Views Please

[** Pending Removal **]

Lock Stock...... +1

The sport also needs cleaning up before it is ever going to be saleable. 

 

[ips]

I think lock stock is a realist like me what he says is spot on we may not like the facts but they are exactly as he says, most eloquently if i may say.

 

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

Lock stock; i think every point you raise has validity, but I'm not sure we need abandon it as you effectively suggest...

To be fair/accurate, I didn't suggest or recommend that it be abandoned: I said without the two key aspects of the non-shooting popular perception of firearms undergoing a sea-change, and a re-engagement of a [group of] Blue Chip/corporate sponsors, we could just be spinning our wheels here - and again, you'd have to secure both aspects, one of them will not be sufficient.

 

[Nicky T]

First of all, hats off to Phil for thinking big and also to Salopian for having thought big in the past and having met a good level of success.

Shooting should be a comparatively simple sport to televise as there is a consistent focal point; the clay. This comparison is made with a sport that had 10,000 potential focal points and it was nigh on impossible to predict where the action would materialise. I have been involved in televising that sport for the past decade, so have an insight into what is required. The most recent success has been a self-funded project that was sold to a well known network and has blossomed into a second series.

Filming single clays should be a breeze and filming simultaneous pairs could easily be simplified by specifying which clay was to be shot first, and permitting only one shot per clay. Utilising flash clays would further enhance the visual connection for the viewer but it is the characters within the sport that need to be cultivated to really establish shooting as a truly engaging spectator sport.

Best of luck Phil and if I can be of any assistance just ask.

Nick

 

[Will Hewland]

To be fair/accurate, I didn't suggest or recommend that it be abandoned: I said without the two key aspects of the non-shooting popular perception of firearms undergoing a sea-change, and a re-engagement of a [group of] Blue Chip/corporate sponsors, we could just be spinning our wheels here - and again, you'd have to secure both aspects, one of them will not be sufficient.

Well, that is why I said 'effectively suggest'. We are in agreement here, but to get round the obstacle I think if it is done well and developed at a more affordable level it could grow into a product that could be put in front of the big backers in time

 

[Les53]

To be fair/accurate, I didn't suggest or recommend that it be abandoned: I said without the two key aspects of the non-shooting popular perception of firearms undergoing a sea-change, and a re-engagement of a [group of] Blue Chip/corporate sponsors, we could just be spinning our wheels here - and again, you'd have to secure both aspects, one of them will not be sufficient.

The biggest obstacle I can see is Joe Public! Joe Public has a perception of guns and shooters that has been fed to them over the decades. Some see us a part of the landed gentry, some see us as Rambo types, others see us as a bunch of loonies wandering around with guns, possibly with murderous intent. So to change those things is going to be very hard job!

 

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

I think Mr Potter summed it up most credibly when he intoned: "Clay Pigeon shooting [as it is currently manifested*] is NOT a spectator sport, it's a sport for participating in pure and simple...."

* = my edit.

 

[maddmatt]

So what this really needs is, a very generous benefactor who is prepared to drop around £100k in order to start the ball rolling, I say £100k it could be £50k. Once you get the first event off the ground and the format and spectacle is there then you might just get enough momentum to make it popular. I used to enjoy shooting clay snooker, the base idea was a good one...

 

[Will Hewland]

I think Mr Potter summed it most credibly when he intoned: "Clay Pigeon shooting [as it is currently manifested*] is NOT a spectator sport, it's a sport for participating in pure and simple...."

* = my edit.

No argument from me. It would take a sea change, but I can't see why it isn't possible. You have to start with 'what does the viewer and sponsor need' and work backwards from there.

 

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

Well, that is why I said 'effectively suggest'. We are in agreement here, but to get round the obstacle I think if it is done well and developed at a more affordable level it could grow into a product that could be put in front of the big backers in time

Oh, believe me squire, like you, if it could be done, I'd be happy as a pig in the proverbial: I just don't see the planets aligning to allow it to happen. And as we know, there is a chasm of difference between a desire to have something, and the pangs of birthing the end product. For example, assuming we could secure the right money sponsors, who's likely to step up and offer to change public perception on firearms...? [tumble-weed]

 

[Will Hewland]

Oh, believe me squire, like you, if it could be done, I'd be happy as a pig in the proverbial: I just don't see the planets aligning to allow it to happen. And as we know, there is a chasm of difference between a desire to have something, and the pangs of birthing the end product. For example, assuming we could secure the right money sponsors, who's likely to step up and offer to change public perception on firearms...? [tumble-weed]

Well, hence it would be nice to develop a smaller test event without a ton of cash to see if a product is saleable to a backer. Guns don't make it automatically evil. I agree, the eventual sponsor would unlikely be a child care organisation or an animal welfare charity, but there are distinct possibilities. Look at the car tie up that RBSS have. Boxing is about punching people in the head, but they get the appropriate sponsorship for TV.

This isn't black or white. It is a grey are that needs working at.

 

[Les53]

. Boxing is about punching people in the head, but they get the appropriate sponsorship for TV.

PMSL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :laugh:

 

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

Well, hence it would be nice to develop a smaller test event without a ton of cash to see if a product is saleable to a backer. Guns don't make it automatically evil. I agree, the eventual sponsor would unlikely be a child care organisation or an animal welfare charity, but there are distinct possibilities. Look at the car tie up that RBSS have. Boxing is about punching people in the head, but they get the appropriate sponsorship for TV.

