Do you think the cable sports shows like Tracks across Africa are pricing some hunters out of the market? When you can write off the price of the hunt and transportation and get a advertising deal with the safari company the day rate is not as much of a consideration, or is it?

I am not sure of what these guy's pay that causes the price to increase.
I think its more, what they dont pay.

Larry

Any kind of marketing, whether it be print or broadcast, will increase the price others pay for two reasons:

1. It stimulates demand, which allows providers to increase their prices.

2. Anything given for free, or even a discount, requires the provider to increase the price charged to others. And contrary to the protests of some, outdoor communicators do get free hunts.

I often write about a ranch in Wyoming. I hunt there for free, but the prices they charge others are really good. Well, this year there was no writer's hunt because we apparently stimulated demand so much there were no days available when the PR firm went to book this year's hunt.

The best hunting for the dollar will rarely be found by watching TV. Why do you think these outfits are so eager to host a TV show? Is it because they are fully booked at any cost they can charge?

AAW

This kind of brings up a point for me that I've never really understood. Why do people think that outdoor celebrities somehow are sleazy because they promote products and outfits they hunt with? If the products they promote do what they are supposed to and the hunt operators offer a good hunt what is the problem?

I have very little personal experience with this but I did do a hunt last year with Tim Herald in AZ that will air shortly. I set it up and he filmed it. I was there on the ground for the whole thing and I just yesterday viewed it as it will air on Nosler's Magnum TV and found it to be truthful and a good representation of what a client will encounter on that hunt. So if Tim and I got some consideration on the hunt and he promoted some other products where is the problem? I don't get it.

Mark

Well shit...it's simple. If you get something free or even discounted your going to be biased...no matter who you are or how good you think your morals are.

Just why do you think most companies forbid their employees from taking gifts and/or costly dinners from their suppliers or contractors.

Just why do you think anyone with something to sell wants you to take something for free or at a specific discount.

C'mon...you're smarter than that. Most people are.

Did you not learn anything from your congressional leaders? They are experts at it.

Mark,

I never used the term "sleazy." You did.

Did Tim acknowledge he got the hunt for fee or at a discount? If so, I see no problem.

I always mention the price I paid for products and services, and if I get it for free, I say so. I am doing a story on long range rifle. I have had more than one barrel manufacturer offer free barrels. In the past I have taken them, but you know what? It is sleazy to accept this stuff for free and not say you got it for free. So now my policy is to state whenever I get a discount or get free product. For stories on project rifles, I figure if I can't spend some money on a barrel, I must not believe in it too much.

If you are going to endorse a product outside of conventional advertising and either recieve cash or payment in kind (free stuff) you must acknowledge this. It is now the law, especially when it comes to internet blogs, yet it seems I am a one man band when it comes to complaining about this stuff.

You know, maybe someday I will stop getting free bullets from Hornady or free trips from Browning, etc. because I state publicly I get this stuff for free. You know what? I will still buy their stuff and still write about it.

What is so hard about stating publicly how much you paid for something or if you indeed got it for free? I have never seen a single writer answer the question.

Now please answer the original question...if the outfitter gave away a hunt or discounted it, don't you think the price for others will be higher?

In my software business I have ample opportunity to spend on my customers. Woodrow is right - many companies forbid their employees from accepting rather modest gifts, for what are obvious reasons. A free hunting trip? Shit, I would be tossed out as a vendor forever.

One more point.

I think anyone who believes writers are treated the same as a no-name hunter who is not a repeat customer are a little naive. Without naming names, I know a guy who used to be a packer with a fairly well known guide service in Alaska. This outfit used to host a writer every fall (I know one of them personally and the other one lives in my state). This packer (who now owns his own hunting business in Africa) told me that each fall the best ram in the area was reserved for one of these writers, and under no circumstances were they to let other clients shoot that ram.

Now maybe that is an isolated incident. But another problem is setting unrealistic expectations. I went on my first buffalo hunt after reading a story by a well known African hunting writer. I had to listen to bitching how the "free hunt" they offered wasn't paying the dividends they expected. Well, I can see why they had to offer a free hunt: it was shitty. I shot two buffalo, none of which went over 30 inches, and one was softer than butter (the PH never checked the boss from the front). I wish the guy who wrote that story had never bothered, but then it isn't his problem, is it?

