Nice Move, Dick's Sporting Goods

[RunInRed 16,487]

Dick’s Sporting Goods, among the nation’s largest retailers of sports equipment, will no longer sell assault-style rifles at its stores, the company said Wednesday morning.

The sporting goods chain will also no longer sell firearms to anyone under the age of 21 and will no longer sell high-capacity magazines.

Dick’s decision to alter its policies surrounding the sale of firearms follows a mass shooting earlier this month at a high school in Parkland, Florida, where a former student allegedly opened fire with an assault-type rifle, killing 17 people. The attack has prompted renewed discussion of stricter gun control laws across the U.S.

“When we saw what happened in Parkland, we were so disturbed and upset,” Dick’s CEO Edward Stack told the New York Times in an interview. “We love these kids and their rallying cry, ‘enough is enough.’ It got to us.”

Stack said his company checked its internal records in the wake of the shooting to see if it had previously sold firearms to the Parkland gunman. Nikolas Cruz, the alleged shooter, had indeed purchased a gun from Dick’s, although that particular weapon was not used in the attack. Still, Stack said, the fact that Cruz had bought a gun from Dick’s was enough to prompt the company to take steps to avoid being part of future attacks.

Dick’s will continue to sell sport and hunting firearms, Stack told the Times, and remain a supporter of Second Amendment rights. But the company’s chief executive also said he is aware that the move will be met with criticism by some and that he hopes Dick’s decision will be part of a larger national discussion.

“If the kids in Parkland are being brave enough to stand up and do this, we can be brave enough to stand up with them,” he said. 

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/28/dicks-sporting-good-assault-style-rifles-430617

[RunInRed 16,487]

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

Nice to see the extra verbiage regarding their expectations of our legislators. 

This is what common sense action looks like. Enacting these measures would have a negative effect on absolutely nobody, except *possibly* narrowing the profit margins for the manufacturers and retailers by a hair's width. 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

It's a sensible response.  Sell the types of guns people use for home defense and hunting.  Make it a teeny bit harder to easily acquire high powered rapid fire weapons.

[stoic-one 1,549]

It's a super move, EXCEPT, they're really just doing a bit of "virtue signalling".

Why? Well for those paying attention, they did the EXACT SAME THING after Sandy Hook in 2012. I get that they raised the age this time too, but seriously, this is bandwagon corporate virtue signalling. When they opened their Field and Stream stores, they started selling them again because the market demand was out the roof for AR's and the margins were great.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/28/17061618/dicks-sporting-goods-parkland-gun-sales

[McLoofus 35,182]

25 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

It's a super move, EXCEPT, they're really just doing a bit of "virtue signalling".

Why? Well for those paying attention, they did the EXACT SAME THING after Sandy Hook in 2012. I get that they raised the age this time too, but seriously, this is bandwagon corporate virtue signalling. When they opened their Field and Stream stores, they started selling them again because the market demand was out the roof for AR's and the margins were great.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/28/17061618/dicks-sporting-goods-parkland-gun-sales

So in discontinuing sales of these items in their F&S stores, aren't they doing a little more than virtue signalling? And I do mean "a little" more. I'm not pretending that they're suddenly not a corporate behemoth more beholden to shareholders than any true moral compass. Although, as a sporting goods store, they're not exactly pandering to their base with this virtue signalling. 

[stoic-one 1,549]

14 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

So in discontinuing sales of these items in their F&S stores, aren't they doing a little more than virtue signalling? And I do mean "a little" more. I'm not pretending that they're suddenly not a corporate behemoth more beholden to shareholders than any true moral compass. Although, as a sporting goods store, they're not exactly pandering to their base with this virtue signalling. 

I guess that depends on your perspective. If they were serious in 2012 when they stopped selling them in Dicks stores, why did they start selling them again when they opened the F&S branches? If you can answer that question, then you'll know, right along with the rest of us... I don't have a clue what their "base" is but based on my observations, read pricing and availability, it's not really gun owners.

[metafour 4,969]

Well done Dick's; gotta save those plummeting stock prices, amirite? 

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

14 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

I guess that depends on your perspective. If they were serious in 2012 when they stopped selling them in Dicks stores, why did they start selling them again when they opened the F&S branches? If you can answer that question, then you'll know, right along with the rest of us... I don't have a clue what their "base" is but based on my observations, read pricing and availability, it's not really gun owners.

Yes, we all read the same thing you did, and are all "those paying attention". They started selling them again in their specialty branch, and then stopped again. And maybe they plan to quietly start selling them again. I don't know. But if the margins are so great for these gun sales, then it could be more than lip service. Again, maybe not much more, but more. Especially considering the sales surges that inevitably happen whenever this conversation reaches its current pitch. 

 

 

[stoic-one 1,549]

13 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Yes, we all read the same thing you did, and are all "those paying attention". They started selling them again in their specialty branch, and then stopped again. And maybe they plan to quietly start selling them again. I don't know. But if the margins are so great for these gun sales, then it could be more than lip service. Again, maybe not much more, but more. Especially considering the sales surges that inevitably happen whenever this conversation reaches its current pitch. 

 

 

Those surges aren't necessarily where the money is at from a business model standpoint, certainly not any long term business model. I can tell you that most people that actually buy guns, with a nose for any kind of deal, don't buy from Dicks. They're that expensive, usually, on all things gun. I have a hard time believing they don't know how much they stand to lose or gain from this, but I'm pretty sure AR sales are but a very small fraction of their sales.

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

Those surges aren't necessarily where the money is at from a business model standpoint, certainly not any long term business model. I can tell you that most people that actually buy guns, with a nose for any kind of deal, don't buy from Dicks. They're that expensive, usually, on all things gun. I have a hard time believing they don't know how much they stand to lose or gain from this, but I'm pretty sure AR sales are but a very small fraction of their sales.

