Redcoat3340
Member
Just finished reading the Feb issue of Guns & Ammo. I'm still not impressed with its content and for me that magazine is simply "the best horse in the glue factory."
But what caught my eye in this issue was both the article on the new Sig Legion line and the editorial about it. If I were Sig's marketing manager, I'd be pulling all my advertising from this rag. Here's why:
The headline of the article was "With Your Shield Or On It." First thing I thought of was S&W's Shield, not Sig's new pistol. And even after I read the author's tortured analogy about the Roman Empire's Legions and the name of this new pistol line, all I could think about for the first two pages was the 1,000,000 Shields Smith and Wesson has sold. Of all the words in the English language, why did they pick the one that highlights one of Sig's biggest competitors? Really a dumb move. There are about a million ways to introduce the "Legion" concept other than invoking a competitor.
To add insult to injury, Eric Poole's editorial compares the new Sig 225-A1 at $1,200 or so with the 225/P6 he bought for $350. His conclusion strongly questions the value of the new gun over the old one. And he doesn't seem very happy that none of the parts from the old gun will fit into the new one. He asks, "The P225-A1 may be impressive enough that it can its price over an M11-A1 or used P225/P6, but I don't think it can." Now there's a ringing endorsement of an advertiser's new product. (Oh, and his editorial comes way before the article...so going into the article he's got readers asking the same question, is it worth the money. Not a frame of mind I'd want prospective buyers to be in.)
Like I said, if I were Sig's ad manager or marketing director, I'd start advertising in G&A about the same time the Brady bunch or Bloomberg's herd or some other anti 2A group took their first ad in it. Like never.
I think I'll do a it of internet research to see if anyone else picked up on this. But I thought I'd ask the question here.
But what caught my eye in this issue was both the article on the new Sig Legion line and the editorial about it. If I were Sig's marketing manager, I'd be pulling all my advertising from this rag. Here's why:
The headline of the article was "With Your Shield Or On It." First thing I thought of was S&W's Shield, not Sig's new pistol. And even after I read the author's tortured analogy about the Roman Empire's Legions and the name of this new pistol line, all I could think about for the first two pages was the 1,000,000 Shields Smith and Wesson has sold. Of all the words in the English language, why did they pick the one that highlights one of Sig's biggest competitors? Really a dumb move. There are about a million ways to introduce the "Legion" concept other than invoking a competitor.
To add insult to injury, Eric Poole's editorial compares the new Sig 225-A1 at $1,200 or so with the 225/P6 he bought for $350. His conclusion strongly questions the value of the new gun over the old one. And he doesn't seem very happy that none of the parts from the old gun will fit into the new one. He asks, "The P225-A1 may be impressive enough that it can its price over an M11-A1 or used P225/P6, but I don't think it can." Now there's a ringing endorsement of an advertiser's new product. (Oh, and his editorial comes way before the article...so going into the article he's got readers asking the same question, is it worth the money. Not a frame of mind I'd want prospective buyers to be in.)
Like I said, if I were Sig's ad manager or marketing director, I'd start advertising in G&A about the same time the Brady bunch or Bloomberg's herd or some other anti 2A group took their first ad in it. Like never.
I think I'll do a it of internet research to see if anyone else picked up on this. But I thought I'd ask the question here.