The ones out there that think all these TV hunters are paying full board for these hunts and hunting gear.
You are the same ones that think that car dealers only charged you $200 over invoice.

It ain't just TV. Conventions, ball caps, donated hunts , etc. (call it advertising) cost money. In a free market system, to begrudge a guy (be it the TV producer or the PH) for a business plan that hopefully makes him a better living makes little sense to me.

In my simple mind, the ultimate question in buying anything is value for price. If you don't like the value or the price, go somewhere else to shop or buy another product.

quote:

The best hunting for the dollar will rarely be found by watching TV. Why do you think these outfits are so eager to host a TV show? Is it because they are fully booked at any cost they can charge?

I respectfully disagree with this quote from above. Marketing isn't just for the desperate. I've seen Calitz, TGT, etc. on the tube and I doubt they "need" to give away anything.



JMHO.

quote:

It ain't just TV. Conventions, ball caps, donated hunts , etc. (call it advertising) cost money. In a free market system, to begrudge a guy (be it the TV producer or the PH) for a business plan that hopefully makes him a better living makes little sense to me.

You fotgot to include the Infamous celebrity
JUDGE G

quote:

Originally posted by JudgeG:
It ain't just TV. Conventions, ball caps, donated hunts , etc. (call it advertising) cost money. In a free market system, to begrudge a guy (be it the TV producer or the PH) for a business plan that hopefully makes him a better living makes little sense to me.

In my simple mind, the ultimate question in buying anything is value for price. If you don't like the value or the price, go somewhere else to shop or buy another product.

quote:

The best hunting for the dollar will rarely be found by watching TV. Why do you think these outfits are so eager to host a TV show? Is it because they are fully booked at any cost they can charge?

I respectfully disagree with this quote from above. Marketing isn't just for the desperate. I've seen Calitz, TGT, etc. on the tube and I doubt they "need" to give away anything.



JMHO.

Judge:

I don't begrudge anyone marketing their business and have said so in the past.

My sore point with "the system" is that there is no financial disclosure. When someone gets financial consideration, they should say so. What is so difficult about that concept?

And bringing up Calitz et al only reinforces my point: these guys aren't cheap. In my original post, I said stimulating demand allows one to increase their price - and that was the original question in this post.

Here is the problem with non disclosure. I have no doubt Calitz offers a great hunt. But I am also suspicious that he gives a lot away for free to Tony Makris. And guys who book hunts are in effect subsidizing Makris's hunting. Now you might find that appealing, but I don't.

Now, if Makris were to state that he pays full price for these hunts, that would super charge the marketing effect he gets. Sort of like when CB told us how he paid for his Mexico desert sheep hunt by saving a year's combat pay. (Gee, I thought, when he spends his money, he gets to make all the decisions...why did he pick this guy?)

Jim Shockey asked the outfitter for his Uganda hunt for a free hunt. The guy said no. Shockey paid full price for the hunt. He never said so in the show. Too bad, because the hunt was great but I am sure others felt they were subsidizing Shockey.

Say, how come you haven't booked with Calitz? Maybe you have or percieve to have found better value elsewhere. It seems to me you hunt Africa every year, but I don't recall you hunting with him. Perhaps you have done once but chose not to return.

I went on a moose hunt last year in the Yukon. I could have booked with Jim Shockey. As best I can tell, that hunt would have cost about 20K whether I shot a moose or not.

Instead, I found an outfitter by doing basic internet research, checked the references, and booked the hunt. I got a steal for $5K (the season for caribou closed early in 2010 and his last hunting space was open) plus a trophy fee of 5K on the kill. I had a horseback hunt with two guides. With extras and tips I paid maybe $15K. The taxidermist in Whitehorse told me I should score that moose, as he felt it would make B&C.

The guy that provided my hunt doesn't use booking agents and doesn't advertise. He sure does offer a lot of value for the money.

AAW,

You know this all sounds a lot like many people just begrudge the consideration that outdoor personalities get on hunts. I guess I don't automatically assume people are liars because they get a better deal on a hunt than I would. When I see a really high profile guy Like Shockey or Boddington etc on a hunting video it doensn't even cross my mind what they paid or didn't pay for the hunt. I'm just watching for the entertainment value. I don't give crap what they paid for the hunt. And what if they do get a free hunt? Does that somehow mean that they are automatically liars and likely to misrepresent the hunt? Seems like a stretch to me.

