As a service to its members, apparently SCI follows the same policy with respect to published reports on virtually anything hunting related, not just hunt reports. The discussions of knives, rifles, binoculars, ammunition and virtually everything else hunting related seems to be done in accordance with the standard policy of, "just the positives Ma'am" as opposed to "just the facts Ma'am". At least in the newsletter they allow the manufacturers to just write their own copy and include the copy so that they look like articles.

Regardless of how much one points out the prejudicial nature of most "reports" the fact remains that what people read has an effect on their purchase decisions.

Look at the green movement and global warming. The green movement is nothing more than one group trying to control the behavior of another group. The fact that it is a bunch of lies and falsehoods seems to have little effect on the stupid folks.

Even when some groups are the sole source by law, they still are shoveling the green crap. Quite phenomenal.

Frostbit
Sorry you were offended by the Hornady box on the lion DVD. Hornady has , besides building one hell of a bullet , been a loyal sponsor on both our shows since day 1 and will also be sponsoring our next series. That loyalty goes both ways. We really do believe in the products we use on our shows, But, have any of you EVER heard, one single time, where Craig or anyone else on our show said "This is the ONLY bullet, stick, rifle, boot I'll EVER use. The answer is NO. I edit the shows and that is a fact. Advertising is a necessary thing in our show, or any show from soap operas to the Super Bowl. I hope we have earned some trust over the years with our viewers on this matter. We understand the irksome way some shows peddle sponsor stuff, and we poke fun at them as well, but we are proud of, and confident in our sponsors gear and our DAY 1 sponsorship partners such as Hornady make it financially possible to do what we do. If anyone can come up with a business model will cover the bills without sponsorship-brother I am all ears !!
Happy New Year to all!
See you in Dallas
Dave

we could not have all the great video's that Dave and Craig do if it was not for there sponsor's!! it's called doing business!!!!!! Dave hope to see you In dallas Look me up Tim and Elton will know where I'm at

PS some folks think if you don't agree with them on the product they use (especially Bullets) it's like calling there new baby ugly. bye the way your Baby is ugly

To be clear on my point, I understand completely the need for sponsors and the distinction between most television shows and magazines. Shows like TAA are entertainment. I have no problem with them recognizing and supporting their sponsors. On the other hand, there are shows on television (Guns & Ammo TV comes to mind) that purport to review, introduce and discuss (pick your term) new firearms, ammunition and other gear. If you are going to review or assess something, then provide a critical assessment good or bad. Same goes for magazines. If the story is simply being put out there for entertainment (for example, the story of a hunting trip), fine talk about the rifle you use, the ammo, etc. (I do think it would worth pointing out any issues with the outfitter since many folks use those stories to get leads on possible hunts). If the article is feature, however, on a product then I think any self respecting writer should do a candid assessment of the product, including talking about other similar products that may be better, not just talk about how the product being reviewed is the greatest thing since sliced bread. What I find objectionable is the complete lack of balance. The discussion is all about what is good with no mention of any deficiencies or what might have been better.

Didn't y'all's Fathers ever teach y'all the "Golden Rule"???

Read my bi-line.

Most of my expectations on a hunt are about my own abilities and my own sensibilities. If I have done a good job, by my own standards, then it was a good hunt. On the other hand maybe I've been lucky with outfitters and PH's. None were bad, all had something they did very well, and all worked hard to make my hunt a good one. So ya see, it is possible to say good things and I'm not getting a dime for it. I'm also willing to go out on a limb and bet that this is the case for most of us who do a little research before selecting an outfitter/PH and an area to hunt.

Mike
The problem is that a sponsor, say Leica for instance, does not want to even see another optic competitor on your show getting reviewed. Their feeling is that is what they are paying for. It is just the reality of the situation. I understand your feelings though ,and your points are valid. But,what would happen if a NASCAR driver won a race, is sponsored by Coke, but jumped up on the hood in the winners circle and had a Coke in one hand and a Pepsi in the other just to "be balanced"? The reality would be the INSTANT LOSS of Coke as a sponsor and the guys at Pepsi laughing their ass off. This is the reality guys, believe me I know as I am in the trenches 365 days a year.

