

Whether you consider the domestic operations of the USPSA to be a success or otherwise is 100% a domestic affair. There is no IPSC bogey man.

[Rob Boudrie]

For the record, I think both USPSA and IPSC are better off being affiliated with each other, particularly since we are once again working together rather than against each other.

[Nik Habicht]

Hi guys,

Although I've not seen the article yet, I must respond to two comments in order to avoid this turning into a "political" thread, which are specifically banned in these forums:

Vince,

You'd need an old copy of Front Sight --- this thread was started more than TWO YEARS ago --- when this was a little corner of the web..... that might have been before the "no politics, please" rule went into effect...

[Vince Pinto]

Hi Nik,

I presume you mean the "political" thread started 2 years ago and, if so, that's where it should (and must) remain. As far as Front Sight is concerned, those of us living in Area 9 (and Area 54), get our copy about 2 weeks after everybody else. Bummer.

[Nik Habicht]

Vince,

BrianH's first post in this thread --- the one you're reading now --- was made on November 7, 2001. There's a date field avove each post.....

Rob must have found it in the bowels of the forum and decided to resuscitate it....

[Vince Pinto]

Nik,

Doh! I didn't even notice. I guess Rob must've had a really quiet New Year's day (or waaaaayy too much eggnog - I know I did)

[Patrick Sweeney]

Vince,

My apologies if I was not clear on the subject. What I meant was, SASS has only to deal with the shooting desires and legal requirements of the members in the States. If there is an Italian SASS, no decision about firearms, ammo, holsters, etc will have an effect on the shooters in the US. Unless, of course, they try to make dressing in chaps a world-wide phenomenon.

Perhaps "wrangling" is too strong a word. Hand-wringing is more like it, with some US shooters having an attack of the vapors when they hear rumor of a new international rule change.

The BOD of the USPSA has a lot more to keep track of than the SASS organizers.

And aren't you in Area 51?

[Vince Pinto]

Patrick,

Thanks for the clarification, but don't worry about it - it's a Jurassic Period thread, but it took me a while to realise that, which is why I went into "Here we go again" mode.

And, dammit, I always confuse Area 51 with "Car 54, Where Are You?" but, no matter how I cut it, it just proves how I'm usually lost, dazed 'n' confused

[JT Johnson]

I have a few thoughts on this thread from the new USPSA member perspective.

EricW hit the nail on the head when he stated that USPSA main focus needs to be marketing. USPSA has zero marketing. If they do happen to have someone that is head of marketing that person should be fired along with the person that hired them.

One thing that has to be decided is what type of product that will be marketed. Are we going to market USPSA as a "practical shooting" which denotes self-defense, tactical bullshit, and save-your-life type of skills? The market right now has plenty of the so called tactical shooting sports such as IDPA and Polite Society. Not to mention the thousand and one so called teachers of "practical/tactical shooting" willing to rob of your money so you can be "high speed operators" created in their own image.

Someone said this in an earlier post, but the best thing USPSA could do would be to change their name to Extreme Shooting. Market an "extreme" shooting sport to the public. This is a sport played with a handgun to get the most points per second. Show the public that even though this sport is "extreme" it can be easily learned, played safely, and inexpensively.

Advertise. I don't mean to hurt the person's feelings that designed the uspsa.org website, but that has to be without a doubt one of the top ten crappiest websites on the Internet right now. I learned about USPSA/IPSC through the whining/bitching of a guy who runs a weekly IDPA match. I know having IDPA whiners is free advertising, but it is not what I would call ideal.

USPSA needs to pony up a few dollars and make some decent quality videos showing what "Extreme Shooting" has to offer. Put this video on a the oh-so-cheap compact disc in VCD format and give it away to anyone who wants one. Advertise in a gun rag telling the masses about "Extreme Shooting" and how to get their free video showing them how they to can be cool like us. Set up some boothes at gun shows and different shooting events. Have a full page add with three people wearing a limited, open, and production rigs (sorry revolvers). Have some catchy headline that your paid marketing person comes up with.

I also agree with EricW that full time paid employees are needed to lift USPSA up to its rightful place as king of the shooting sports.

Josh

-maybe we can hire a full time classifier person too? been waiting way to long for my last classifier to get entered so I can get my C card.

[Merlin Orr]

JT - You're Hired! Sounds damn good to me. Instead of the SOS do something aggressive and fresh.

[Hey QuicksDraw!]

My man Josh! I second MerlinD's opinion, you seem to have an angle on it. Well done.

[MoNsTeR]

I agree, marketing is the key. There are only three reasons I even know IPSC/USPSA exists:

1. internet gun forums

2. a brochure handed out after an NRA course

3. gun store clerks whining about "those IPSC hosers..."

