Who'da thunk it? Anti-Gun NASCAR?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Circle driving...…………. Next up on ESPN2 is the world championship of watching paint dry.

I don't understand why there is any surprise that certain companies and industries that are distancing themselves from firearms. They don't care about the minority fan base, and that's us. They care about remaining marketable in the future and continuing to make money. Obviously their liberal antigun fan base is larger than the conservative pro-gun one, and that's what they see as their future market.

These decisions are based on money and future profit, or political leanings, which is also based on money and future profit.

No, these companies are actually persuaded by business schools, large pension funds, the business media, marketing folks and CEO's of other companies to do these things as many of these companies have directly done things that have hurt their bottom line and recently an influential group of CEO's signed statements that placed profit below social justice. https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/0...provements-over-profits-in-new-mission-787602 It has had a negative impact on companies' bottom line repeatedly--Dicks, Exxon, Target, the NFL, probably Wal Mart in the future, and even NASCAR. Even monopoly powers are eventually made humble when they politicize their activities as Google will probably find out in the near future--either the market or government will take care of it.

Regarding firearms, it is repeatedly one of the lesser important agenda items over history and is very rarely one of the top agenda items mentioned in surveys of most important problems but is a fixation of certain elites--most elites probably view widespread ownership of firearms outside of government as a threat to their existence if things go pear shape. You see the same attitudes of the aristocracy regarding the arming of common soldiers throughout history which is why the French got their butts handed to them at Agincourt and Crecy by the common British archer using the longbow assault arrow systems. The French never trusted their common folks enough to allow familiarity with arms so that when mustered, they were relatively ineffective because the peasantry was dealing with unfamiliar weapons. Archers for the British, on the other hand, grew up with them and were encouraged to practice etc. and it showed when it counted.

What marketing folks do is promise a huge new market if the CEO does this or that to placate whatever new group is out there and they do so with studies and unicorn dreams. In effect, the marketing folks want the hip consumers like them and recommend dumping or ignoring the current customers because of alleged future profits. This is stuff that many CEO's want to believe as most of the current crop of business managers have been educated during a era where business school teaches about stakeholders over profits. Unfortunately, some stakeholders are more valuable to the CEO/upper management than others and this approach versus a goal of profits allows them to shortchange current customers, shareholders, or employees in favor of some media and elite peer approved groups. The other stakeholders are simply used as piggie banks to pay for these policies.

In reality, people who are angry at a company rarely come back and as customers and they take a number of other customers with them. In retail or entertainment, there are other alternatives so that virtue signalling is a ticket that will cost and cost over time. Ruin your brand with a group of consumers, they won't come back. Try to get a new market to replace your old customers, most retailers fail at that--see Sears or Gillette.

Essentially, these CEO's prefer to use their shareholder's money as they see fit rather than increasing shareholder earnings, improving average worker's pay and benefits, and serving current customers. CEO's have little vested in a company's ultimate success or failure as at that level far too many fail upwards despite illegal, unethical, and downright incompetent behavior as CEO. This is the same behavior we see existing in government bureaucracies and politics as well. Our elites are valued in society today on their "good thoughts" rather than the consequences of their actions.
 
Circle driving...…………. Next up on ESPN2 is the world championship of watching paint dry.

I don't understand why there is any surprise that certain companies and industries that are distancing themselves from firearms. They don't care about the minority fan base, and that's us. They care about remaining marketable in the future and continuing to make money. Obviously their liberal antigun fan base is larger than the conservative pro-gun one, and that's what they see as their future market.

These decisions are based on money and future profit, or political leanings, which is also based on money and future profit.
I think it is more to the tune that ESPN - their major TV network and part of Disney - is antigun; so if they want to keep their races broadcasting on that network, they need to toe the line a little bit.
 
Just another drop in the bucket of making firearms equivalent to smoking as reprehensible. The failed messaging of the gun world has little to counter it.
 
It is absolutely believable that Nascar is trying anything to gain (or keep) whatever viewership they have.

Nascar has had a declining audience for over ten years now.
The car of tomorrow (and it's evolution) was great for driver safety, but has been detrimental to the ratings. Nobody wants horrific, career or life ending crashes to happen. At the same time, that possibility of danger was part of the history of the sport, even before DE. That danger was a draw for some viewers. I'm not asking for that back, but huge crashes at superspeedways is what made them so popular to the masses.
It doesn't help that in 13 years, one team has won seven championships.
They even tried to change the scoring rules so that someone else could win.
They made the car more aero dependent to get away from the terrible "two car bump drafting" style and that has helped the product.
They lost prominent drivers that people wanted to see and now have many drivers without as much personality as the previous generation (with some exceptions.)

