Final Opinion on This Whole Wounded Warrior Thing

Tom Gresham has a nice editorial being syndicated over at TTAG that you really ought to check out… In it he gives his opinion on the whole Wounded Warrior Project debacle.

In my opinion (for whatever thats worth), I dont really think they are anti-gun or anti-second amendment. I just think they are indifferent… and see no marketing value in appealing to the firearms industry. Regrettably they also see no problem in being very open about that stance with the public. Thats the major underlying problem of this from a business standpoint. Its one thing to internally say that they are not going to focus on the firearms industry because there is just not enough “bang for the buck” there to allocate their limited resources towards pursuing fundraising endeavors with that market. Its another thing all together to openly say (to any industry) no thanks, you’re just not worth it to us.

Remember, Wounded Warrior, firearms owners are a major segment of the population in general, and we overlap into all those other higher profile target markets that you are trying to after. What percentage of those NFL fans that you are targeting do you think are gun owners? What about Nascar fans? Think they have heard about this little PR debacle? My guess is that they have and the contributions that they make to Wounded Warrior Project through those particular revenue streams will now decrease. So guess what Wounded Warrior, you have just significantly decreased your revenues.

Which brings me to the other issue here that I really dont like in this whole thing… It very much seems to me that Wounded Warrior is now officially more about the business than they are the charity of it all. Thats a bigger issue… and one that will have longer lasting implications for both their “business” and the veterans that they serve.

  1. Your either blind or just can’t see. Why did the WWP change ‘firearms’ to ‘wepons’? Why do they list ‘weapons’ alongside ‘pornography’? But not cycling when the the lying CEO stated both acriviries were rejected for co-branding due to ROI?
    I listened to the interview. The CEO is being disingenuous at the very least. Organizations like this are what erodes our constitution and our rights by insidiouly stepping away and marginalizing them. Ww either point it out, or are complicit with the destruction of our own society.
    Sounds to me like your a collaborator to this destruction as opposed to a guardian of the republic.
    David Williams
    SkyRaider Arms

Comments are closed.