Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Under armour giving into the anti's or in the right?

Mistake for sure.
 
Sounds like the establishment republicans.
Forgot who put them where they are.
Boooo
 
It very well could blow up in there face, we will see in 5 years or so. They may be relegated to a "Walmart brand" to keep up their sales if they angered enough of their customers. What I'm interested to see is the reactions of the other "Pro staffers". Will they stand up for the rights of another fellow celebrity hunter and thus the "little guys" like us, or will they "cave" to the almighty dollar? My guess is the latter.
 
I am making a personal decision not to purchase anymore of their products. I've only own three pieces of UA clothing. I have plenty of other options on overpriced hunting clothes. I support all hunting methods if its legally/ethically done.
 
I don't buy expensive hunting clothes as it is, UA wasn't getting my business before this decision, won't be getting my business after this decision.
 
The sleeves are always to short, so I dont buy it anyhow. UA has become more aimed at the yuppie crowd the past 5 years or so.
 
Jordan Selsor said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-fired-Armour-sponsors-horrifying-video.html

I think this co is making a mistake. What you guys think?
Click to expand...

Probably not. There was a time when hunter and anti-hunter numbers were equal. That has changed to be slightly in favor of anti-hunters. Most of the non-hunting public is somewhere in the middle. When hunting is portrayed as an important tool for management supporting efforts like Hunters for the Hungry, they tend to favor it. When hunting is portrayed as a graphic blood-sport they tend not to support it.

UA's core business is in the non-consumptive athletic oriented sports. I think they made the ride fiduciary call and their overall business will benefit from it.

Thanks,

Jack
 
Really? Who's going to buy up all the UA camouflage clothing I see everywhere? Anti-hunters? They likely have millions in already produced merchandise and have likely placed orders for millions more already, hunting was a cash cow for UA and now they have shown their true colors. What happens when they decide to drop more hunters the next time some PETA freak decides a hunting method is unethical in their minds. Might as well cut ties now, IT WILL HAPPEN, and most likely sooner than later after this event. Their core business might be in non hunting apparel, but they will now stand to lose millions in the process.
 
Last edited:
You are probably right to some extent though Jack, most people in this day and age are gutless turds, and even though they say they will no longer use their products, 6 months from now they will be sporting the latest and greatest UA "hunting fashions". Especially since I do not see the likes of Tiffypop and the Drury's snubbing their noses up at their corporate sponsor, so the mindset will be that if Tiffy still wears it I should too. UA should take a giant hit on this, but whether they do will remain to be seen and will be directly on the backs of the resolve of the hunters.
 
wiscwhip said:
You are probably right to some extent though Jack, most people in this day and age are gutless turds, and even though they say they will no longer use their products, 6 months from now they will be sporting the latest and greatest UA "hunting fashions". Especially since I do not see the likes of Tiffypop and the Drury's snubbing their noses up at their corporate sponsor, so the mindset will be that if Tiffy still wears it I should too. UA should take a giant hit on this, but whether they do will remain to be seen and will be directly on the backs of the resolve of the hunters.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong. As a hunter the decision sucks, but from a fiduciary perspective, I'm sure it will benefit the company. Hunting clothing is a small portion of their business and not worth (from a business perspective) risking their other business. Folks also have short memories. Unless the incident is picked up by the national news media, I doubt hunters will react in mass. They may be a short dip and if it becomes a trend, they will adjust manufacturing as needed.

Business always walks a balance. What I question is the "in-your-face" attitude some folks in our community have. I understand the anger toward the PETA types, but I'd rather see them looking like extremists to the general public throwing red paint on fur coats than have folks in our community flaunt aspects of our sport that we know the general public finds distasteful.

There is not much we can do to influence the behavior of companies that see us a solely a line of business, but we can, I hope, influence the behavior of others within our own community to consider how there actions impact the rest of us.

Probably the greatest danger to both PETA and the hunting community is fratricide by folks at the extremes seeking public attention.

Just one man's view...