Motor Trend's "Car of the Year" winners have included Chevrolet's Corvair (a/k/a, "Unsafe at Any Speed") and Vega (a/k/a, the "50,000 Mile Throw-Away Car").

At least they didn't include the Ford Pinto!

IMHO, one should NEVER trust the endorsement of ANYTHING in any magazine that depends on advertising for revenue. And 99% of them do.

I've found that I can't even rely on Consumer Reports or Gun Test, even though they don't sell advertising.

I've found all too often that they don't test the items I'm interested in, or they ignore what I consider to be important test criteria, or the criteria they do settle on for what constitutes the "best" of any item in particular are inconsistent with mine.

I do remember being amazed way back in the late '70s, when Skeeter Skelton put 5,000 rounds of .45 hardball through a lightweight Colt Commander in a Shooting Times "torture test" - and reported that the aluminum frame cracked below the slide stop lever.

IIRC, the steel framed Colt .45 that he tested suffered no damage from a similar test.

Not sure how those test results made it into print!

Also, I had to cringe when I read the extremely lame defense of the Remington Model 700 in the latest American Rifleman. No doubt why that was printed, is there?

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Fulson:
Mike
The problem is that a sponsor, say Leica for instance, does not want to even see another optic competitor on your show getting reviewed. Their feeling is that is what they are paying for. It is just the reality of the situation. I understand your feelings though ,and your points are valid. But,what would happen if a NASCAR driver won a race, is sponsored by Coke, but jumped up on the hood in the winners circle and had a Coke in one hand and a Pepsi in the other just to "be balanced"? The reality would be the INSTANT LOSS of Coke as a sponsor and the guys at Pepsi laughing their ass off. This is the reality guys, believe me I know as I am in the trenches 365 days a year.

Apples and oranges. The NASCAR race is entertainment pure and simple -- the driver is not doing a taste sample of Coke and Pepsi to indicate which is better. Everyone understands the drivers are beholden to their sponsors. On the other hand, shows and magazines that are purporting to review something that then use the column space or air time to sing the manufacturers' praises are doing a disservice to readers, particularly those that actually read the report, expect that it is candid and rely on the advice.

Are not hunting shows "pure entertainment"?

African hunting would have to have a small "niche" audience at best. The audience will not be huge.

The quality of Dave and Craig's show is superb and production costs must be high. If the "price" of this is having the client use a Ruger rifle and Hornady ammo, it is a small price indeed. Someone has to pay for this or it will not be done. Period.

To me it makes little difference what guns or ammo they are using. I'm after the hunt and the experience. Now, with HD video, this experience is better than ever. Nobody's "journalistic integrity" has been compromised in the least.

Mike
It sounds like the issue is directed more toward magazines than TV, although TAA \ Boddington got lumped into the discussion. My point is that our program is not designed to compare products, but provide info on our sponsor products as they tie into a specific hunt or situation. We are really sensitive to the hard sell that turns viewers, especially when a guy is pounding a square peg into a round hole just to get a plug in. But like the NASCAR guy, we support the guys who pay the bills, although Craig handles his writing in a different manner. TV and writing are two different critters.

quote:

Originally posted by JohnDL:
Are not hunting shows "pure entertainment"?

African hunting would have to have a small "niche" audience at best. The audience will not be huge.

The quality of Dave and Craig's show is superb and production costs must be high. If the "price" of this is having the client use a Ruger rifle and Hornady ammo, it is a small price indeed. Someone has to pay for this or it will not be done. Period.

To me it makes little difference what guns or ammo they are using. I'm after the hunt and the experience. Now, with HD video, this experience is better than ever. Nobody's "journalistic integrity" has been compromised in the least.

Not sure about that statement and some of the best films have been sold purely on entertainment alone?

I just don't get why people are offended by the advertising on outdoor TV or videos. To me this is just the same as dish detergent or diet plans. I don't give any of the advertising much attention.

It is correct you don't see much if any negative reports on hunting products. What a couple of well known writers have told me is that if a piece of equipment is crap they just send it back to the manufacturer and tell them they need to fix it if they want them to promote it.