Mark

AnotherAZWriter:

For your edification, I have given beaucoup of a deposit to Calitz for an elephant hunt in 2013. Ivan Carter will be the P.H. and my hunting buddy will be with one of Calitz's folks. Can't wait!

Judge,

I am guessing you are going to have a fabulous hunt, and I sure hope you do. I have given Calitz some thought and perhaps will book a hunt with him in the future as well. But I will also do so knowing I am paying for all that marketing.

Mark,

The original question was do hunting shows increase the cost of hunts. You have never answered that question. I maintain they do. Clearly there are some great hunts on TV, but ultimately someone has to pay for all of that.

It is similar to the question "Do booking agents increase the cost of hunts?" Of course they do. But we all generally understand that and if we perceive there is value in using a booking agent, we do so. I am not sure there is value in booking a hunt just because we see a personality shoot an animal on TV.

I am not begrudging anyone who gets a free hunt; I just wish they would point that out. Why do you suppose they don't? Why do you suppose International Paper doesn't let me spend more than $25 per meal when I take their employees to dinner?

I bet if you took a poll, most AR members would probably agree with me.

And then there is the sticky issue of the FTC rule that requires one endorsing a product outside of tradional advertising to state if they are paid or if they receive payment in kind. Hey, why do you suppose the FTC passed that law?

Outfitters can market in lots of different ways. The outfit in AZ could have spent it on a booth at an outdoor show or they could have hosted a hunt. Neither of those venues are what I choose to use to decide with whom to hunt. Again, just my opinion. I am entitled to mine and you are entitled to yours. I am not out to change your mind or anyone else's, just pointing out the way I see the battlefield.

The internet is changing a lot of things; hunting is just one of them. You have made great use of it; smart way to play IMO. When it comes to choosing an outfit to hunt with, it remains my number one source, not a TV show. Funny, Calitz has an excellent reputation here on AR. I bet if he didn't Judge would not be booking a hunt no matter what the TV show portrayed.

Put it this way: I would be more inclined to hunt with Calitz after chatting with Judge than I would be having watched a TV show portraying someone I don't know who is paid to say something positive.

Fair enough. Both about the chat and the ethic.

As a guide/outfitter/agent for years, and someone who has done dozens of TV shows with everyone you can think of. I assure you, my/our prices have and never were effected either way by the fact that we were doing TV shows! I've given hunts completely free to TV guys, I've had em pay just expenses like guide wages/food & lodging, and I've had several pay full price. The only TV guy who is hunting with us this year is the same guy who has for the past several years, paid FULL PRICE. I've never given away a hunt that was easily sell-able, never, not one time. I usually would give away archery spots that we had open anyway, or some payment arrangement was made. But as for the best rifle/muzzleloader hunts we have, either guys pay, or they don't come. We have one AR guy that will come when we get his tag, only because he's our friend too.

TV was a fabulous marketing tool 10 yrs ago when it first started, and I first started doing it with guys! Fact is, I booked ALOT of hunts from TV, and it was worth every bit of my my time/effort back then. It was really good until the past few years, and now its just a waste of time/energy. If you are an outfitter, hoping to use it for marketing purposes, when the tv show/host comes once a year, does a show, airs it, and that's it! That was great 5-10 yrs ago, but now, there's so many crappy shows, and so many guys have grown tired of it, that the only ones really watching anymore are the 20 something crowd, wanting to watch Waddell act like a goof ball, see some chick with big tits, or a group of deer hunters trying to see who can get the biggest buck! Other than the few serious guys who watch TAA and shows like Shockey's, the rest of them aren't buying hunts anyway. Unless you have a dedicated show like Safari Classics has with TAA, or you have a good product/service to offer, with a dedicated show, its become a total waste of time! At least for outfitters, thinking they are gonna have the phone ringing off the hook, just cause some TV show aired about their hunting operation. It was like that at first, in fact it was amazing. But its not like that anymore. Believe me, I've done many, many shows over the past 10 yrs. We just had a show air a couple weeks ago with Lee & Tiffany. Tiffany and I shot a nice whitetail spot & stalk with a bow, Lee was hunting a muley buck that scored 239", and Greg Ritz and I shot a 186" muley. All of this on film, all of this on one show, and we got NOT ONE single call/email/inquiry, NOT ONE! 6 - 10 yrs ago, my phone would have rang for 2 solid hrs, I would have received 30 - 50 messages and the same anount of emails, not anymore.