This isn't black or white. It is a grey are that needs working at.

Apropos boxing: psychology informs us that people, in general, are drawn to sudden outbursts of violence - whether that's two muppets having a drunken ruck in a pub car park at chucking-out time, or the more seemly pugilism of a WBO title fight. It also means the the spectators can 'enjoy' the spectacle of the fight from the comfort of their pay-per-view armchair, or the seats at ringside, without actually getting thumped themselves. Participation-by-proxy, if you will.

Nonetheless, like it or not, the key aspect here is that boxing is a genuine spectacle - can we honestly say the same for shooting? I doubt it. Lord knows poor old Sir George of Digweed has been plying his masterful trade for over 30 years, won every award in the book, and still can't attract sponsorship outside a clutch of organisations, all/most of whom are [at least in some way] shooting-industry-related.

And we can't dismiss or take the lightly the job of changing the public's perception on firearms - and even if some brave soul were to volunteer for the task, it risks taking decades if it's ever going to be successful at all. Who is going self-fund that endeavour for the time it might take without so much as a penny back in profits for their efforts?

Not against the endeavour, in principle at least, I just don't see it as viable from a practical standpoint.

I'll refer you to more sage judgement than mine, that of Mr Potter:

If I've understood Phil Coley's question correctly he was more interested in whether we would watch it or whether we thought non clay shooters would tune in. Lets be honest Joe Public isn't going to be enthralled by a scruffy bloke hitting about 60% of his targets.

There are way too few shooters to make a viable mainstream audience and in my opinion the public just aren't interested in watching clay shooting on the telly. A 25 bird final once every 4 years with a Brit in with a medal chance, that will do nicely but personally I think the chances of seeing a regular clay shooting programme on mainstream telly are zero (or perhaps even less)

People always compare clay shooting to those other minority sports darts & snooker. If you think about it there is a world of difference and even creating a two person, head to head comp such as the white gold cup held recently I got bored after about 15 minutes of watching the YouTube coverage. 

Clay Pigeon shooting [as it is currently manifested*] is NOT a spectator sport, it's a sport for participating in pure and simple....

Mr Potter

Again, * = my edit. But it's an opinion with which I'm inclined to agree.

And even though we still see Snooker televised, it enjoys nothing like the multi-millions in TV ratings it once enjoyed (late 70s, 80s and early 90s) when it was sponsored by the big cigarette companies... now banned from advertising their products anywhere in the Western world. Added to which, when it did attract those TV ratings, there were only 4 or 5 TV channels - now we have myriad and the general complaint is "500 TV channels and sod-all worth on TV to watch".

And ask yourself: outside of the exceptions, like the current Stratstone Super 7 Challenge, which Blue Chip sponsor is going to want to be associated with a shooting event/firearms?

 

[Will Hewland]

You may be right Bren. The safe option is to assume that you are and to do nothing. You wont fail or lose a penny. Personally the idea of reinventing this to be a `televisable` spectacle excites me. If the concept was to turn up to a registered shoot with a hand-held camera and film it; I would suggest failure would be about as certain as sunrise tomorrow. Big changes needed.

 

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

You may be right Bren. The safe option is to assume that you are and to do nothing. You wont fail or lose a penny. Personally the idea of reinventing this to be a `televisable` spectacle excites me. If the concept was to turn up to a registered shoot with a hand-held camera and film it; I would suggest failure would be about as certain as sunrise tomorrow. Big changes needed.

Four-square behind you there Will. And I'd be interested in any suggested practical and financially viable model which both turns a profit and engages the public's imagination in sufficient numbers. I just don't see anyone being able to suggest one which addresses the second key aspect to make this a goer: that of the public's negative perception of firearms in the UK. One will not work without the other.

 

[Nicky T]

Why limit the viewing audience to the UK? Why not appeal to the US market but with the added quirkiness of British "characters"...?

 

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

Why limit the viewing audience to the UK? Why not appeal to the US market but with the added quirkiness of British "characters"...?

It's a fair question, Nick, but the US audience is renowndly parochial - meaning that if there is not a heavy US element to it, they switch-off in droves.

 

[Lock Stock & Barrel]

Just as long as any mooted event doesn't end up looking like this

 

[Will Hewland]

Shouldn't the larger gun companies be stepping up to promote and sponsor this type of thing? The arms industry is a multi billion pound industry, Beretta, Browning and Remington probably spend hundreds of thousands of pounds securing Government and civillian contracts to supply thousands of guns and millions of rounds of ammunition and yet their support for some of our biggest Clay shooting events which will generally feature their shotguns is sadly lacking, especially here in the UK.

If sponsorship, promotion and support from gun companies who actually make money from the shooters is hard to come by it will probably be impossible to secure from outside of the industry.

And I agree even as a shooter, watching people shoot isn't particularly exciting.

This is all about getting non-shooters watching. Little point in advertising guns heavily. This needs to attract, I dunno.. holiday companies, hotel chains, energy drinks, auto spares chain. Anything that a wider audience would want.

 

[Nicky T]

It's a fair question, Nick, but the US audience is renowndly parochial - meaning that if there is not a heavy US element to it, they switch-off in droves.

They can send any amount of shooters that they want to participate i'm sure