I think the guys that are in the video business for the long run are not going to promote a product that is a POS because their reputation as well as the manufacturer's depends on it not being a POS. When I recently did a video with Tim Herald he had all kinds of his sponsors equipment. Was it the best the industry offers? Who knows but Tim never said it was and it did its job very well. I shot the TC ICON rifle, with the Nosler ammo and the Nikon scope. All these manufacturers are Tim's sponsors. The combo was an absolute death ray. It was extremely accurate and the 180 nosler Accubond absolutley flattened that 190 class buck he shot. I'll tell you that I would have no problem owning or promoting any of those products.

Oh! I also can't forget to say that Tim looked very comfortable in his Under Armor gear. I felt pretty good in my cheap cotton shit too

Mark

Mark...YOU WHORE !!!!!! Get ready for the pitchfork and torch crowd to chase you up the tower. LOL !
Seriously though, I think most guys on AR get it. What if an outfitter recommends a specific PH for a potential client? If we follow a popular way of thinking, should he not be required to offer cost and PH experience info of competitive operators to the client that wants to book with him ? I mean the other guys may have better prices and or better, more experienced hunters experienced hunters?
No, he is in the business of promoting HIS business and stable of pros. It is THE CLIENTS duty to shop other outfits or gear list if he wishes, but on their time and dime, not his.

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
When I recently did a video with Tim Herald he had all kinds of his sponsors equipment . . . I shot the TC ICON rifle, with the Nosler ammo and the Nikon scope.

You have obviously been corrupted by the process.

Do you not regret bringing this up?

Mike,

Yeah! Corrupted I may be but I still haven't figure out how to get the free shit.

Mark

Dave,

Yeah! A whore also. I'm still not gettin' any free stuff.

Mark

I am a lawyer, I have no shame.

quote:

Originally posted by MJines:
I am a lawyer, I have no shame.

Bingo

Mike, all,

I have tried my best to stay out of this thread. Alas, I just can't do it. Having been involved as an outdoor writer for some 38 years now, I've been through the old guys, the middle range guys, and the new guys. I must say, give me the philosophy of the old guys every time.

Mike, I have little to argue with you in your comments. I've known Mark Sullivan for a lot of years now, and, while I've not read his books, I'm sure that he told it like he thought it. I've not hunted with Mark, nor am I likely to do so. However, if I did, and I was the paying dude, we'd hunt as I saw fit, not as he saw fit, unless we agreed on the fits. Since that is not likely to happen, ever, I'll spend no more time on it.

On the matter of the magazines of today practically morphing industry advertising material, I agree. However, you're blaming the wrong group. I know most of the nationally published writers in the business, and practically all I know would love to tell it like they see it. The problem is that if they did, it would never be printed and they would never be paid.

Someone said that humor is lacking in outdoor material these days. He's absolutely correct. There is no room these days for creative writing, including humor, as the pages are taken up with other trivia, like advertising. When I started in the business, the average feature article was between 2500 and 3000 words in length. With that space, a writer could actually write, including a bit of humor. Today 1200 to 1500 words is max. There's not enough room to say much with that word count restriction.

The only way this situation is going to change is for everyone to quit buying the magazines. If the circulation drops to nil, then the advertisers won't spend advertising dollars on that rag. It will wither on the vine and die.

Eventually, someone will get the bright idea of how to fix that problem, and do it. You guys are the key though. You must practice what you preach. If a particular rag don't cut it for you, don't buy it, and tell all your friends not to buy it.

Money talks and BS walks. It's as simple as that. Whether the readers have the guts to do it or not, is another matter.

TT

Mike,

How much did you pay for that book?

I'm looking online and the prices ranges from $115 USD to $425 USD.

Mark might let the animal he's going to kill "decide" how it's going to die for the camera but he can kiss my double rifle right on the butt if he thinks I'm going to decide to pay that for his book!!

Sullivan needs a sponsor so he can charge less for his books. That'd be a great thread, possible sponsorship ideas for Mark Sullivan.

