Marketing often gets a bad name from the people that don’t work in the industry, that goes double when it comes to liberals decrying the marketing of firearms, let’s see what John Thomas Dydymus wrote:
The “frontier thesis” first proposed by Frederick Jackson Turner(1893) argues that major aspects of American “exceptionalism” consists in the influence of the frontier shaping the American national character conceived in terms of positive traits such as optimism, boldness, innovation, equality, individualism, future orientation and self-reliance.
Source: http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/16412618-gun-culture-in-contemporary-america-product-of-the-frontier-or-marketing-efforts-of-firearms-industry-part-1
True, although I don’t see why he write “exceptionalism” in quotes, perhaps it’s evidence that he like Obama, thinks American exceptionalism is no different than Greek exceptionalism. Yet that is not the case, for the Greeks are only celebrated for their glorious past since they don’t have a glorious present worth talking about.
We may also list the not-so positive traits such as violence and what some have termed”shedding of restraints,” a euphemism for “Wild Wild West” mentality.
The not-so positive traits of violence and the “Wild Wild West” mentality, in the context of the subject of this essay, are linked to the uncritically accepted view that what is termed “gun culture” in contemporary American society flows from the role of the “frontier” in US history.
Criminal violence has nothing to do with culture but the actions of individuals who did not want to be miners, farmers, but simply wanted an easy score. The cowboy is not a criminal, but a self-reliant man who wishes to make his own money doing things his own way. As for the “Wild Wild West,” it wasn’t that wild. Yes, there were Saloons and Whorehouses yet the murder rate was much lower than it is today, and we didn’t have as much human trafficking and pimps as we do today.
I shall argue that contemporary America’s gun culture is sustained primarily by the marketing and sales promotional strategies of firearms manufactures and that the frontier in US history plays only a convenient adjunct role.
I shall argue that marketing responds to the market, it does not define them. I can try to sell you a T-Shirt with the words “Celebrate the Second Amendment,” I can’t force you to buy it. I would also like to remind the writer that when Smith & Wesson was owned by the British, they tried to cut a deal with Bill Clinton and promote smart guns. The backlash was so strong that Smith & Wesson went back to American hands. This is what liberals don’t get, the firearm industry doesn’t control us, we control them, our purchasing decisions and desires control their marketing. Just like the Food Network fired Paula Deen after liberals complained, we to can cause major changes in the gun industry when we boycott a manufacturer or even post negative things about him on Facebook.
I shall argue that independent of a politically influential firearms industry promoting the perpetuation of the American gun culture, urbanization since the end of the frontier would have eroded the culture to extinction.
But given the fact of a product designed with lethal ends in mind, it is understandable that US firearms manufacturers have sought to promote the mistaken perception of a primary link between the gun culture in contemporary America and the historical frontier as a way of diverting attention from the real problem: That gun manufacturers have, since the end of the frontier, nurtured the gun culture as part of a demand generation marketing strategy to sustain profits.
#1. There are plenty of people in urban areas that own guns and are attracted to guns. In Las Vegas people line up to shoot fully-automatic weapons at the Tropicana Gun Range, in Miami there are several gun ranges, outside of Dallas there’s even a luxury gun range with membership fees I can’t afford.
#2. It’s gun-owning families that promotes the correct perception of Americanism and guns.
The experiences of Australia and Canada are particularly relevant because these nations share similar ethmic-cultural roots with the United States.
The Australian frontier was strikingly similar to the American. In the case of Australia, the frontier district as the boundary between the known civilized and the unknown uncivilized world, and the use of the term in connection with lawlessness and violence was common.
That’s a complete lie. First of all, neither Australia nor Canada had a Second Amendment, which is why they have suffered under the boot of gun control. Also, Australia was initially settled by criminals, the British used that country as a dumping ground for their worst offenders, so whatever violence they experience is perfectly logical. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez also freed a lot of criminals which resulted in huge rises in crime which ended up with more gun control. This is the irony of liberals, they are more afraid of a gun than of a criminal, they’re the kind of people that would put Phil Robertson in jail for killing ducks while praising Mumia even if he killed a cop (which they deny in spite of several trials that prove otherwise).
Besides, the marketing strategies of the gun industry are as numerous as those of any industry. Here’s how marketing works, Colt creates a new gun, based on the price and features a target market may be chosen. Usually it’s men, but sometimes they target women as well. Selections of the target market are made based on age, annual income, magazines they read, etc. Will they advertise with Facebook ads or expensive back covers in the most popular magazines? Will they target gun dealers? Send junk mail to gun owners? That depends on the budget.
Then a Brand Manager or Account Executive is asked to write a creative brief, some of them are absolutely terrible by the way, which tells the copywriter and/or art director what the ad needs to communicate, what are the attributes of the gun, whether humor is allowed or not, etc. Then the copywriter brainstorms ideas by himself or with an art director. Afterwards a selected number of ideas will be shown to a senior copywriter or art director or the creative director. If the ideas are liked, few or no revisions will be asked and a polished version of the work will be prepared for the account executive(s) who will either like the work or criticize it. Assuming no revisions need to be made, the work will be presented to the client. If it’s a radio commercial, the copywriter might read it. If it’s a web banner or TV commercial, the work will be sent on a PDF (assuming the presentation is remote, which is usually the case).
If the client approves it, then the final version is produced, media buyers purchase the media, and eventually marketing analysts will be seeing what results they get. Ever seen “Enter ‘QRTF” to save 10%”? That’s little code is how we measure which ads are working, which ones aren’t.
Yet in spite of all that science, of all the focus groups bitching that they don’t like that red background or that actor is ugly, the consumer still has a choice. Think of all the times you throw away that junk mail without even opening, that’s the reality of marketing, it’s often ignored and often ineffective, yet we do it because nothing sells itself. Nobody will know you exist unless you advertise, and up to 3% of the people that got that junk mail ended up buying the product. Maybe that’s the reason Comcast keeps mailing me their damn letters even though I already get Internet and Cable with them, they hope that someday I’m gonna realize I need their phone service or their sports package.
