Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters How NOT to treat a writer

Well Ken, your rep and name aside, would suspect we've just got a good indication of how important their consumer rapport is.

No, it's not true. At least it would be very rare, in my opinion.

I think many of these stories are due to plain old incompetence on the part of some manufacturer's reps rather than any devious practice. Too many seem to know little about guns and even less about business. This is why some companies hire gun writers as liasons between the writers and the company. It usually makes things run smoother.

There's a lot more to it than what little bit you're considering.

I'm not obliged to write about any certain product � ever. I'm not primarily a product writer, anyway � more of a people and principles writer who mentions products along the way. (Which is far more beneficial to the supplier than a purchased ad or a dedicated review, by the way.)

There are many other products to use and to write about, besides those that I have good reasons not to write about. Lots more, more than I can cover anyway. Omitting all mention of a certain few is by no means a disservice to the reader. Also, I figure that a company's rudeness to me suggests an on-going pattern of poor dealings and sloppy or arrogant relations with average customers.

My position is just an adamant refusal to be used by a supplier to his advantage despite his rudeness. If he figures that he doesn't want or need whatever I can provide, I'm not going to use any time and effort to provide it. Why should I crawl into a supplier's stove to keep his house warm?

Quote: "Also, I figure that a company's rudeness to me suggests an on-going pattern of poor dealings and sloppy or arrogant relations with average customers." -- Ken Howell

---------------------

Bingo.

It did.

Just got a 'phone call and had a nice long, friendly chat. Now have the answers to the questions in my letter, including the price that I'll have to pay to get one of those fine guns. It's still (gasp!) four figures, so I won't be writing a check right soon, but at least I know now how much I'll have to write it for � and how much I'll have to raise by selling some of my current darlings.

I can understand the problem with rudeness and poor business practices, but cannot understand why any writer should expect to be able to buy any friearm or any pice of equipment that any company makes for less than what it is sold to the general poublic.

Maybe I missed somethinng here. My apologies if I did. If a writer doens't want to write about something because of the attitude of the manufacturer, fine. But if he doesn't want to write about something because the company won't give him a discount, that is another matter entirely

How would any reasonable person (writers included for the moment!) be expected to give a positive appraisal of a product when being badly treated by the company's rep's???

The only benefit that a supplier gets from an individual typical buyer's purchase is a portion of that buyer's cash outlay. The writer's ink pumps a lot more into the supplier's pocket. A lot more. The supplier with any smarts knows this and is usually eager to offer the writer a break as a matter of business policy. A writer would have to be a fool to forgo this break. The supplier who scorns the writer's inquiry about this routine break (which varies with different suppliers), yet wants to enjoy the benefits from his writing, is worse than a fool and deserves none of the writer's attention.

Like my friend John Barsness, I have a federal firearms license and can buy wholesale anyway � and often do. A supplier's refusal to sell to me retail is nothing less than nearly felonious arrogance, not just arrant stupidity.

If you knew that you could get a break on a desirable gun that you wanted but didn't know the amount of the break, wouldn't you check it out?

If the supplier coldly ignored your inquiry, would you be eager to help him boost his sales?

I have bought a number of guns, scopes, etc, wholesale and retail, for my own use and enjoyment. In what way and to what extent am I obliged to write about any of these?

That's the answer to why writers get discounts. When we accept a reduced price for something (no matter how much or how little reduced) it DOES obligate us to write...something. It may be a full-blown review. It may be a passing reference to a product used. It may be positive or negative, offer suggestions for improvement or note how it has already been improved from past versions. But some mention of the product is expected by the supplier. And rightfully so.

As Ken says, a mention that product A was used pays enormous benefits for the maker. When I include a particular powder, primer or bullet in a loads table, you can bet that readers decide to try those same products - even if the combo wasn't the best load mentioned. It doesn't matter if I bought the product at retail, got a discount or a caseload, gratis.

But you can also be sure that if I were snubbed by a supplier for a product, that product will not get mentioned. I call it fair trade.

My thoughts are that truly objective writers should use a completely anonymous or blind reviewer approach. I believe outfits like Consumers Guide and some of the insurance institutes work that way. Any one running quality control inspection or product review should assure that they have a random sample of the product. They simply purchase the desired units off the shelf, do their testing, and write up their reports. I suggest that informing a company that their product might be evaluated and the results published prior to purchase could potentially bias the whole deal. As a manufacturer or seller with that knowledge, I would likely send that person a select item, that had been given a thorough examination and perhaps a bit of testing before delivery. Be it a firearm, it would carry better wood, the smoothest slick feeding action, perhaps the best air guaged barrel, and a lot of ammo known to produce 0.1" one hundred yard groups. I would not simply reach in the bin and deliver an untested, production run unit. I do not personally evaluate products for publication, although I have had offers in the past. When I intend to make a purchase, I will seek the best deal, but there is no need for the manufacturer to know what my subsequent intentions are. I suggest writers simply buy their products and do their evaluations. The consumers will likely appreciate the honesty from such a system, and with a proven and productive track record, some publishers would likely foot the bill. 1Minute

You have done a good job of saying how we should do our job.

Then you go on to show that you don't know B from bull foot about how we have to do it or why.

Mark Twain said that if a man was determined to carry two cats home by their tails, let him. There's no match for what you'll learn by trying the way that you advocate and theorize. So try it your way and see how well you do.