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Fulson:
Frostbit
Sorry you were offended by the Hornady box on the lion DVD. Hornady has , besides building one hell of a bullet , been a loyal sponsor on both our shows since day 1 and will also be sponsoring our next series. That loyalty goes both ways. We really do believe in the products we use on our shows, But, have any of you EVER heard, one single time, where Craig or anyone else on our show said "This is the ONLY bullet, stick, rifle, boot I'll EVER use. The answer is NO. I edit the shows and that is a fact. Advertising is a necessary thing in our show, or any show from soap operas to the Super Bowl. I hope we have earned some trust over the years with our viewers on this matter. We understand the irksome way some shows peddle sponsor stuff, and we poke fun at them as well, but we are proud of, and confident in our sponsors gear and our DAY 1 sponsorship partners such as Hornady make it financially possible to do what we do. If anyone can come up with a business model will cover the bills without sponsorship-brother I am all ears !!
Happy New Year to all!
See you in Dallas
Dave

Nice reply Dave.

Doesn't change my opinion. It is what it is. I posted what I felt about seeing the ammo box. It bugged me. If you think I don't have a right to that opinion that's fine because that would be your opinion and you have a right to it.

When I owned a restaurant eons ago I occasionally heard "suggestions" from customers. Some helpful, some not, but I listened none the less.

I will not "offend" you with another suggestion or observation.

Tsquare2, thanks for your opinion. It is always nice to have someone with credibility and years of experience weigh in on an issue -- whether you agree with them or not. That is really the sad part of what is missing these days, the freedom to express opinions and ideas understanding some will agree and some will disagree. (I still have the book to send to you for you to sign. It is one of my New Year's Resolutions to get that done!)

Surestrike, my wife bought it off of Mark's website. As an aside, the book came with a free DVD of your choice (which helps offset the cost of the book). My DVD choice was not available so Mark sent another DVD along with a handwritten note to my wife apologizing for the inconvenience and promising to ship the desired DVD gratis when it arrived (which he did). Book comes signed too.

http://www.nitroexpresssafaris.com/

Click on the "New Book!!!" link on the left. Special offer is book plus a DVD of your choice for $100 plus shipping.

quote:

As a service to its members, apparently SCI follows the same policy with respect to published reports on virtually anything hunting related, not just hunt reports. The discussions of knives, rifles, binoculars, ammunition and virtually everything else hunting related seems to be done in accordance with the standard policy of, "just the positives Ma'am" as opposed to "just the facts Ma'am". At least in the newsletter they allow the manufacturers to just write their own copy and include the copy so that they look like articles.

I retired 12 years ago and don't know what SCI's publications policies are now. But I can tell you that I never published an advertiser's press release unless I believed it actually was news, and never without greatly editing it.

(The only exception was the club's Convention News daily newspaper, which I launched as a service to exhibitors and an additional revenue generator for SCI.)

I also heavily edited articles that named the products our authors used. If there was no genuine need to mention a product, it wasn't mentioned. I didn't care who the author was or if he needed to repay the manufacturer for his "industry hunt." It also made no difference whether the products were sold by one of our several hundred advertisers, the magazine's integrity was more valuable than a few full page ads.

As for my friend Tom T's comments above, he's correct about the length of magazine articles shrinking. But the reason is not because the pages are taken up with "other trivia" such as advertising. There are fewer pages for editorial material now because there are fewer advertising pages being sold.

You need only to compare the thickness of Outdoor Life and Field & Stream today to those same magazines thirty years ago to see what I mean.

The number of pages in a magazine has always been determined by the number of pages of advertising that a magazine sells. When I ran SCI's publications, it was 50% advertising, 50% editorial material for Safari magazine. Less than 50% advertising was unprofitable, more than 50% and readers complained. That was a standard ratio in those days for publications that did not have news stand revenue. I suspect this hasn't changed.

There's another reason the length of feature articles in the big-circulation hook-and-bullet magazines have been shrinking. In the early 1990s, someone got the dumb idea that lots of short "how to" tips, charts, graphs and small illustrations were what readers wanted, and they dumped these idiotic things all through their publications. That spelled the end of the thoughtful, well-written -- but longer -- pieces with large, beautiful illustrations by highly talented artists and photographers that Tom and I miss.