Some of you know I have booked Shockey on numerous hunts over the years. One thing I can say about Jim, is he ALWAYS PAYS HIS WAY! Always, period, end of story!

Fact is, whether someone is paying, or is not paying, gets free gear, doesn't get free gear, who really cares?? Why, why would you care? I have plenty of other things to worry about, rather than whether or not the guy I'm watching on TV paid for his gun, his boots or his hunt. I get offers too, but rarely will you get something that's really valuable to the outfitter, at a reduced price.

quote:

Originally posted by MARK H. YOUNG:
AAW

This kind of brings up a point for me that I've never really understood. Why do people think that outdoor celebrities somehow are sleazy because they promote products and outfits they hunt with? If the products they promote do what they are supposed to and the hunt operators offer a good hunt what is the problem?

I have very little personal experience with this but I did do a hunt last year with Tim Herald in AZ that will air shortly. I set it up and he filmed it. I was there on the ground for the whole thing and I just yesterday viewed it as it will air on Nosler's Magnum TV and found it to be truthful and a good representation of what a client will encounter on that hunt. So if Tim and I got some consideration on the hunt and he promoted some other products where is the problem? I don't get it.

Mark

Mark when and where will your hunt air? Lynn and I would love to see it.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Fact is, whether someone is paying, or is not paying, gets free gear, doesn't get free gear, who really cares?? Why, why would you care?

Why would I care? Really simple Aaron. When a guy is spending his own money on stuff, we know he is making that decision without any conflict of interest.

Do you really think all those writers using TC single shots are doing so because they are the best available rifle out there??

Now that example is an easy one; TC has saturated the industry so much with sponsorship dollars it is laughable. But the issue is sometimes more subtle. Is CB using Brand X right now because he likes the bino or because they helped pay for the hunt?

But like I said, with the internet/social media, we can just go on AR and get all kinds of unadulterated opinions. In fact, the reason the FTC promulgated their rule is because paid bloggers were espousing products in what many thought was a neutral forum.

Aaron

quote:

All of this on film, all of this on one show, and we got NOT ONE single call/email/inquiry, NOT ONE! 6 - 10 yrs ago, my phone would have rang for 2 solid hrs, I would have received 30 - 50 messages and the same anount of emails, not anymore

That should not be hard to figure out. After the show they go to the web site they see they want 6,7,8 thousand for a whitetail hunt and say forget it leave it for the heavy hitters. How many of the average hunters who watch these shows could afford one. I just cant believe the cost of some of the US hunts anymore. Look back and see what a good whitetail hunt cost 10 years ago. I went to BC in 1996 paid $10,000 for 21 days, fly in, moose, mountain goat, mountain caribou, grizzly bear and black bear. Oh well it it what it is.
And you are right the T&A and the goofy stuff these guys do is making it hard to even watch these shows. Lotta BS not much huntin.
Larry

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Fact is, whether someone is paying, or is not paying, gets free gear, doesn't get free gear, who really cares?? Why, why would you care?

Why would I care? Really simple Aaron. When a guy is spending his own money on stuff, we know he is making that decision without any conflict of interest.

Do you really think all those writers using TC single shots are doing so because they are the best available rifle out there??

Now that example is an easy one; TC has saturated the industry so much with sponsorship dollars it is laughable. But the issue is sometimes more subtle. Is CB using Brand X right now because he likes the bino or because they helped pay for the hunt?

But like I said, with the internet/social media, we can just go on AR and get all kinds of unadulterated opinions. In fact, the reason the FTC promulgated their rule is because paid bloggers were espousing products in what many thought was a neutral forum.

