Archived Posts » 59,646,491
Any chance of airing on another network?
5/22/2007 5:53:15 PM
For those of us that do not have the Outdoor channel? I used to get American Shooter, but when you started Shooting USA I think you changed networks. Any chance of the show expanding?
5/23/2007 10:25:31 AM
How about getting it on AFN (American Forces Network) for those of us that are deployed?
5/23/2007 6:13:20 PM
We were talking about that today at Fort Benning. Some command elements of the Army may apply some pressure to the new administration of AFN.
The new managers are programming on Nielsen numbers, not on content troops want to see. So you're getting American Idol and such, but not specialty shows like ours.
We'll see if Army "suggestions" change some minds at AFN.
JS
The new managers are programming on Nielsen numbers, not on content troops want to see. So you're getting American Idol and such, but not specialty shows like ours.
We'll see if Army "suggestions" change some minds at AFN.
JS
5/23/2007 6:17:43 PM
| Originally Posted By imtheflash: For those of us that do not have the Outdoor channel? I used to get American Shooter, but when you started Shooting USA I think you changed networks. Any chance of the show expanding? |
This is the 15th year we've been doing gun shows... and the fourth network.
ESPN
TNN
OLN
and now Outdoor Channel
We're always one step ahead of anti-gun managers, and those intent on "extreme sports" programming for 16 year old boys.
Time you considered your TV delivery options to get the channels and the shows you want to see. Lots of new options coming as the FCC shuts off traditional television broadcasting in less than two years.
Jim
6/3/2007 10:19:17 AM
How 'bout the NRA start its own cable network. I'm pretty sure that it would be easy to fill months and months of television hours with old shows, hunting & outdoors shows and current shows. Plus it'll spawn the creation of new television, provide a place for young and not so well financed, but pro-gun individuals/organizations to have a platform and possibly spur growth thru exposure.
Those in the firearms/shooting industry are typically horrible business people and generally lack vision. I will say that Shooting USA and its predecessors have definitely been able to fight the battle of cable TV well and stay above the fray. However, as an industry it seems that when we find something popular, we don't further market/support it. Two shooting disciplines that quickly come to mind are Star Shot (the old trap shooting show with celebrities and pro shooters) and the American Shooter's coverage of the S&W Pro-Am held in Piru, CA (basically a Skins format for pistol shooting with 10-round pistols and steel targets). Both were two of the most popular shows on ESPN...EVER!
Lastly, in every other sport and in their media, the faces of that sport is what is pushed. You never see a ball or shoe on the cover of Sports lllustrated. Why do we then put guns on the covers of our shooting magazines? GunGames was a hugely popular magazine although poorly managed and did this exact thing. We saw the faces of shooters like Rob Leatham, Todd Jarrett and Kim Rhode as well as celebrities like Kareem Abdul-Jabar, Sinbad and Steven Spielberg. USPSA's magazine Front Sight is "kinda" doing this, but it is a members magazine and production is limited to the membership, but it is a quality magazine that if it had broader appeal (i.e. marketed through say a USPSA show on a shooting network) might catch on.
More exposure = more potential interest = more shooters. More shooters = more voters in our favor and from a business standpoint, more participants and consumers of shooting products and services.
Just my $0.02.
Rich
Those in the firearms/shooting industry are typically horrible business people and generally lack vision. I will say that Shooting USA and its predecessors have definitely been able to fight the battle of cable TV well and stay above the fray. However, as an industry it seems that when we find something popular, we don't further market/support it. Two shooting disciplines that quickly come to mind are Star Shot (the old trap shooting show with celebrities and pro shooters) and the American Shooter's coverage of the S&W Pro-Am held in Piru, CA (basically a Skins format for pistol shooting with 10-round pistols and steel targets). Both were two of the most popular shows on ESPN...EVER!
Lastly, in every other sport and in their media, the faces of that sport is what is pushed. You never see a ball or shoe on the cover of Sports lllustrated. Why do we then put guns on the covers of our shooting magazines? GunGames was a hugely popular magazine although poorly managed and did this exact thing. We saw the faces of shooters like Rob Leatham, Todd Jarrett and Kim Rhode as well as celebrities like Kareem Abdul-Jabar, Sinbad and Steven Spielberg. USPSA's magazine Front Sight is "kinda" doing this, but it is a members magazine and production is limited to the membership, but it is a quality magazine that if it had broader appeal (i.e. marketed through say a USPSA show on a shooting network) might catch on.
More exposure = more potential interest = more shooters. More shooters = more voters in our favor and from a business standpoint, more participants and consumers of shooting products and services.
Just my $0.02.
Rich
6/7/2007 11:50:33 PM
| Originally Posted By Jim-Scoutten: We were talking about that today at Fort Benning. Some command elements of the Army may apply some pressure to the new administration of AFN. The new managers are programming on Nielsen numbers, not on content troops want to see. So you're getting American Idol and such, but not specialty shows like ours. We'll see if Army "suggestions" change some minds at AFN. JS |
Also have to remember that AFN is not just for the troops, it's for dependants also. That means that they also need to appeal to wives, husbands and children in additon to the troops.