For several years, as their ratings and attendance were in free fall, they have been asking what the viewers want. So they ride the wave of a fickle populace.
Nascar hasn't been a regional or southern thing for a few decades now. It is a national corporation and is chooses a course of action based on marketing and polling. They race in California. They race in New York. They race in Chicagoland.
We know the decision will most likely alienate their core, southern audience. However, this is in no way new.
At the end of the day, it is advertising. They get to ultimately choose what represents their brand. However, there are always consequences to actions. We can vote with their dollars, just like anyone else.
 
It is absolutely believable that Nascar is trying anything to gain (or keep) whatever viewership they have.

Nascar has had a declining audience for over ten years now.
The car of tomorrow (and it's evolution) was great for driver safety, but has been detrimental to the ratings. Nobody wants horrific, career or life ending crashes to happen. At the same time, that possibility of danger was part of the history of the sport, even before DE. That danger was a draw for some viewers. I'm not asking for that back, but huge crashes at superspeedways is what made them so popular to the masses.
It doesn't help that in 13 years, one team has won seven championships.
They even tried to change the scoring rules so that someone else could win.
They made the car more aero dependent to get away from the terrible "two car bump drafting" style and that has helped the product.
They lost prominent drivers that people wanted to see and now have many drivers without as much personality as the previous generation (with some exceptions.)

For several years, as their ratings and attendance were in free fall, they have been asking what the viewers want. So they ride the wave of a fickle populace.
Nascar hasn't been a regional or southern thing for a few decades now. It is a national corporation and is chooses a course of action based on marketing and polling. They race in California. They race in New York. They race in Chicagoland.
We know the decision will most likely alienate their core, southern audience. However, this is in no way new.
At the end of the day, it is advertising. They get to ultimately choose what represents their brand. However, there are always consequences to actions. We can vote with their dollars, just like anyone else.

Not knowing or really caring much about NASCAR, I suspect that that many of those NASCAR fans in CA, IL, etc. share a lot more in common with folks in the South than they do with the typical folk in that state including gun rights. The whole gun issue is more a rural urban split rather than geographic and if you look at a red/blue county map, you will see large expanses of red versus blue counties and I suspect that NASCAR has little appeal to urbanites. After all, if they do not have a car or have a Prius as a conscious environmental choice, why should they care about car racing? Thus, a marketing approach tied to urban markets is probably doomed to fail and yet kill their existing market. In a few years, imagine the excitement from an all Prius electric battery NASCAR race--whose batteries will last the longest, can the leading driver not turn on their air conditioning to get a few more miles, and so on.

The truth is that marketing professionals by and large in premier agencies are alienated by thought and deed from a large percentage of the country's populace and view these folks as having contemptible tastes that should be remedied and educated through advertising or simply ignored. Not surprisingly, ad professionals at the national level identify more with the national media than average Joe and their marketing advice to CEOs reflects the cosmopolitan urban idea of what the company's market should be rather than what it is and that is whatever the hip urban cosmopolitans think or do at the present.
 
Used to be cool to watch when the idea was race on Sunday sell on Monday. Lost interest when the cars they raced could not be bought with a manual transmission, V8 or rear wheel drive, then they fit the body work to the same template. These days they are all the same except for stickers and engines (even they are very close).

I was at a friends house that was a fan a few years ago and watched some of a race. When the leaders had too much lead on the losers, they threw a yellow and called it a “competitive caution” that’s as about as left of an idea as any...

Way more different than where stock car racing originated from.
 
I think it is more to the tune that ESPN - their major TV network and part of Disney - is antigun; so if they want to keep their races broadcasting on that network, they need to toe the line a little bit.

ESPN does not broadcast NASCAR races and has not for some years. Fox and NBC have the rights.

Again, these are allegations by the NRA which are as yet unsubstantiated. As much NRA bashing as we've seen here lately, I am a bit surprised to see these allegations taken at face value - especially given the recent conflict between LaPierre and former NRA board member and NASCAR team owner Richard Childress.
 
Shows how long it has been since I watched idiots driving counterclockwise v- so take out ESPN and put in the others - even more anti 2A when it comes to NBC
The cowardly BS they take to appease some inbred millennial TV execs is appalling.
 
Used to be cool to watch when the idea was race on Sunday sell on Monday. Lost interest when the cars they raced could not be bought with a manual transmission, V8 or rear wheel drive, then they fit the body work to the same template. These days they are all the same except for stickers and engines (even they are very close).

I was at a friends house that was a fan a few years ago and watched some of a race. When the leaders had too much lead on the losers, they threw a yellow and called it a “competitive caution” that’s as about as left of an idea as any...

Way more different than where stock car racing originated from.
I was a fan in the very early 70's when Richard Petty, Donny Allison, AJ Foyt and others were often winning races by multiple LAPS ahead of the #2 car. The cars in those days were based on the MFR's production cars. I really lost interest when the chassis' became generic and the bodies loosely resembled the production models.

Now that NASCAR has become just another money grubbing entertainment enterprise, I could care less if it commits suicide by alienating its core audience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top