AAZ - I understand the issue here bothers you, I've seen you talk about it alot, and of course your entitled to that. For me, I simply have too many of my own concerns to be bothered with, or waste any of my own time, worrying about what someone else is getting to go hunting. Just seems like alot of wasted energy, for something you can't control?

quote:

Originally posted by elk88101:
Aaron

quote:

All of this on film, all of this on one show, and we got NOT ONE single call/email/inquiry, NOT ONE! 6 - 10 yrs ago, my phone would have rang for 2 solid hrs, I would have received 30 - 50 messages and the same anount of emails, not anymore

That should not be hard to figure out. After the show they go to the web site they see they want 6,7,8 thousand for a whitetail hunt and say forget it leave it for the heavy hitters. How many of the average hunters who watch these shows could afford one. I just cant believe the cost of some of the US hunts anymore. Look back and see what a good whitetail hunt cost 10 years ago. I went to BC in 1996 paid $10,000 for 21 days, fly in, moose, mountain goat, mountain caribou, grizzly bear and black bear. Oh well it it what it is.
And you are right the T&A and the goofy stuff these guys do is making it hard to even watch these shows. Lotta BS not much huntin.
Larry

To some degree you're right, but it goes back to what I said about who the viewers are now. What you're leaving out, is why are these the viewers now? The average viewer cannot afford it now, because the average viewer has changed, because the programming has changed. Alot of us guys, my clients included, just can't stand to watch this new crap on the hunting shows. Where 5-10 yrs ago, the shows weren't like that.

I have no problem selling the hunts, the price has nothing to do with it. Simply the TV/hunting show viewers have changed, alot. Besides, I have a client doing a 14-day, B.C. hunt for all the exact same animals you mentioned, late August 2011. But in 2011 that hunt costs over $30k! So to say deer hunts have gone up, well so has hunting in B.C.

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Fact is, whether someone is paying, or is not paying, gets free gear, doesn't get free gear, who really cares?? Why, why would you care?

Why would I care? Really simple Aaron. When a guy is spending his own money on stuff, we know he is making that decision without any conflict of interest.

Do you really think all those writers using TC single shots are doing so because they are the best available rifle out there??

Now that example is an easy one; TC has saturated the industry so much with sponsorship dollars it is laughable. But the issue is sometimes more subtle. Is CB using Brand X right now because he likes the bino or because they helped pay for the hunt?

But like I said, with the internet/social media, we can just go on AR and get all kinds of unadulterated opinions. In fact, the reason the FTC promulgated their rule is because paid bloggers were espousing products in what many thought was a neutral forum.

AAZ - I understand the issue here bothers you, I've seen you talk about it alot, and of course your entitled to that. For me, I simply have too many of my own concerns to be bothered with, or waste any of my own time, worrying about what someone else is getting to go hunting. Just seems like alot of wasted energy, for something you can't control?

I think it is in the best interest of hunting. Kind of like your passion for not shooting underage lions. You can't control it, but you try anyway.

In answer to the question, I would say that the TV shows are not particularly good, and may actually be bad.

Now, as to the discussion as to price and "value" here, I think one would be quite simple to think that the price of marketing is not included. 2 years ago I took the hunt that Mark and Tim did. I paid substantially less then than they are selling it for now. Is it all because the hunt cost more? Is it because they have to pay the booking agent fee and their advertising budget? Who knows, besides the outfitter. I would assume that the biggest thing was that they felt that with the increased marketing, they could charge more and still sell the hunts, which is simple business- limited product, more demand, more money.

I suspect that one thing that is not included in the comments that some have made here is that many hunts are paid for, and then advertising time is brought (the so called payment in kind system) which makes it look like the hunter paid full bore and really did not actually lay out any cash, or laid out less cash than what the hunt actually retails for.

I too would appreciate knowing about some of the glowing trip reports just how much payment and payment in kind was done. Also, I too have heard comments like the one mentioned about a great animal being scouted out and that area being reserved only for "special" clients. You don't have to do too much hunting with outfitters to hear some of these stories.

When I book through a booking agent, I know I am paying an amount to get their services. I make that choice. With a TV advertising budget, I am paying for it, and I may well never have heard of the outfitter from that marketing standpoint, but I still have to pay the outfitter's rate with it included. Which probably explains why I haven't hunted with Shockey's outfit.

