RX8er wrote:I think we are all missing the main point though. How is it that Staples aligns themselves with the leading trade association for the firearms industry and then their contest can ban them from entering? IMHO, this is the hypocritical part of the entire discussion. If they had no agreements with NSSF or other firearms trade associations, then its a different story.
It's an interesting point, and I'm sure the NSSF has some back-channel communications going on with them. But as I've said before, these kind of contests are PR events, which means it has to appeal to the broadest category possible. In the end, these contests are ENTIRELY for Staple's benefit, and as such, need to be tailored to diminish backlash.
About the best example I could come up with is to ask you to imagine you run a contest as part of your FFL business, and you're giving away a free Glock. The winner, who happens to be an employee for the Brady Campaign (or similar ilk), uses your giveaway to create their own PR event where the gun you gave them is immediately chopped into several pieces, because the Brady Campaign "puts children first." The promotional value of your event was completely negated, and you have managed to put the spotlight on the very group you don't want to have any light at all. How would the majority of your customers feel? Sure, the odds are very slim it would happen, but what if the contest entry went viral with anti-gun zealots? Suddenly, you're no longer in control of the contest.
Look, I don't want this to come off as me defending Staple's policy. I certainly disagree with it, but even at the VERY best demographic selection, Staples has a statistically higher percentage of anti-gun (or gun-unfriendly) businesses a customers. Awarding to a gun business would create negative value for Staples, and would require a LOT of effort and energy to smooth over the annoyance it would cause.
I don't fear guns; I fear voters and politicians that fear guns.