I'll wait.

Gosh Ken: I sincerely apologize. I had no intention of raising any hackles, because my comments were directed to the thread in general. The goal was simply to present my perceptions of the route needed to obtain objective research and reporting. That thought train, and the discussions herein, reinforce why I do my own reviews before buying meals, movies, or 40 grand pickups. We will all continue to live in an imperfect world. Unfortunately in most realms, reciprocal back scratching is the reality that makes the world go around and life is difficult for those that don't follow suite. It's especially tough when dealing with entities that hold a grudge. I do enjoy the exchanges here, particularly those that stimulate some thought. Take care and happy hunting this fall. 1Minute

Just one question, 1minute: how many articles a year do you think the average writer would be able to turn out if he had to purchase every item he mentioned at retail?

Just a personal example of a major piece I'm working on now: I'll need 500 each of four different bullets, twelve kinds of powder, at least 100 cases, 2000 primers, custom dies, a rifle in a cutom chambering, a good scope, a chronograph, a pressure testing system and a laptop to run it. Pictures? need a high-end digital camera, too. I'll let you add up what it would take to buy all that. Oh, and add in the gas for a couple dozen trips to the range while you're at it.

If I'm lucky, I'll get maybe $300 for the article - IF it gets accepted. Even if I spread the cost of the chronograph, camera and other multiple-use items out over several articles, it's still a losing proposition if all the up-front money comes out of my wallet.

I'm not crying about all this, just trying to show what your rather idealistic proposal entails.

I have to thorw out the BS flag here.

It takes money to conduct any business. Some more than others.

Two examples:

Farmers typically buy straight retail and sell wholesale. They don'get special treatment from dealers to use thier John Deere or a particaulr type of seed. Many times they have to put up with rude sales person becasue there is no other shop around to buy thier part from

My wife is an outdor photogarpher on the side. I can guarantee you she has more wrapped up in her equipment than someone that has a chronograph, computer, etc. One lens cost $15K. Her film runs a lot more than brass, primers and bullets. She might take 500-100 shots and sell ten or twenty if she is lucky. Most businesses want to buy from a stock photo company and those companies want tp pay pennies on the dollar for images . Just to print and put an image on matting runs $50-$75 and she might get $100 for it. Fieldler and Shaw don't do much better.

Even if a writer or whoever is as honest as the day is long and is overflowing with integrity, there is a perception of the public that something is amiss if he is writing or reporting on a product that he obtained with a discount.
That is why Consumers Guide is so well respected. They go out and aquire products as 1minute mentioned .

I'm not telling anyone how to run thier business, just stating the obvious. Maybe someone couldn't stay in business running it like that. I don't mean to tug on superman's cape here. So don't kill the messenger

It does take money to make money. But how long should a writer keep on "investing" it at a loss just to write?

If I told you it will cost you $20 per hour to work for me, and I'll pay you $8 per hour, would you plan to make it a career?

I don't know how Consumer Reports is funded, other than subscriptions. If 250,000 people subscribed to my writings, I'd be able to buy shooting stuff at retail to test it, too.

As Ken said, I'm waiting.

I have read all the posts pro and con and this is my opinion.
I think a company, that already had a favorable opinion from a gun writer, would be stupid to stiff aforsaid gunwriter.
I am in a business handling peoples money. Often times they ask for a small item, I never say no. Good will buys a lot.
Just like they never will pay for lunch and/or dinner with me.
Heck, I am just glad they put up with me. What is manufacturers cost on one item vs. what being decent can do?
At the bank I worked at each year I used to end up with ten or fifteen bottles of high grade hootch from car dealers I bought contracts from. Not one thought it influenced my decisions, and it didn't.
I personally don't mind a break being given to a writer.
Heck I get a break through my C&R with a lot of places.
Guess why brownells gets so much business from me?
As to integrity, that shows through. I can tell y ou some of the authors in a certain byweekly magazine shilling for various companies. I would NEVER say that about Howell, or those I read all the time in Handloader. What I WANT to know is what of those babies you are going to sell to get the new toy? Private email preferred please!!! Just kidding.

No hackles, Amigo � more like disgust but not quite that either � just a candid reply to an impractical opinion firmly stated but based on logic less firm than Jell-O.

When someone calls a company to buy something they should respond in a polite professional manner regardless of who it is. It doesn't matter if you were a gunwriter or not.
If an FFL holder contacts a company to buy a firearms they should either sell it to them or assist them in contacting whatever wholesalers or proper channels to purchase one. Some of the new Marketing restrictions some gunmakers are putting on selling their guns are IMHO a bad idea. I know Beretta for example is gone to a direct to dealer program and then force their dealers to carry stuff that they don't really want too. You can't just call up a distributer and buy a gun or two. I realize that they are trying to protect their dealers but IMO price fixing sucks and I don't want to buy stuff that is sold that way.
I have no idea if the reason that they wouldn't sell to you is something similar to this or not. But it shouldn't cost any extra to be treated politely, Gun Writer or not.................................DJ

Bingo!

It would seem that a writer with an FFL should receive the same courtesy from a company as any other FFL holder.

But, maybe that is what is actually happening.

And maybe that is why we should not be surprised to hear about these firms being in financial trouble.