| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Para Has Balls |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gregory Morris, 8/26/08 1:59:54 pm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My original title was: Why I Think It Is Cool That Para Is Embracing The New Media Even Though I Didn’t Get To Go To Blackwater To Train With Todd Jarrett And Shoot Some Cool Guns At An Awesome Training Facility Like All The Popular Kids. But it was too long...
There is clearly a need to make your company stand out in a field of glitzy advertising. Innovation isn't enough to sell a product, and traditional PR thinking does not include embracing the "New Media". Early adopters of a new medium are the real risk-takers, especially when it can mean the success or failure of a business. However the risk can pay off huge if it succeeds. Many companies are starting to "dip their toes in the water", but Para is the first to do it big. The question now: was Para's money well spent?
In sponsoring this event, they are receiving positive press, and some un-paid endorsements. Sure, they paid for the some gun bloggers to attend this training, but if the 'typical' gun blogger is anything it is honest. When Joe Huffman found a potential bug in the hardware, he didn’t ignore it. He was and is critical of Para. It is that honesty that lends credibility to all of the claims made over the last week.
In fact, perhaps the biggest difference between the Old and New Media is that the New Media is the level of honesty. I don’t necessarily mean each individual blogger is more honest than, say, a paid shill or even a 'real' journalist. Individual bloggers or even entire communities may be (and likely are) extremely biased. Yet collectively the blogosphere is much more honest than the old media. It has to be, because it cannot escape immediate peer review. Consider that most people who frequent blogs do not only read one blog. If there is another side to a story, most readers will eventually see it. This in turn leads to trust, not of an individual, but of the information that can be synthesized from input coming from numerous sources.
Some people might consider Para's gun blogger event to be an attempt at viral advertising, or something similar. Viral advertising is meant to create hype, regardless of whether or not there is a good product. I think this is really something altogether new and untested. The point of this event wasn’t to get every anonymous tacticool internet forum fan boy to jump on the Para bandwagon. Rather, it was a relatively inexpensive way to get a dozen generally respected "freelance gun journalists" to review a product, without the canned praise and accolades.
Bloggers will always review products. They always comment on positive or negative experiences with companies and products. Those are the joys of blogging. But what are the chances of getting 10+1 bloggers excitedly covering the same product line in depth for a week or more? The marketing power of the New Media may be hard to quantify, but Para clearly has their name and their product line in front of many thousands of gun blog readers. That in and of itself makes little difference because they can just as easily buy that many "eyes" on their products. I read my American Rifleman, and still I ooh-and-ahh over the gratuitous gun porn, but I have never chosen to rent, try, or purchase a product simply because of one pretty ad in a magazine. In fact, when I read a review of the latest and greatest advanced special ops toy with unheard-of reliability that has been time tested for at least the last month or two… I yawn. It's the same old forgettable hype.
On the other hand, if a dozen individuals, whose opinion I respect, tell me the Para LDA is worth trying, you can be pretty sure I will. Perhaps this is why it is difficult to find good metrics for determining the success of the New Media. The metrics hang in limbo somewhere between traditional advertising and word-of-mouth, except the efficiency of targeting only the intended demographic is nearly 100%.
Still, the actual effectiveness is difficult, if not impossible, to measure. If Para notices an increase in demand for their LDA products over the next few months, can they directly link it to what Robb had to say? How can they even measure the number of "eyes" they "bought"? Increased traffic at the Para website? Even if all of the gun bloggers gave their blog visitor statistics to Para, what would that mean compared to known print media subscriber numbers?
Brick-and-mortar companies still advertise in the traditional media. Right now, I think they have to in order to survive. But that medium, in and of itself, doesn't allow you to gain a real advantage over your competitors. Para is took a significant risk, and I believe they will see an increase in business because of it.
On a personal note…
Since my wife recently got her Glock, it is now "my turn" to get a gun, and I'm in the market for a new carry piece. This event certainly got me interested in their LDA product line, when I normally would have written it off as "just another adulteration of St. Browning's masterpiece". Now I'm considering the LDA as one of my options, after I try out Robb's of course. I’ve always been a fan of the 1911 platform mostly because I like how a standard single-stack feels in my hand. Since there are so many options out there, it isn't likely I would have even considered Para at all, had I not been following (via blogs alone) the Para-sponsored event.
Check out these blogs for more info and reports:
A Keyboard and a .45
Of Arms & the Law
GunTruth
View From The Porch
The View from North Central Idaho
Call me Ahab
The Smallest Minority
SayUncle
The Maddened Fowl
Sharp as a Marble |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | [Comments are closed after a month.] |
|
|
|
| < "Peter Makes a Good Point" | | "McCain's houses" > |
|
|
|
|
