Zeiss - Giving in to Antis

[dchum]

Yesterday a memo was leaked by Zeiss employees and pro staff. Apparently they have been headed in this direction for a a while now.

To me this is just another example of the slow but inevitable erosion of hunting.
Thoughts?

 

[Red Leg]

Looks like an intelligent position for a company with such a broad product base at stake in a woke, and more importantly, cancel culture world (they make a lot more than scopes and binos). They also sell worldwide, not just where the camo is cool crowd is found. I am frankly encouraged that they still embrace "traditional" hunting where even that is under fire in so many places where their products are sold.

 

[Rubberhead]

My knee-jerk reaction is that it's necessary in today's litigious society. It would look good in defense of a lawsuit if Zeiss wasn't specifically marketing to anything that might be considered as used against another human. The last two bullet points (pun noticed but not intended) are worrisome, though.

 

[Tanks]

Makes sense for such a large corporation with multiple product lines. Advertising "best scope" for leopard hunting is not going to win them fans even within the traditional hunting community.

And I would not call that memo indication of "slow erosion of hunting".

 

[Rubberhead]

Take this Zeiss...(it's not totally noticeable but that's a pair of Zeiss binoculars draped over the dead deer's back breaking at least one of their "don'ts"...

 

[dchum]

Makes sense for such a large corporation with multiple product lines. Advertising "best scope" for leopard hunting is not going to win them fans even within the traditional hunting community.

And I would not call that memo indication of "slow erosion of hunting".

I would have to argue. When I see that NO youths should be seen enjoying the sport of shooting or hunting. Followed by "no trophy pictures". Those two statements are only making a future with hunting for my kids seem further and further from reality.

 

[dchum]

So this crosses the "dead animal" mark. I wonder if black buck would hit the "sensitive species" mark set by Zeiss???

 

[Bert the Turtle]

They aren’t really taking a position on any of it. They are deciding what to emphasize in their advertising. What’s the business case to having ads featuring dead animals? Is any hunter really going to choose Zeiss over Leica because the Zeiss ad had a rifle featuring their scope resting on an impala whereas Leica ad showed their scope on a rifle slung over the shoulder of a guy walking up a mountain? Plenty of bird watchers or other non-hunters are going to NOT buy from a company that has dead animals in their ads. No upside for Zeiss to feature them.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

Scared to death of lawsuits. Good for business or not it’s definitely caving in. However, I do understand some of it to a degree. I do take issue with their stance on these for sure and for certain:

semi autos

high capacity magazines

youth with guns (in the right context)

trophy pictures (if tastefully done)

hunting of sensitive species (in the right environment)

 

[Bert the Turtle]

By the time someone’s hunting career and financial situation has progressed to the point that he is hunting “sensitive species”, he has likely matured enough to choose his gear based on how well it meets his needs rather than on an advertisement.

Then again, there used to be (maybe still are) billboards on interstate 10 in Texas advertising vasectomy reversals. I’d have thought that is the kind of thing one contemplates carefully but apparently a billboard ad pushes enough people over that edge to make it worth paying for.

 

[Hogpatrol]

I pay about as much attention to hunting and shooting equipment ads as I do the prognosticators on Wall Street. As far as Zeiss, like people, companies make their beds and lie in them and from this chair, they aren't even on the radar screen for my optics.

 

[gbflyer]

These type of “leaked” on Instagram or Facebook or whatever social media smears mean nothing unless the company CEO makes an official statement. They know anything they write will be used against them, they are not foolish enough to think it won’t get out. I’ll wait awhile before I get my pitchfork.

 

[375Fox]

We have no idea the context this was sent in (if it’s even legitimate). We can only assume. However, all I see with this is prioritizing the hunting experience and high end optics for the direction their company wants to go.

 

[Wishfulthinker580]

By the time someone’s hunting career and financial situation has progressed to the point that he is hunting “sensitive species”, he has likely matured enough to choose his gear based on how well it meets his needs rather than on an advertisement.

Then again, there used to be (maybe still are) billboards on interstate 10 in Texas advertising vasectomy reversals. I’d have thought that is the kind of thing one contemplates carefully but apparently a billboard ad pushes enough people over that edge to make it worth paying for.