Obviously the gun store whining is negative, and had it come in the absence of other information it might have made me leery of the sport and certainly wouldn't have stimulated interest in it. The brochure I got was filled predictably with photos of competitors shooting multi-thousand-dollar guns at huge matches, which makes the "you don't need a fancy gun to compete!" rhetoric in the actual text look like bait'n'switch. And even most mentions of IPSC on the internet (at TFL/THR, GT, etc.) seem to be of the "IDPA whiner" variety.

I only ended up seeking out IPSC/USPSA activities because it looked like a blast and a half on American Shooter, so my natural curiousity drove me to find the truth behind the whining. It seems that most shooters won't ever even hear about the sport, the ones that do won't be encouraged to learn more, and those who want to know more had better be very handy with the internet.

USPSA's primary goals should be getting the word out about the sport, and quashing forever the myth that you need a racegun to compete and world-class skills to have fun.

[George]

"Extreme Shooting" is about the best description I have ever heard used to describe our sport (I don't care how worn out the word "Extreme" is). A good marketing team could hit a home run with this one-handed, as long as change is allowed to percolate wherever required and the proper amount of energy and money is invested.

If the overall consensus is that USPSA should get up off it's butt and get recognized as a bonafide competitive event in the mind of the general public, then JT is right on the money.

If the general consensus is that we should keep our heads down because we don't want a bunch of trendy excitement seeking wannabee's invading our nice little private sport and making it into something that offends the tactical sensibilities of the practical minded folk then JT's musings are a sign of impending doom.

As long as the base of active shooters is only measured in the low tens of thousands, then this type of competition will always be a real small backwater sport, no matter how "Extreme" it is.

You make the call. Lot's more competitors and the change they will bring, or stay with the status quo of being a non-profit with a static income and growth rate and then just wait for the day when we get swept under the table like a mom-n-pop when Wal-Mart moves into the neighborhood.

If we had as large a following and as large a financial base as skiing, surfing, and off-roading we might even be able to do something about certain firearms regulations. Stay small, and sooner or later you are gone.

--

Regards,

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

I have a contrary view about the term "Extreme Shooting" (which, by the way, is not a new proposal - I think Michael Bane suggested it about 2 years ago). In any case, I think that expression would do more harm than good, but why don't you conduct a little test?

Without mentioning IPSC shooting (or the USPSA), tell a bunch of friends, relatives and co-workers that you're about to start participating in a brand new sport called "Extreme Shooting", and ask them to describe in one word what they think "Extreme" means.

My prediction? "Extreme" = "Dangerous" (or a similar word).

[Flexmoney]

My prediction...

Shooting = Dangerous

Bad test.

Well...maybe not bad. Extreme Skateboard might dangerous too.

[EricW]

It's not the name, it's the marketing.

Are we running promotional tables at gunshows with slick video footage showing how exciting the sport is? No.

Do we have the same slick marketing video clips on the website? No.

Do we publish back issues of Front Sight as PDF's and put them on the web so that people could realize that USPSA has the best written, most enlightened shooting magazine on the planet? No.

Do we advertise on television during episodes of American Shooter (bless Jim Scoutten's peapickin' little heart for his tireless support - USPSA's ONLY FRIEND ON TELEVISION)? No.

(A 15 second ad with the USPSA web address would work miracles.)

Do we hook up our stellar array of Junior shooters with Boy Scout / Girl Scout troops for fun matches using 22's on steel? No.

Do we advertise major matches to the general public as spectator events and provide them with comfortable accomodations and make the match interesting and exciting? No.

Are we consulting with television producers at ESPN on how to make matches exciting and television friendly? I'd love to know the answer.

You can play the name game all you want, but until the marketing is fixed USPSA will never be a major player in the sporting arena. (BTW - I have offered to assist with one of the above issues in the past and received no reply. Lest anyone think all I do is gripe without ever offering to pitch in.)

[Flexmoney]

Wow. I was coming back to add to my previous post (I didn't have time to make a long post)...and Eric said just about everything that I was thinking...and then some!

I'll add that Front Sight is as good as anything on the news rack right now. It should be on stands everywhere. At the very least, we could put out an "annual/special addition".

The video clips (p.3) and pictures (p.4) of Phil Strader on the West Coast bullet site are a basic example of what could be done. (I like the video with the music.)

http://www.westcoastbullet.com/photoIndex.html

[ErikW]

When I was killing time at a bookstore in Bend during the nationals, their magazine rack had the SASS annual cowboy "magazine." Full color, mostly photos, little text, more advertising than I could imagine. I brought it up to Dave Thomas the next day and he mentioned USPSA has considered it. He also mentioned the large amount of money to publish it, the difficulty of getting rack space, for-profit corporations, and non-profit organizations. A USPSA annual magazine would be cool, but would it attract shooters?