Thanks,

jack
 
yoderjac said:
There is not much we can do to influence the behavior of companies that see us a solely a line of business,
Click to expand...
Sure there is Jack. One can choose to buy from companies that have an honest, vested interest in the sport of hunting and cut out purchases to those companies that simply pander to the hunters to improve their bottom lines(which we have found out is what Under Armor has apparently been doing). If the sales drop enough, they will go away and leave us with the cream of the crop businesses that actually support hunting without "limitations and stipulations".
 
wiscwhip said:
Sure there is Jack. One can choose to buy from companies that have an honest, vested interest in the sport of hunting and cut out purchases to those companies that simply pander to the hunters to improve their bottom lines(which we have found out is what Under Armor has apparently been doing). If the sales drop enough, they will go away and leave us with the cream of the crop businesses that actually support hunting without "limitations and stipulations".
Click to expand...

We can do that, and perhaps should, but that won't influence their business decisions when we are just one small line of business. With a firearm manufacturer or some company whose primary market is the hunting community, it is a quite different story. In that case, the fiduciary responsibility is completely aligned with the outcome we desire.
 
wiscwhip said:
Sure there is Jack. One can choose to buy from companies that have an honest, vested interest in the sport of hunting and cut out purchases to those companies that simply pander to the hunters to improve their bottom lines(which we have found out is what Under Armor has apparently been doing). If the sales drop enough, they will go away and leave us with the cream of the crop businesses that actually support hunting without "limitations and stipulations".
Click to expand...

Consumer choice is a great tool, everyone should use it.

But, as a long-time company executive, I have to fundamentally disagree wiscwhip with your assertion that any company can have an "honest, vested interest..." in ANYTHING above their shareholders and the laws in the countries they operate - by law, all publicly traded companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders FIRST, and even most privately held companies have debt and equity holders that fall under that category. I have empathy for all in this case, including for the exec's at UA who had to make a tough call - remember they can be held civilly and even criminally liable for making any fiduciary decision that does not put the shareholders first. I know some people think big company executives are immune from this, but trust it happens all the time it's just usually handled pretty quietly and out of court settlements.

Any organization with an "honest, vested interest..." in anything that takes precedent over a P&L for its shareholders is either a not-for-profit, an NGO, or a government, by very definition.

My other point on this topic, is the actor-esque filming and drama-making of hunts in order to drive profits for those doing such filming and acting. Why take such care and expense to film any hunt with professional equipment and multiple angles and videographers? For your own personal posterity? Yeah, right, it's to get additional advertising dollars, maybe your own show, etc and profit from that. So neither the spear thrower or UA, or frankly those that patronize these hunting shows and youtube videos qualify for sainthood in my opinion. I used to watch hunting videos and TV shows a lot, but anymore I just can't even stomach them, in a 30-minute show not only is it 12-minutes of actual commercials but everything from the bow to the jacket to the arrow to the broadhead to the underwear is a hidden commercial...ok enough sorry...
 
Not every company has to pander to shareholders interests, some are not publicly traded, correct? I like helping the "small guys".
 
For those that need a new source of quality clothing............................

Predator.PNG






and no, I do not have any ties to this company at all, whatsoever, even though their headquarters is literally blocks from my house.
 
Isn't UA building or trying to build a huge new facility for hunting clothes in Baltimore right now?
 
MoBuckChaser said:
Isn't UA building or trying to build a huge new facility for hunting clothes in Baltimore right now?
Click to expand...
Yup, in the Port Covington neighborhood, and the billionaire owner of UA wants the City of Baltimore to pony up a billion plus in tax breaks and incentives so that he doesn't have to pay any property taxes back to the already underfunded city for the next 25 or so years. Like all the corrupt politicos out there, they are pushing it along through the "underreported and secretive fast track" method of pocket lining.
 
I grew up in WI on a farm, after moving off the farm it was construction. Out side year round with nothing but plain old long johns. Getting near 60 now and have never bought expensive over priced clothing to keep me warm. What they did was wrong but doesn't mean crap to me. Still wool long johns for this guy.
 
wiscwhip said:
Not every company has to pander to shareholders interests, some are not publicly traded, correct? I like helping the "small guys".
Click to expand...

Correct, the small guys who have no commercial paper out can stand by their principles no matter the impact to balance sheet or bottom line, I love supporting these businesses. Harder and harder to find though, perhaps Predator Inc is one of those, I did a quick D&B lookup and they've been around quite awhile but still have less than $1M in sales and fewer than 10 employees so I bet they don't have the burden of debt and equity holders either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top