Here is an interview from Josh and Sarah on Wide Open Spaces. It's worth reading. EXCLUSIVE: Josh Bowmar Speaks Out on the Bear Hunting Incident - Wide Open Spaces
IMO it shouldn't matter if you make 1 hunting product or 1,000 hunting products. If you make products for hunters and rely on their purchases to make income and employ your workers, you should do your best to support them. Not just when it's convenient for you, but when they truly need it. What can be done is that we all as a community learn from this and hope to grow and make wiser decisions as we move forward. Wiser decisions on what type of animal kills we film and put out there for public consumption, wiser decisions on how we respond to non-hunters and anti-hunters who question our actions, and wiser decisions when it comes to dealing with people and companies within our own ranks who either behave poorly or make poor decisions. Unfortunately there's been a lot of poor decisions on all sides of this thing. IMO the whole guilt by association thing is a bit of a stretch. I was interested in how their partners would choose to respond, as we know it puts them in a tough situation, but I never called for a boycott of them simply for being affiliated. Heck, I don't even think people should boycott UA. If someone still wants to buy their gear and contribute to putting money in their shareholders' pockets, have at it. I'm certainly not going to stand on a soapbox and tell people to boycott them. I can only speak for myself and my personal decisions which will be to spend my money elsewhere. Perhaps if enough hunters share that mindset we can make enough impact to prevent a similar situation from happening in the future.
Well I do make my living analyzing the financial statements of businesses? Selling product at 50% off is not normally a profitable strategy for a business much less a way to make "a lot of money". Sounds to me like they are just needing to get rid of some inventory.
One thing that really frustrates me is there are a ton more hunters out there with UA sponsorships not willing to risk their precious lifestyle to support their own. I just saw a post on Facebook with Eva Shockey bragging about making it in the UA catalog. Seriously! She's hunted with Sarah and Sarah used to shoot and promote Eva's bow. It's that's not another slap in the face, I don't know what is. We all have a voice and the voice can be heard whatever the message is you are trying to get across. Some people even have an opportunity to have a bigger voice and they aren't doing it at all. Makes me a bit sick to be honest with you. I work in law enforcement as I've mentioned before. A lot of us are hunters too and some of us live in UA gear. I just put a post on my Facebook page asking people to educate themselves and consider another brand if they think it's worth it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Under Armor got where they are today because they are the only company that can compete with Nike in the college sports arena. They will do whatever it takes to get a school to go with them rather than Nike & I respect them for that. This incident makes them look like they reached that mature stage where they don't feel they have to pander to the customer as much, which is the problem with Nike. If a school other than Oregon goes with Nike, they get no support from Nike & must do whatever Nike tells them to do. If they go with UA, the school gets most of the say, but UA may be in the product lifecycle where they don't need to be so giving.
I'm sorry, but I wouldn't risk my livelihood to stick with people of the same hobby either. Most of the reason I don't post much on Facebook, or Twitter, or watch what I share. I do not care much for Obama or obamacare, but my company is VERY closely affiliated with it. I don't speak out about it because I need a job. Same with these guys. They need their sponsor money to do the things they do. If they irritate their employer/sponsor, then they lose their job.
Cameron Hanes just did a podcast on this topic. It is worth the listen. I am not as upset as I was with Under Armour. Josh Bowmar made a poor decision by showing the video as graphically as he did. To the nonhunter it was horrific event. However, Under Armour made a poor decision in cutting ties with Sarah for an act she did not commit. It stinks for everyone. I see two good things coming from this; 1) hunters are uniting in defense of each other and 2) everyone in the hunting industry that produces shows or video products is recognizing that they need to be careful how all hunters are represented by the media they produce. Either way, once the butt hurt stops, if everyone learns from this hunting will be better off it the long run. This will blow over.
If the company you worked for did something you didn't agree with would you immediately speak out against them and quit your job? Or do you need the income to support your precious lifestyle? Most of us, hunting personalities included, have bills, kids, mortgages, etc. It's not as cut and dry as just packing up your stuff and leaving behind your income. There's a lot of items happening behind the scenes right now that most people aren't seeing. Wisely, most folks aren't making knee-jerk reactions and risking their livelihood until they figure out the best decision for them, the families and their employees. Have a little patience with everyone. The winds of change are in the air.
I think as far as showing it graphically, its hunting and maybe are shows should have a R-rating or something. People that can't handle reality really should not watch it and stay out of it. Maybe give the Humane Society a free plug in all of our hunting videos showing them euthanizing unwanted pets and see how the Anti-Hunters feels about that reality.
Mathews sponsors Lee and Tiffany who are also sponsored by UA. Obviously Mathews has no problem being associated with companies that don't stand up for hunting. Justin is sponsored by Mathews, so he probably doesn't stand up for hunting and hunters also. Now I don't really believe that, but UA doesn't need hunters. Archery companies do. The 6000 people who signed the UA petition should have contacted Hoyt, Mathews, PSE and all the other archery companies and ask why they sponsor hunters who clearly care more about money than supporting hunting and hunters. Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I don't care about UA. The protesters making like the world is wrong. But really there wrong. A living thing eats another living thing. Plants need nutrients from the soil. Then deer eat the plant, we hunt the deer. This cycle go's over and over.
Without considering the profit margin of the clothing simply dismissing a deep discount and not considering the effort to capture market share seems a little like short sighted analysis.
Well it looks like UA did not meet sales expectations and their dividends were adjusted, kind of a critical time for the company the next 6 months.
I've avoided UA purchases for hunting and baseball where possible. Exceptions where deep price discount made sense (cleats for 9 bucks) or they were the best option for my son...helmet that best fit. My wife has purchased a handful of fishing related hats and shirts however, now knows how they do not support hunters so, new purchases should slow. I think HUK is taking their place in the fishing work. I'm not completely against UA. I'm simply choosing not to support their hunting line and limiting my purchases across other sports.