This editorial trend for "tighter packaging" of editorial material began a decade earlier with USA Today, and it helped bring about the demise of hundreds of newspapers. It may take longer, but it will do the same to the magazine industry, I predict.

Bill Quimby

Dave and Tim....I like the shows. My son shoots a Ruger Magnum and I shoot all kinds of rifles....and my 500 Jeff Heym actually sports a 1x4 Trijicon 30mm scope. Sponsors pay the bills....period. I like Hornady ammo and bullets, but use Woodies and NF's when I go to Africa. I don't think either of them is in the position to sponsor Tracks or any other show.

Keep up the good work...I'd have withdrawals without them.....really.

Gary
DRSS
NRA Lifer
DSC

Since this thread has already drifted quite a bit from the initial topic I don't feel guilty about going a bit further afield.

The issue of sponsorships and endorsements is an interesting one. The best lessons I learned were from two top competition shooters, Rob Leatham and Jerry Barnhart, both multiple national and world champions. Both turned down far more sponsorship offers than they accepted.

Back in the '90s Leatham gave me an example. He had tried a number of jacketed bullets in his competition .38 Super and 9x25 pistols and found he got the best overall performance from Nosler bullets.

He then approached Nosler, saying (I'm paraphrasing, not quoting word for word) "I like your bullets, if my endorsement has value to you then what I want in return is bullets for practice and matches through the year. If you aren't interested in my endorsement I'm going to buy your bullets anyway since I haven't found anything better."

Barnhart said much the same: My first job is to win matches. To do that I need the equipment I have found to be the best for me. If the makers want to sponsor me in return for wearing their logo and appearing in ads, it's a good deal for us both. If they don't I'll use it anyway.

This was at a time when manufacturers were standing in line to offer them not just free products but free money. Both knew the most important things were to have equipment with which they could win; and to endorse products they liked and trusted, so their endorsement was worth something.

Many competitors, and maybe some in the hunting/shooting industry, get things out of order. They look for sponsorships, then try and win (or hunt) with whatever equipment pays them the best. The real champs do the opposite. They spend whatever time and money it takes to become a champion. Then they have something to offer potential sponsors.

I have met Craig Boddington a few times but don't know him well. I suspect his approach is much the same. I have not doubt he uses products he believes are capable of doing the job required. If he can then make an arrangement advantageous to both parties that is fine, but it isn't the primary goal.

I know it can be grating when product placement in photos/videos, or in voiceover or text, is blatant and repetitive. The other side is, just try leaving information out and see what happens. If Craig did a video or article and blurred out the rifle/scope/ammo from photos, or didn't mention them in the article, readers and viewers would go nuts.

I'm sure Craig gets sent all sorts of products to try. It's not because manufacturers love Craig, but because a mention in a national magazine is worth a lot of money. I suspect a favorable comment from Craig would sell more product than an ad costing several thousand dollars. Sometimes readers might want to reconsider just which party it is wanting something for nothing.

Whatever Craig gets today he earned over many years, and from a truly amazing work ethic. In his years with the Marine Corps reserve, he once told me, he would carry out his duties as a Marine Corps officer from seven or eight to six, have dinner, write until around midnight, then get up the next day and do it all over.

Similarly I've seen Rob Leatham out on the range shooting, day after day, rain, wind, or shine. If he wasn't shooting he was reloading, and if not reloading he was running or biking to stay in shape. If you want to share in the benefits these guys get, start with some talent and then work like hell. Nothing they got came free.

Final note: Tracks Across Africa is the only hunting show, and only TV show, my wife and I consider worth planning our day around to be certain we don't miss it. Top production values don't come cheap. If a "word from our sponsors" makes it possible to see the show I don't mind putting up with it.

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
... As for my friend Tom T's comments above, he's correct about the length of magazine articles shrinking. But the reason is not because the pages are taken up with "other trivia" such as advertising. There are fewer pages for editorial material now because there are fewer advertising pages being sold.

Sorry, but this is not true. We have more advertisements and less writing.

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
You need only to compare the thickness of Outdoor Life and Field & Stream today to those same magazines thirty years ago to see what I mean.

