What could/should USPSA do to attract the average CCW holder

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The average CCW type probably doesn't even carry the gun that much. An informal poll by TX CHL instructors found 80% of their students didn't. I'd better a similar majority have no training beyond the TX CHL class. I doubt they shoot their gun even once a month.

So after reading, this thread - I conclude that USPSA probably cannot attract the average CCW type on its own. Nor can IDPA. The motivation is some external to the gun games, internal to the person and those that have will find a competition they like. That was my story - when I decide to carry a gun, I decided I needed to train and then that led to various competitions. It was internal to me.

Now, if you can get a person to the game - being supportive, etc. is good.

The IDPA vs. USPSA - we are the better - boring. Shoot what you like and is convenient. Want to dress up like a bumble bee with logos fine. Want to wear a concealment vest that you never wear out - fine. Want to look like a cowperson - fine. Want to shoot steel with something that looks like a photon blaster - fine with me. Want to have an AR with every accessory including a George Foreman grill in the stock so you can make a burger between 3G stages - sound yummy.

[Sal Picante]

Man it was a long winter in Chicago: I made GM in USPSA production, switched away from my Beretta's to some CZ goodness, and then got really busy with work and burned the hell out...

This thread is really interesting and I wanted to add some of my insights here. See, I haven't really been shooting for all that long, getting my first taste of USPSA in December of 2007, then finding out that there are actually more matches, and majors, out there in ~2010, and I've been reflecting on some of this for a while...

See, back in those days, USPSA and IDPA both didn't have "social marketing" and "club finders"... People pretty much had to dig up the info from the old timers about which club had which match on which day, replete with total retard stuff like: "Oh but remember, this is a leap year so they aren't shooting the 5th Sunday in August..."

Being a savvy sorta guy with some time on my hands, I decided to start a blog serving all of the action shooting sports in the region surrounding Chicago: WIILSHOOT.COM was born.

I consolidated every club calendars and made weekly entires to highlight matches and reputable competition-based training in the area. I know I introduced a lot of people to the sport. In the processes of healing the rift between the McHenry IDPA club and the McHenry USPSA clubs I know I got a lot of people out there to start trying out different events; steel challenge, USPSA, IDPA, outlaw, etc...

What it took was a bit of organization (find all the clubs and setup a site) a bit of personality (get to know the directors and people in involved), and appeal to the type of folks out there. Specifically, Caleb had just really entered the "Gun Culture 2.0" debate and that, I decided, was who I really wanted to target: younger, mostly professional people looking for a challenge or hobby.

There are a lot of folks out there that just don't know that stuff like this exists. I think those people need a familiar face in the largely same demographic to guide 'em through without pretense (IDPA sux! No - USPSA is for gay-mers!) and just get them out to pull the trigger safely. These people aren't total F(*king idiots and will make their own choices, putting their time and attention to the endeavors that they feel with give them some intrinsic reward.

Adding some opinions here:

1.) Though I thought Okie John's post was interesting, I don't know if something like branding is necessarily the best way to market the sport(s) - the trouble is that a lot of folks just don't know that they even exist. Most local ranges don't even understand the difference between the two sports...

So... How to increase some visibility?

I think that USPSA and IDPA should both be focused on helping competition trainers, tactical trainers, and perhaps even existing NRA trainers out there promote the sports through promotional material, incentives, etc. These people probably reach a far broader audience and, since they're usually the first point of contact, a lot of folks take their word seriously.

2.) Perceived Rules Complexity is sometimes an issues - more so with USPSA than IDPA... The reality is that MikeG (and we've spoken about this a lot offline) is right that a lot of the rule book in USPSA is to handle oddball scoring discrepancies, establish fairness, etc. I think that USPSA should encourage a friendly face (Jessie Duff? Julie G? Bob Vogel?) to do a "Beginners guide to USPSA" video and promote it heavily on the site, in blogs, etc. Focus on safety, fun, "See the targets? Yeah? Aim for the center..." and don't delve into the arcane stuff that makes USPSA appealing when someone really starts getting it at a higher level (Ex. Classifier dissection or Match points and strategic performance - if you don't know, PM me...)

(As an aside, I think it is interesting that even though IDPA rules are easier to "get" in the beginning, they sorta had to rewrite parts to ensure clubs were going to do things more commonly in the future... )

I really thing that USPSA, in particular, is only confusing since some people present it as such... What is telling is that once most people shoot IDPA for a while, they start to migrate to the challenges that USPSA seems to possess and do generally ok with it. (More penalties, tougher shots, etc...)


3.) Beginners season

Someone mentioned this a while back (sorry, I didn't catch the name...) and this is a great idea! I wish more trainers encouraged or dedicated time to bringing some newer guys up through the ranks. It is exhausting from a training perspective, but very rewarding. I just did a 4-month race to B-class in USPSA with two guys: http://ashootingjourney.blogspot.com

I think some trainers could really focus and encourage this sort of dialog (shameless plug, I do a lot of Coache's Eye critique...)


4.) I think that there is this big mixup between CCW equipment and competition, perhaps using that equipment... People tend to game-ify everything, but I think there is a market for a non-competition venue/training with CCW gear. MikeG and I have really spoken about this a lot - for most normal people, it is goofy stuff like: you're out walking the dog when kittens go down. No buzzer, no scoring...

How do we encourage that competence/problem solving? I think understanding gear/compromises through racing helps, but sometimes it is just being presented with a goofy challenge that you have to puzzle out is 1/2 the battle.