I get what you’re saying but regardless of whether an advertisement actually makes a difference or not doesn’t matter (to me) in this case. It’s the principle of the matter.

However, I do grant that a business that runs an advertisement that doesn’t result in more business doesn’t make much sense.

Just sick of everyone caving in to the woke crowd.

 

[Tundra Tiger]

I completely get what Red Leg says about a company with a broad customer base, and also a global one: us camo'd up Americans are just one small slice of the pie. But those last three "DO NOT PROMOTE" items - particularly youth and trophies - give me serious pause. This is very much a slippery slope thing in my mind, where solidarity is critical, not unlike some of the hunting technique threads I see on here and we beat each other down over how we hunt.

There is another similar thing (in my mind) going on tied to my job right now. There is proposed legislation that would essentially ban trapping on all public lands. Will it gain traction? No clue. But I know the current Secretary of Interior is on record as saying she thinks trapping is cruel and should not be allowed at all on public lands. Being in Alaska, it'd be HUGE setback for the native community and subsistence, and some are pushing the idea that native populations and subsistence should be excluded. I personally think it's a mistake to push that idea (protect mine but not yours), rather than standing by trapping as a whole for trappers anywhere in our country who use public lands. To me this is a little bit of the same.

I get it. They're a company. They will make business decisions based on the bottom line. In that way they're no different than any other company or for-profit entity, such as the NBA looking the other way with China while crying foul over anything not involving China. Perhaps that will seem like too harsh of a comparison to some, but in my mind once you start paring away slices that you decide aren't worth the risk... it won't stop there, IMHO. As a hunter's ed instructor, I cannot imagine anyone I'd want to support that wants to take a position of not promoting youth with guns. And for myself, yeah, given the choice I'll choose a company that takes a hard stand on the side of hunting over one that does not. It's really not a hard choice to make.

My two cents... which probably aren't worth anywhere near that with inflation.

Edit: @375Fox is right: context and veracity would be nice.

 

[gbflyer]

I completely get what Red Leg says about a company with a broad customer base, and also a global one: us camo'd up Americans are just one small slice of the pie. But those last three "DO NOT PROMOTE" items - particularly youth and trophies - give me serious pause. This is very much a slippery slope thing in my mind, where solidarity is critical, not unlike some of the hunting technique threads I see on here and we beat each other down over how we hunt.

There is another similar thing (in my mind) going on tied to my job right now. There is proposed legislation that would essentially ban trapping on all public lands. Will it gain traction? No clue. But I know the current Secretary of Interior is on record as saying she thinks trapping is cruel and should not be allowed at all on public lands. Being in Alaska, it'd be HUGE setback for the native community and subsistence, and some are pushing the idea that native populations and subsistence should be excluded. I personally think it's a mistake to push that idea (protect mine but not yours), rather than standing by trapping as a whole for trappers anywhere in our country who use public lands. To me this is a little bit of the same.

I get it. They're a company. They will make business decisions based on the bottom line. In that way they're no different than any other company or for-profit entity, such as the NBA looking the other way with China while crying foul over anything not involving China. Perhaps that will seem like too harsh of a comparison to some, but in my mind once you start paring away slices that you decide aren't worth the risk... it won't stop there, IMHO. As a hunter's ed instructor, I cannot imagine anyone I'd want to support that wants to take a position of not promoting youth with guns. And for myself, yeah, given the choice I'll choose a company that takes a hard stand on the side of hunting over one that does not. It's really not a hard choice to make.

My two cents... which probably aren't worth anywhere near that with inflation.

Edit: @375Fox is right: context and veracity would be nice.

She is Native. That’s trapping ban is going nowhere.

 

[Rocked and Loaded]

What’s the beef with camo?

 

[mark-hunter]

Recently I had several posts, actually saying similar things. we can expect more and more companies taking same PR policy.

 

[TucsonFX4]

What’s the beef with camo?

Appearance of “tactical” is probably the thought, as in military camo.

 

[TucsonFX4]

I understand their intent with today’s work and cancel culture populations. I don’t agree with it, but I get it. Crossing some unknown imaginary line with these people causes a public outrage which then “forces” the company to go further than they otherwise would have or desired.

I do think the “felony” on this list is youth shooting. Keeping youth ignorant is never the way to keep them or the future or people SAFE.