The actual point of my original question was because so many hunters going to Africa lately have ties to the industry, either as agents,writers, or movie makers, the hunt is a business expense and thus a write off. Therefore do you think this has affected the pricing of hunts?

gunny; IMHO, no. Supply and demand sets the price. Operational costs, labor, food, fuel (vehicle and diesel), ammo ($200+ for 20 big bores WTF!), designer safari outfits, boots, bangles, it all adds up. Sable, Roan, Gerenuk, FE Oryx, Lesser Kudu, Big 5...all of it comes down to supply and demand. If few people hunted Africa, the prices would drop to a point, but then PH/Outfits would be dropping like flies and poachers by the village would run rough shod over the game. For those of us who wish we could hunt Africa and other International destinations 4+ months each year we're just screwed. My advise: hunt what you can while you can. The end, one way or another is coming.
LDK

David
When things get to bad, you are always welcome to our Texas ranch for deer, hogs, turkey, and Aoudad.
I wish you could join us with the hunt with Karl.
See ya later Buddy
Larry

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Fact is, whether someone is paying, or is not paying, gets free gear, doesn't get free gear, who really cares?? Why, why would you care?

Why would I care? Really simple Aaron. When a guy is spending his own money on stuff, we know he is making that decision without any conflict of interest.

Do you really think all those writers using TC single shots are doing so because they are the best available rifle out there??

Now that example is an easy one; TC has saturated the industry so much with sponsorship dollars it is laughable. But the issue is sometimes more subtle. Is CB using Brand X right now because he likes the bino or because they helped pay for the hunt?

But like I said, with the internet/social media, we can just go on AR and get all kinds of unadulterated opinions. In fact, the reason the FTC promulgated their rule is because paid bloggers were espousing products in what many thought was a neutral forum.

AAZ - I understand the issue here bothers you, I've seen you talk about it alot, and of course your entitled to that. For me, I simply have too many of my own concerns to be bothered with, or waste any of my own time, worrying about what someone else is getting to go hunting. Just seems like alot of wasted energy, for something you can't control?

I think it is in the best interest of hunting. Kind of like your passion for not shooting underage lions. You can't control it, but you try anyway.

AAW - Good point, but the LCTF already has effected change with the lion issue. Zambia as a particular example! I'm fighting for a critical conservation/management issue, what's critical about what someone else pays for their hunt?

Gunny - Fact is, the tv/agent/writer folks you refer to as going to Africa lately, can't represent more than 1% of the hunters going to Africa, at most. I doudt seriously they could have any effect on the price of African Safaris in anyway. I'm not sure how that would even be possible? Yes, as an agent I certainly can write-off my expenses, and of course I do, its my job!

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
...what's critical about what someone else pays for their hunt?

Aaron,

I don't think anyone really cares about what media types and agents are paying, rather that they be open about their relationships. The question is how much salt needs to go with the opinions and testimonials that end up in the media. That is exactly why there is a strictly enforced disclosure policy on the AR offered hunts forum.

One of the things I do is keep a fairly accurate spreadsheet that works out the total costs of hunts I'm interested in. I have 3 outfits on the spreadsheet that I am familiar with from various media sources. Their advertised prices are all at the high end of the range for similar hunts. I take this to mean that their advertising efforts have been successful and they are earning a better living because of this. Good for them and every one involved!

Dean

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Woodrow S:
Well shit...it's simple. If you get something free or even discounted your going to be biased...no matter who you are or how good you think your morals are.

I think there is a lot of truth to this statement. I have watched many TV shows over the years and one year the hunter/host says this item is the best product going. The next year the sponsor drops them and they get another. Now that product is the best thing going. It is the way it is.

I spoke to a famous professional Walleye angler and he basically said if you want to make a living you say what the sponsor tells you to. That is whether you believe it or not.

The manufacturers spend a lot of money on advertising and they pass it on to who ever buys the product. I am not saying it is good or bad, it is just what it is. I for one cancelled my outdoor TV shows. I just got tired of the same old thing and I don't listen to the product hype, because I know chances are they may not believe it themselves.

One example of a TV show host who (the last time I saw him on TV) now says Remington is the rifle to own. He states it in a way that makes it sound like all the other ones he promoted were inferior. Well, now maybe he believes in this one. That was Michael Wadell.

quote:

Originally posted by maki:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
...what's critical about what someone else pays for their hunt?

Aaron,

I don't think anyone really cares about what media types and agents are paying, rather that they be open about their relationships. The question is how much salt needs to go with the opinions and testimonials that end up in the media. That is exactly why there is a strictly enforced disclosure policy on the AR offered hunts forum.

