The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - We have the upper hand with manufacturers

Willie Sutton · February 26, 2013, 03:39 PM

Just my opinion the manufactures will do what ever helps their profit margins

That's the only possible rational business decision.

Companies that are "reverse boycotting" places like NY LEO sales are doing so because they believe that the upside of the advertising will more than make up for the downside of lost sales (if in fact they ever did *any* sales to the places they are now boycotting, which in the case of firms like CTD is a pretty long stretch of the imagination). So for the main, it's a public relations gesture without any downside.

Even Olympic very likely had VERY small numbers going into official NY LEO sales, and as they can sell their entire production *with ease* elsewhere, a "reverse boycott" means nothing economically insofar as sales figures are concerned, and is huge free advertising to their primary consumer group.

if a reverse boycott means a total loss of revenue for a firm like Glock... it's not going to happen.

Here's the probability of a company taking part, rated from high to low:

Small manufacturer, individually owned by an entrepreneur, who can sell 100% of the production elsewhere.

Larger private US Owned Corporation, owned by a small group, with primary sales in the USA.

Larger publically owned US Corporation, with both a strong USA and strong International civil market, publically traded stock, and answerable to stockholders, IE: no longer purely answerable to an individual or small group of individuals.

International foreign-based corporation with strong sales in the LEO and/or military market both within the USA and overseas.

Bottom line is that individual decision makers not answerable to anyone but themselves can make decisions that are radical compared to a USA corporation than needs to answer to stockholders, with foreign owned corporations not having any dog in the fight except cash flow being at the bottom of the liklihood-tree.

So with Daniel Defense, Olympic, and Barrett at the top, Ruger third from bottom, and Glock and Beretta at the bottom... well... you're not gonna see Glock stop selling to NYC. Beretta is talking softly about Maryland, but that's for cost of business and liability reasons, not any loyalty to the RKBA political statement agenda.

Willie

.

February 26, 2013, 03:39 PM	#26
Willie Sutton Junior member Join Date: January 26, 2012 Posts: 1,066	Just my opinion the manufactures will do what ever helps their profit margins That's the only possible rational business decision. Companies that are "reverse boycotting" places like NY LEO sales are doing so because they believe that the upside of the advertising will more than make up for the downside of lost sales (if in fact they ever did any sales to the places they are now boycotting, which in the case of firms like CTD is a pretty long stretch of the imagination). So for the main, it's a public relations gesture without any downside. Even Olympic very likely had VERY small numbers going into official NY LEO sales, and as they can sell their entire production with ease elsewhere, a "reverse boycott" means nothing economically insofar as sales figures are concerned, and is huge free advertising to their primary consumer group. if a reverse boycott means a total loss of revenue for a firm like Glock... it's not going to happen. Here's the probability of a company taking part, rated from high to low: Small manufacturer, individually owned by an entrepreneur, who can sell 100% of the production elsewhere. Larger private US Owned Corporation, owned by a small group, with primary sales in the USA. Larger publically owned US Corporation, with both a strong USA and strong International civil market, publically traded stock, and answerable to stockholders, IE: no longer purely answerable to an individual or small group of individuals. International foreign-based corporation with strong sales in the LEO and/or military market both within the USA and overseas. Bottom line is that individual decision makers not answerable to anyone but themselves can make decisions that are radical compared to a USA corporation than needs to answer to stockholders, with foreign owned corporations not having any dog in the fight except cash flow being at the bottom of the liklihood-tree. So with Daniel Defense, Olympic, and Barrett at the top, Ruger third from bottom, and Glock and Beretta at the bottom... well... you're not gonna see Glock stop selling to NYC. Beretta is talking softly about Maryland, but that's for cost of business and liability reasons, not any loyalty to the RKBA political statement agenda. Willie .