Compare the number of ads as well. It was a real eye opener for me.

I recently compare an old Guns & Ammo annual that my dad had from 1984 - to the most recent one. The 84 version had less than half the advertisements of the 2010 issue. With longer articles.

Now I would suspect there are reasons/excuses for that, probably mostly monatary.

.

quote:

Originally posted by TwoZero:

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
... As for my friend Tom T's comments above, he's correct about the length of magazine articles shrinking. But the reason is not because the pages are taken up with "other trivia" such as advertising. There are fewer pages for editorial material now because there are fewer advertising pages being sold.

Sorry, but this is not true. We have more advertisements and less writing.

quote:

Originally posted by billrquimby:
You need only to compare the thickness of Outdoor Life and Field & Stream today to those same magazines thirty years ago to see what I mean.

Compare the number of ads as well. It was a real eye opener for me.

I recently compare an old Guns & Ammo annual that my dad had from 1984 - to the most recent one. The 84 version had less than half the advertisements of the 2010 issue. With longer articles.

Now I would suspect there are reasons/excuses for that, probably mostly monatary.

.

Tom and I were thinking of a lot earlier than 1984, but the question is what was the percentage of ads to the number of pages? Did you actually count ad pages or was this just your impression?

An "annual" is not really indicative of what a magazine does the rest of the year.

It cannot be disputed that magazines today have fewer pages. You only need to pick up a copy of Advertising Age (the bible for magazine publishers) to learn the industry is selling fewer ad pages. It has tracked such things for a long time.

However, you are correct that it is "mostly monetary," but isn't everything?

Bill Quimby

"I would suggest them to anyone who enjoys looking at fine rifles, great trophies and enjoys a good read."



That statement pretty much sums it up!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Frostbit:

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Fulson:
Frostbit
Sorry you were offended by the Hornady box on the lion DVD. Hornady has , besides building one hell of a bullet , been a loyal sponsor on both our shows since day 1 and will also be sponsoring our next series. That loyalty goes both ways. We really do believe in the products we use on our shows, But, have any of you EVER heard, one single time, where Craig or anyone else on our show said "This is the ONLY bullet, stick, rifle, boot I'll EVER use. The answer is NO. I edit the shows and that is a fact. Advertising is a necessary thing in our show, or any show from soap operas to the Super Bowl. I hope we have earned some trust over the years with our viewers on this matter. We understand the irksome way some shows peddle sponsor stuff, and we poke fun at them as well, but we are proud of, and confident in our sponsors gear and our DAY 1 sponsorship partners such as Hornady make it financially possible to do what we do. If anyone can come up with a business model will cover the bills without sponsorship-brother I am all ears !!
Happy New Year to all!
See you in Dallas
Dave

Nice reply Dave.

Doesn't change my opinion. It is what it is. I posted what I felt about seeing the ammo box. It bugged me. If you think I don't have a right to that opinion that's fine because that would be your opinion and you have a right to it.

When I owned a restaurant eons ago I occasionally heard "suggestions" from customers. Some helpful, some not, but I listened none the less.

I will not "offend" you with another suggestion or observation.

Have to agree with Frostbit here and is it not possible to integrate the sponsors in the credits or something like the cover of the DVD rather than blatantly plaster their wares over the big picture.

Surely the Boddington name itself sells the series?

I got his first book Death and double rifles for Christmas, and I look forward to reading it, even though I don't like his style of hunting the dangerous game.

Guys I have zero problem with suggestions or feedback. Quite the opposite, we welcome it. As Frostbit said"everyone is due his own opinion" I agree. Believe me that we never mean to be over the top with our sponsor products. We do not "trust our lives" to everything from boots to bino's as others do. But we are always trying to dress up the sit down interviews as just Craig in a chair staring straight ahead is pretty boring to the eye. We dress it up as best we can and as you noted sometimes use products as props. Nothing more. Craig never mentioned the bullets, but I assure Steve Hornady noticed the box and liked it displayed. No foul at all on any of the comments, I am just trying to shed some light on why we do certain things. I appreciate your business and loyalty to our brand. We fully understand that our customers are our pretty sharp guys and gals and please hear me when I say that your feedback counts. Thanks for your combined ears !