Okay. Re-reading your initial comment about the market and margins, it makes sense if you were saying that they were chasing those margins but didn't actually execute the retail end of it efficiently. I get that.

Of course, if they already made their guns prohibitively expensive, then maybe they were mitigating their compromised stance a little.

Again... not trying to make them out to be saints. But in a world where I read that people are cancelling all their Delta business because of that NRA dustup, it's not like Dick's isn't risking anything here. 

[stoic-one 1,549]

That's kind of my point, I really don't think they're risking all that much because guns simply aren't their specialty.

Several years back, they ran a BOGO Black Friday ammo "sale" where they jacked up the price of said ammo above MSRP, boy what a screaming deal that was.

They've been on my s***-list every since.

[Mikey 16,723]

I have twice bought some outdoor gear from Dick's, both times during "end of season" sales. As far as items for the shooting sports go, a mom and pop gun store less than 2 miles away always beats Dick's on firearm, ammunition and accessory prices and it's not that close. I think if the store in Auburn's Tigertown stopped handling guns entirely, few if any would notice.

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, stoic-one said:

That's kind of my point, I really don't think they're risking all that much because guns simply aren't their specialty.

Several years back, they ran a BOGO Black Friday ammo "sale" where they jacked up the price of said ammo above MSRP, boy what a screaming deal that was.

They've been on my s***-list every since.

Risk a little bit in sales, risk a little bit on boycotts from the hardcore set... "I didn't buy my guns there anyway, but now I'm not going to buy my kid's shoes there, either"... it could add up. 

[stoic-one 1,549]

2 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Risk a little bit in sales, risk a little bit on boycotts from the hardcore set... "I didn't buy my guns there anyway, but now I'm not going to buy my kid's shoes there, either"... it could add up. 

Well I left my crystal ball somewhere and really need to find the dang thing, so I really don't know, but my guess is it's not going to be that dang much. 

I'm guessing they will also endear themselves to others, probably a wash.

 

[homersapien 11,440]

6 hours ago, stoic-one said:

Well I left my crystal ball somewhere and really need to find the dang thing, so I really don't know, but my guess is it's not going to be that dang much. 

I'm guessing they will also endear themselves to others, probably a wash.

 

No doubt they concluded that also.  But Mcloofus makes a valid point, this is a very political decision.  They will have people who boycott them just knowing they did this.  Moral boycotts are not something a mass retailer wants in today's environment.  Maybe if you are the private owner of that business, but certainly not if you are running a publicly held corporation.

Regardless of what they've done in the past, it was a risky thing to do.  It might be more significant than their direct sales of AR rifles.  

Regarding their reneging such pledges in the past, that sounds like a decision from the top.  I wonder if their top management's changed since? 

[stoic-one 1,549]

Of course it's political, I don't think that's in question. The fact of the matter is that taking a position, any position, in today's climate, is taking a significant risk. Chances are very good you will alienate 50% of your customer base. Well, maybe 50% of the people paying attention. As I said though, I doubt it will be much of a net loss, as I would guess they will also pick up some customers they might not of otherwise had. It's very hard to know for sure.

Let me just say this outright. I know a few people in the supply chain for Dicks, and by extension, F&S. They share a chunk of their purchasing operations. When Dicks opened the first F&S one year after swearing off AR's, they were buying AR's from the people I know, who were surprised to get orders from them again. They literally stopped, and then started, buying AR's. To a man, every one of them posited that most people did not know Dicks owned F&S, it's not a huge part of their branding, at least not in store. The public in general has a short memory for these things anyway. So no one accused Dicks of reneging on the AR issue, which most surely would have had they known.

I honestly don't think their management has changed significantly since 2012 or prior to that, not from what I'm hearing, but it's hard to be certain.

[McLoofus 35,182]

So they are risking something and this is different than the 2012 deal, unless they have yet another outlet to set up shop.

[stoic-one 1,549]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

So they are risking something and this is different than the 2012 deal, unless they have yet another outlet to set up shop.

Who knows if they will open another brand, but it's still posturing in my opinion.

[RunInRed 16,487]

21 to now buy guns or ammo at Wal-Mart ...

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/walmart-raises-gun-purchase-age-to-21

[stoic-one 1,549]

#MeToo

[Mikey 16,723]

1 hour ago, RunInRed said:

21 to now buy guns or ammo at Wal-Mart ...

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/walmart-raises-gun-purchase-age-to-21

Funny this should come up here. Just today I was walking past the sporting goods check-out at Wal-Mart and some guy that looked to be in his 50's  was griping about "getting carded" to buy a box of .22 bullets. I heard the clerk say "Some new thing they've come up with". Now I wish I had paid more attention.

[homersapien 11,440]

12 minutes ago, Mikey said:

Funny this should come up here. Just today I was walking past the sporting goods check-out at Wal-Mart and some guy that looked to be in his 50's  was griping about "getting carded" to buy a box of .22 bullets. I heard the clerk say "Some new thing they've come up with". Now I wish I had paid more attention.

Heck, I occasionally have to provide an ID in the grocery store for beer or wine and I am 67 (and look every minute of it).  

It's just another little thing you have to put up with to exist in our society - like obeying the speed limits (more or less). 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

Always remember, kids, it's the gun and not the person with the gun. Kind of like in baseball... it's never the batter, just the bat. 

[kd4au 1,145]

As a member of the NRA, I'm ok with Dick's move, it's the free market at work and it is their right to sell what they please. I'm sure there will be some other place that will sell what they will not and fill the void. And I would be ok with congress raising the age to buy a gun to 21 if they raise the age to vote to 21 also.