Well, I suppose that Hinton Archery should have expected that action to be taken. That's business after all. If I were an executive at a company whose product was ranked at or near the bottom in a comparison conducted by a retailer that I was supplying and then they published the results in a national publication, I'd pull my product from them too. I'm sure that Hinton Archery will go on and do fine, but losing Mathews will have a detrimental impact on their business. Also, I don't see where Mathews tried to "intimidate" them or get them to "throw" the comparison. Looks to me like they just said "Okay, you think our bows are at the bottom of the heap? Then you won't be selling them any more." In my opinion Hinton Archery sort of did this to themselves.
So you're more interested in punishing a retailers instead of wondering why your product finished towards the bottom and looking for feedback and ways to improve the product. If that's the way you and Mathews do business, it's no wonder their products are lacking.
Can't really say that I disagree with what Mathews did. The biggest promoters of Mathews bows is the retailers and if one feels the bows aren't up to standards of other brands why would Mathews rely on them to be the salesman for the products. Let's face it tv shows are supported by sponsors. Without them they would not have a show. I guarentee every show isn't 100% thrilled with every product they use and promote and sure they would love to switch but they won't and you will never hear the show say the slightest negative thing about the products. Ever! Regardless if on print, tv or anywhere else. Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk 4
Wow! Funny how Mathews goes out of their way to push the born again theme yet throws a small shop to the lions when reality cuts thru hype. Enjoy the Nuge as Your spokesmen ( how does that meld with the bible?)as well. Mathews has also overstated Ibo speed for years. Not real christian like.I will stick with Pse since 75' anyway.
I think it's crappy of Mathews to act that way and reflects poorly on their judgement...it just looks petty. A standup company would have had a meeting with the dealer and the product reviewers and the results and simply tried to improve their product in the places where they ranked poorly. I think Mathews took it as a poor criticism when it was simply a test with very competitive products so ranking low isn't necissarily that big of a deal. However the yare now making a rather big deal of it by their display of vindictiveness and poor sportsmanship. This is what separates good companies from GREAT companies...poor decision.
I don't really see how it would be different then a Coke sponsored Nascar driver hopping out of his car on camera and slamming a Pepsi. Coke would drop him in a heartbeat. I understand it was a survey but regardless of your findings you cant go against those that pay you. Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk 4
I do agree with you. Think Mathews should of handled it better. Sent from my BNTV600 using Tapatalk 4
Exactly. As I said, it's business. That's the way it works. Some folks just don't get it, and then there are a few disagreeable types who just "refuse" to get it.
The companies that pay you? Well that's kind of backwards isn't it....the dealers are the ones that generate revenue for the company in this case so....yeah...maybe they should listen to criticism and try to improve the products to stay competitive.
Obviously their "marketing objective" is to give the public false claims and attempt to conceal anything bad. I guess you should be happy it didn't include a "cease and desist" order.....
I don't think any of us know what was in the contract between the manufacturer or the bow shop. As the supplier, I'm sure they have clauses to "protect" their brand, whether it's honest and the best business model or not is moot.
I think it's moot anyway, if I was a dealer of something that wasn't up to par and the company didn't want my input in a comparison...I'd drop the dealership of that brand anyway.
And now after a lot of people hear of this story, they'll take their money elsewhere and buy PSE, BowTech, etc. instead of Mathews. That's just business.
Wow. As an "average American joe" who is not tied to any archery companies, products or sponserships....that makes Matthews looks pretty ****ty in my book. It was an INDEPENDANT test, not a paid advertisement. The bows scored what they did and Matthews then feels the need to "pull" there product from one of the testers archery shops? Sounds like somebody's poor little feelings (pride) got hurt. Of course all the Matthews fanboys are going to agree with the decision, which is :gay:
You can't be honest? I have no idea who the dealer is, but I'm assuming he has several lines of bows. If he's going to give an honest review, someone has to come in last. I'm not a mathews basher, either. I've been shooting one for a decade.
Sounds to me Hinton Archery is very well established and has a pretty good repuation if Field and Stream choose them, because how many choices would Field and Stream have? Probably thousands. Believe me, this isn't Field and Streams first time up to bat and I would think that they would have conveyed the risks to the bow shop. I think Hinton Archery was probably aware of the risks, but went forward for the marketing they would receive with the magazine. High risks are calculated. Even though they lost Mathews, they are receiving a lot of publicity for it and I bet they still have some top of the line bows to sell. I think the biggest loser is Mathews in this, because they were forced to pull out and look like a bad guy for doing so. I don't look at this as good or bad, but as money and marketing or just business.