quote:

Originally posted by Dave Fulson:
Guys I have zero problem with suggestions or feedback. Quite the opposite, we welcome it. As Frostbit said"everyone is due his own opinion" I agree. Believe me that we never mean to be over the top with our sponsor products. We do not "trust our lives" to everything from boots to bino's as others do. But we are always trying to dress up the sit down interviews as just Craig in a chair staring straight ahead is pretty boring to the eye. We dress it up as best we can and as you noted sometimes use products as props. Nothing more. Craig never mentioned the bullets, but I assure Steve Hornady noticed the box and liked it displayed. No foul at all on any of the comments, I am just trying to shed some light on why we do certain things. I appreciate your business and loyalty to our brand. We fully understand that our customers are our pretty sharp guys and gals and please hear me when I say that your feedback counts. Thanks for your combined ears !

I hear you.

Looking this thread over again it reminded me that when a member does a hunt report and doesn't talk about his rifles, calibers, optics bullets etc people are all over him for those details. BUT if a outdoor personality says I used x,y,z and it worked really well they are whores. WTF???

I still want my free shit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mark

Mark,
If you lay off the Immodium, you might get some free shit. Their motto should be "Fart without fear".

Let me give you two concrete examples of how the lack of candor in promoting items creates a false impression in the minds of viewers and could have serious negative consequences. If there was a show that was sponsored by Ruger and promoted the use of the Ruger African rifles in the early days after those rifles were introduced, would not it be appropriate for them to note that there were some early problems with the rifles in terms of stocks splitting? Or what if there was a show that promoted the use of Hornady dangerous game ammunition. After the early introduction of the ammunition, before Hornady went to steel jacketed bullets, there were widespread reports of bullet issues on big game, e.g., soft points failing, solids distorting. Would not it make sense to let folks know that issues such as this were being experienced? Particularly folks planning dangerous game hunts where someone might be injured as a result of a bullet failure. While I appreciate the pursuit of the almighty dollar in the form of sponsorships, seems like there still needs to be a place for candor and objectivity.

[And this is not intended to be a criticism of either Ruger or Hornady. I have a Ruger African rifle and enjoy it. I also use Hornady DGS and DGX ammunition and am thankful for Hornady reintroducing a number of the old cartridges in factory loadings.]

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
Looking this thread over again it reminded me that when a member does a hunt report and doesn't talk about his rifles, calibers, optics bullets etc people are all over him for those details. BUT if a outdoor personality says I used x,y,z and it worked really well they are whores. WTF???

WTF is that one person get's paid to hock the products they use rather than freely choosing their equipment. The other uses equipment presumably because that's what they think is the best. Big difference. Nothing wrong with sponsorship, but there's a difference between these two groups.

Brett

Unless you truly believe, as we do, in the products you use and film with. Then there is no difference at all.
And Mike, we did cover some of the early Hornady issues on camera, but point well taken.
Headed to the show.

quote:

Originally posted by Brett Adam Barringer:

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
Looking this thread over again it reminded me that when a member does a hunt report and doesn't talk about his rifles, calibers, optics bullets etc people are all over him for those details. BUT if a outdoor personality says I used x,y,z and it worked really well they are whores. WTF???

WTF is that one person get's paid to hock the products they use rather than freely choosing their equipment. The other uses equipment presumably because that's what they think is the best. Big difference. Nothing wrong with sponsorship, but there's a difference between these two groups.

Brett

Part of the difference is "Hunting Industry" as compared to "Hunting Sport".

Some folks attempt to make a living from the industry, which also helps foster the availability of the sport and information about it for others.

Sponsorship can be a large part of making that living.

Heck I got two free hats from Adam Clements Safari Trackers (as well as the pocket version of "the perfect shot") before the last two Safaris I booked through them. I occasionally wear the hat now and I wore it some in Africa.

Strange as it may sound if that hat was covered with logo's of products available in the "hunting industry" it would have bugged me as much as that Hornady box did on the DVD.

Again, your mileage may vary.