One of the things I do is keep a fairly accurate spreadsheet that works out the total costs of hunts I'm interested in. I have 3 outfits on the spreadsheet that I am familiar with from various media sources. Their advertised prices are all at the high end of the range for similar hunts. I take this to mean that their advertising efforts have been successful and they are earning a better living because of this. Good for them and every one involved!

Dean

Maki - I think there's a big difference between OPEN about one's affiliations, and "financial disclosure", of a private business deal. I also think its fairly easy to determine when someone is promoting a product/service on TV, likely compensation of some sort is involved. I was always taught financial info should be respected as a private matter!

Ya sure, AR and Saeed require a full disclosure policy, but AR is also a public forum, open to the entire public. Its not a private deal between two parties.

As for prices, I believe prices are almost 100% determined by the quality of the hunt/game. As someone else mentioned here already, our eastern Colorado whitetail deer hunts are not cheap. However, in 2009/2010 we killed exactly 25 whitetail bucks, of which, 19 of them scored 160" or better. That's almost 80% of the whitetails we shot in the past two years, scored over 160". That quality dictates price, but so does the fact that the landowners we lease from, know the quality they have too, and charge us lease fees accordingly!

I don't think its necessarily true either, that just because one gets something for free, they will support it, back it, or be biased about it at all. I've received lots of free stuff over the years, some for many of the TV shows I too have participated in, etc. However, I always make it clear that I am happy to use the product if it works, is good quality, etc. Most of the time it is, sometimes its not, and I just flatly refuse to use it. I had a custom .416 Rigby (make I will keep confidential) made and given to me for free a couple years ago, but of course they wanted me to use it on TV. This gun was such a POS, the stock came off twice, and the safety device quit working all in a matter of 3 days. I was on an elephant/buffalo hunt, THAT I PAYED FOR, and I immediately went back to my trusty .375 RUM. TV show or not, I simply didn't care, and I used my own gun for all of it.

I've worked with Dave and the guys at TAA on a few recent shows, one thing that impresses me is first, they do have quality sponsors, that make quality products. So using it is no problem, and second, they make it clear that other products are good too, they just prefer the ones they work with. That's very honest in my opinion!

Aaron,

I agree there should be a distinction between financial disclosure and being open. I also agree that you can ussually figure out the relationships. Still, I have more respect for those that say up front that they are acting as a paid represntative. For the advertisers out there, that means I'm more likely give the plug some credibility and consider buying the product. I really don't intend to insult anyone, especially those media folks who honestly try to be honest, but accuraccy and honesty are not things you can take for granted in the media.

As for the quality being almost the sole determining factor in the price of a hunt, we'll have to agree to disagree. This even though I acknowledge that you are in a far better place to know than I. I'll buy that quality is the single biggest factor. However, if an operator didn't think they would see some benefit from hosting a writer and/or video maker, why would they bother? The goal for the outfitter has to be to increase demand, hopefully to where they can increase their price point. I recall an example ofthis being made a few years ago here on AR. Someone pointed out that the website of a famous safari co. showed a $600 trophy fee for a jackal in a pg area. Can anyone honestly say their jackals are worth 6 or 10 times what their neighbour's are? This can only be explained,to my mind anyway, by the company in question capitalising on their fame. Good for them I say, they've earned the right to charge (and recieve) that premium.

Dean

Maki - Speaking only of my personal experience. Working with TV shows/writers over the past 10 yrs was more about getting clients in the first place, than it was about doing so to reach a higher price point! At least that's how it was for me.

As for the price indicating quality. To me its totally accurate, but still it needs to be within reason! Charging $600.00 for a Jackal, would be the same as us charging $25,000.00 for our deer hunts. No matter how good the deer hunting is, people WOULD NEVER pay that price for em!

quote:

Originally posted by AnotherAZWriter:

quote:

Originally posted by Aaron Neilson:
Fact is, whether someone is paying, or is not paying, gets free gear, doesn't get free gear, who really cares?? Why, why would you care?

Why would I care? Really simple Aaron. When a guy is spending his own money on stuff, we know he is making that decision without any conflict of interest.

Do you really think all those writers using TC single shots are doing so because they are the best available rifle out there??

