Skip to main content

I don't usually notice those banner ads on the side of the boards, but this one caught my eye. Some of you may have already noticed, but what is with the Shopping.com ad promoting guns on a wine forum? Granted, they look like air pistols/pellet guns, but is kind of funny, if you have a twisted sense of humor. Guns promoted to we wine drinkers- man, that could be more dangerous than knives (or first growths!).

*Political disclaimer: I am not anti-gun by anymeans, and am not "offended" by the ad (other than it is an ad). I just find that ad on this site a bit out of place (from a marketing perspective). Very strange choice of product to feature.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Regardless of opinion (or lack of it) as to guns, probably it would be wise for WS to not advertise a potentially controversial product on their banner ads, lest they stir greater resentment and possible loss of revenues. I would suggest the same for advertisements of say, cigarettes, or pornography. This is all independent of personal opinion, I can just see this becoming contentious, and if I was in charge of advertising I would make sure that I cut off any possible conflict before it occurred.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms no longer exists. With the reorganization of the Homeland Security Department alcohol and tobacco were split off and put under the Department of Treasury into the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau or TTB for short.

The bubbly blond label review definetly has a sense of humor, and they've never given us even a little guff about using mock French terms in our Haut Tubee. I got a call this morning from Julie at ttb who was concerned that Bradley Brown might be using our trade name without permission (he isn't, it's totally with my permissions Smile ), so they look out for the little guys too.

I like to give them crap from time to time, and somethings they do are totally mysterious, but as far as government agencies goes I'd rather have more like the TTB than say any entity associated with the County of Santa Cruz.
quote:
Originally posted by Stefania Wine:
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms no longer exists. With the reorganization of the Homeland Security Department alcohol and tobacco were split off and put under the Department of Treasury into the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau or TTB for short.

The bubbly blond label review definetly has a sense of humor, and they've never given us even a little guff about using mock French terms in our Haut Tubee. I got a call this morning from Julie at ttb who was concerned that Bradley Brown might be using our trade name without permission (he isn't, it's totally with my permissions Smile ), so they look out for the little guys too.

I like to give them crap from time to time, and somethings they do are totally mysterious, but as far as government agencies goes I'd rather have more like the TTB than say any entity associated with the County of Santa Cruz.


Nicely said Stefania. The enforcement side of ATF went over to Department of Justice. THe tax side remained with the Dept of Treasury
quote:
Originally posted by Sleepyhaus:
Regardless of opinion (or lack of it) as to guns, probably it would be wise for WS to not advertise a potentially controversial product on their banner ads, lest they stir greater resentment and possible loss of revenues. I would suggest the same for advertisements of say, cigarettes, or pornography. This is all independent of personal opinion, I can just see this becoming contentious, and if I was in charge of advertising I would make sure that I cut off any possible conflict before it occurred.


So in this season when banner ads are getting harder and harder to sell, do you think the loss of revenue from people seeing it, being offended, and cancelling membership is greater than the loss of revenue from rejecting an ad from a longterm advertiser (which shopping.com tends to be)? It would be interesting to see what is worse.
Gotapex, in answer to whether I think it would be better, that is hard to say. As to whether it would be interesting, I think that that is an experiment that couldn't really be conducted with any degree of accuracy. A better question is whether shopping.com is going to cease advertising over the issue of the gun ads, which I doubt. I simply find it all interesting, and I wonder what the reaction would be if the ads were for cigarettes, or pornography. To certain segments all seem quite neutral or even desirable, and yet to other segments of readership that is not the case. There appears to be a significant overlap between the WS readership and gun ownership, as evidenced by the supporting claims above, but that doesn't mean that others won't object. I am simply saying that if it were my neck on the block it isn't a gamble I'd take. If I were in charge of the advertising I'd avoid the potential conflict this could cause.
quote:
Haven't seen the ads yet, but I have more money into guns than I do wine.

I haven't seen the ads either but I'm pretty close in dollar amounts too. The wine collection is still growing, the guns stopped when I had more triggers to pull than digits to pull them with, although I occasionally trade in one for a new one. Empty wine bottles make great targets too, slightly more fun to dispose of than just throwing them in the recycling bin.
I believe that there are similarities between the connoisseurship of wines and that of weaponry.

This past year I acquired a Ruger M-77 in .243 caliber with a stylish, full-length Mannlicher stock. After a few test rounds (which emitted aromas of Cabernet Franc and Pouilly-Fume) I was firing 2-inch groups at 100 yards. The finish was far gentler on my shoulder than were its higher-powered cousins in .30-06 and .308.

This is a charming little rifle, not worthy of pairing with bear or cape buffalo, but certainly a perfect match with most any North American deer. I'd call it 89 points and, at less than $700, a Best Buy.
quote:
Originally posted by PetiteSyrahFan:
quote:
Originally posted by tannic bastard:
I know there was a rush on handguns the day Obama won the election. I think there was a prevailing thought that he was going to ban handguns. Perhaps gun retailers are trying to ride that wave.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28564096/


There is good reason to fear this. Name one Democrat who is a strong defender of the 2nd Amendment. I can't think of one.


almost the entire southern delegation and most of the northwest delegation... All of the House reps from TN are defenders of the 2nd amendment....

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×