Anyway, this just spitballing ideas bit since I've been drinking since noon.


Some footnotes:
1.) I pretty much stopped shooting IDPA for two reasons: Not because of the rules, etc, but because the stages started to get a bit lame around here. The second reason was more subtle: I didn't like the fact that HQ created DM status... It was almost like a ploy to encourage some top-level shooters to stay in IDPA to get the designation... I dunno. I like rankings that are based on a measurable standard of some sort.

2.) WIILSHOOT.COM is going... It was a fun ride, but took a lot of my energy. Since there was no money or anything in it, I decided it had to go so I can get busy trying to catch Ben Stoeger or Eric Grauffel in the future.

[rob_s]

This is the truth of the single biggest reason any one person shoots one game over another. All the rest of the douche-y defense of a choice based on feelings is just that.

You can't market that.

In all the subsequent pages, this has become borne out by virtually every post.

People shoot with the group that they like, or shoot with first, or think is coolest on the Internet at the time, and spend the rest of their lives defending and justifying that initial, ignorant, decision.

[Sal Picante]

In all the subsequent pages, this has become borne out by virtually every post.

People shoot with the group that they like, or shoot with first, or think is coolest on the Internet at the time, and spend the rest of their lives defending and justifying that initial, ignorant, decision.

If they did, then people wouldn't migrate between the sports, which we know happens.

I think people want to be accepted in a community - if both sets of people are cool, they do both... But only in the long run.

[TheTrevor]

If they did, then people wouldn't migrate between the sports, which we know happens.

I think people want to be accepted in a community - if both sets of people are cool, they do both... But only in the long run.

That seems right to me. Acceptance, and feeling like you get along well with the folks you find in a community, are very important to sustained engagement. I once stopped studying a martial art because it wasn't worth the trouble to get there several times per week when all of the folks I liked training with moved on to other stuff.

It goes two ways, though. People decide whether to join a community based on whether it appeals to them. They consider affirmative stuff like whether it looks fun, and how they'll benefit from participating in terms of skills growth. They also consider negative stuff like high startup costs, "stupid" rules and practices (e.g. IDPA vests, USPSA gamer rigs, etc), and trash-talking/ridicule about the community.

[okie john]

1.) Though I thought Okie John's post was interesting, I don't know if something like branding is necessarily the best way to market the sport(s) - the trouble is that a lot of folks just don't know that they even exist. Most local ranges don't even understand the difference between the two sports...

So... How to increase some visibility?

I agree with all of your points except this one.

I suspect that our difference lies in how we define “branding”. Ideally, branding is coming up with ONE story about something we’re trying to sell and sticking to it. If we do that, then what people hear is the same whenever and wherever they hear it, which matters because people need to hear an advertising message somewhere between seven and 10 times before they remember it.

Right now, USPSA is negatively branded as "the harder sport" or "the race gun sport" or "the $2k pistol sport". This actually drives people away from it because it focuses on minor aspects of the sport that some people find problematic. If we rebrand USPSA in a positive way (such as "where good shooters go to get better"), then we shift the story to focus on good aspects of the sport. Once this happens, people are far less likely to get pulled into the kind of tallest-midget contests that have eaten up much of this thread and that inevitably derail the effort to get new people on board.

The things that you and others have brought up will all help. But they will help more when people start to think that USPSA is "where good shooters go to get better" and we've stopped the hemorrhaging that negative branding creates. This is the kind of thing that the national USPSA organization needs to handle. It's nearly impossible to do it at the club level.


Okie John

[Failure2Stop]

In all the subsequent pages, this has become borne out by virtually every post.

People shoot with the group that they like, or shoot with first, or think is coolest on the Internet at the time, and spend the rest of their lives defending and justifying that initial, ignorant, decision.

I have to assume that you are being genuine in your impression, but I disagree.

I was interested in competitive marksmanship games as soon as I heard about them, and even when recommended to shoot USPSA, I started with IDPA. It was ok initially, but the constant tactical criticism of the rulebook got annoying, especially when many of the core tenants flew in the face of actual experience and contemporary training.

USPSA had none of those negatives, and I was frequently able to watch and interact with very high level folks in local matches.

I shot them both as schedule permitted, but after hitting my goal in IDPA, I had zero interest in continuing participation. I do still shoot USCA, which is very IDPA-ish, but with a rule book that isn't as restrictive.

My intent on posting was not to play contrarian to your contrarianism, just to illustrate where I came from and why I landed where I am.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

[Sal Picante]

...because people need to hear an advertising message somewhere between seven and 10 times before they remember it.

What?

Oh... Yeah...

I think, after some further thought that you might be right about that in a vacuum.

I guess that is why I'd like to see something build up for peripheral instructors, etc to publicize both sports as avenues to consider after, say, the NRA basic pistol classes, etc...

I keep telling my students, yeah, there may be a few difficult things, but nothing insurmountable... They start to believe that line of horse-kitten too before you know it...

[cclaxton]

Concealed Carry requires CONCEALMENT.
Add a concealment requirement to Production Div.
Or, create a new division using concealment.
Jerry Miculek agrees:
Cody

[JeffJ]

You are free to wear concealment in Production - perhaps not everyone has the same priorities as you do Cody, ever think about that?

And Jerry shoots unconcealed a lot more than he does concealed, doesn't seem to be handicapping him much.