Now that example is an easy one; TC has saturated the industry so much with sponsorship dollars it is laughable. But the issue is sometimes more subtle. Is CB using Brand X right now because he likes the bino or because they helped pay for the hunt?

But like I said, with the internet/social media, we can just go on AR and get all kinds of unadulterated opinions. In fact, the reason the FTC promulgated their rule is because paid bloggers were espousing products in what many thought was a neutral forum.

Based on what I see of T/C guns, I would not use one. Second, I doubt CB uses Ruger rifles or Trijicon scopes because he really likes them. He is paid to use them and endorse them. On his "Boddington on Buff" DVD , he touts Swarovski scopes, Dakota rifles and Swift A-frame bullets. All are top line but I have yet to see him use that stuff on TV.

quote:

Originally posted by gunny:
Do you think the cable sports shows like Tracks across Africa are pricing some hunters out of the market? When you can write off the price of the hunt and transportation and get a advertising deal with the safari company the day rate is not as much of a consideration, or is it?

Back to the original question. Yes, prices are higher because the costs are higher when TV shows are involved.

Reason - when a hunt is "donated" to SCI or DU, the outfitter is trying to get space at a show or advertising. It comes at a price. This cost gets rolled up into his cost of doing business and he must recover it somewhere - in higher fees to the full pay customers. Chevy does this, Winchester does, everyone who sells anything does this.

Second Reason - Any "free" gear is not free. It comes at a price - you lend your name to it to advertise it and the ultimate buyer is paying for that free item in the cost of his.

I do not begrudge this, it is what it is.

Interesting thread, but where is the "discounted hunt" listed? Maybe I just missed it somewhere, will go back and read through again.

Larry Sellers
SCI Life Member

Only honest sales pitchmen can read about the discounted hunt in this thread

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Based on what I see of T/C guns, I would not use one. Second, I doubt CB uses Ruger rifles or Trijicon scopes because he really likes them. He is paid to use them and endorse them. On his "Boddington on Buff" DVD , he touts Swarovski scopes, Dakota rifles and Swift A-frame bullets. All are top line but I have yet to see him use that stuff on TV.

Dogcat, that could be true? But the part I don't agree with, is that really you are just speculating about CB's likes or dislikes. Maybe he really does like Trijicon scopes! Heck I don't know, but I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt, until I have proof to say otherwise.

I can tell you that Dave Fulson convinced me to try a Trijicon scope, and I obviously did not get paid anything for it. I tried one, and loved it. I now have 3 of em, and will be using one on my Mozambique Lion hunt next week.

Fact also is, sponsor/advertising dollars pay the bills for TV shows, magazines, and every other form of hunting media. Without it, we wouldn't have TAA, Sports Afield Magazine, or many of the great hunting videos made each year, just for example. So I'm just not sure why some begrudge it so much? Its a necessary evil, to have alot of the things that we do enjoy seeing/watching. And if someone finds a way to get paid for it, that just seems to be another good example of Free-Market Capitalism to me. I say good for them! I'm still smart enough to know that I'm not plunking down my money on a gun I don't like, simply because Shockey shoots it. Regardless of all the marketing of a product, I would hope others are capable of doing the same.

Aaron,
I do not know what CB likes or does not like. I do know for a fact that his Trijicon scope failed on his forest sitatunga hunt in Zambia last year. The PH supplied a replacement Leupold for the rifle and used electrical tape to cover the gold ring and an ID marks so he could finish his hunt. It happens. But it only happens once to me and I get rid of the stuff that could potentially wreck an expensive hunt.

All I meant to say is - if uses the various high dollar rifles he seems to use, along with his Rugers, he would likely use the same quality optics if he was picking "the best scope" for his hunts. Trijicon makes a decent product, but not in the same quality league as Swaro, S&B or Zeiss. If I am going on that $50,000 sheep hunt, there is no way I take a second tier scope.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
All I meant to say is - if uses the various high dollar rifles he seems to use, along with his Rugers, he would likely use the same quality optics if he was picking "the best scope" for his hunts. Trijicon makes a decent product, but not in the same quality league as Swaro, S&B or Zeiss. If I am going on that $50,000 sheep hunt, there is no way I take a second tier scope.

Ya, I hear what you're saying.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
forest sitatunga hunt in Zambia last year.

Typo ?