Other than critical thinking skills and unconventional positions, IDPA isn't that much different. Sure the shooting is typically harder and faster in USPSA but I've seen people that get FTNs on nearly all the targets in IDPA.Originally Posted by JeffJ
But that is an interesting idea marketing to 3 gunners. I can see it now:
"Three gunners, want to suck less with a pistol? Come shoot USPSA."
Have you shot many local matches lately? (I've been a bit remiss myself - that's not attack, I know you shoot more national level stuff) But, when there is a big 3 gun match on the same weekend as USPSA it's pretty obvious. A lot of those guys shoot IDPA too, but it sure seems like the order for those shooters is 3 Gun, USPSA, 2 Gun, Steel, IDPA.
BTW, I think DAPS is still doing Wednesday IDPA Matches at Elm Forks once or twice a month, I keep meaning to dust off the vest and go but it never happens.
Local matches, pretty rarely. I only schedule one weekend a month for local matches, and lately due to weather that has been canceled.
I will be trying to make it out to Cross Timbers USPSA match later this month, sparing that the DAPS match.
But yes I see it, I practice at ETTS the crowd for three gun is much bigger than the crowd for USPSA. And they have local level championships that have almost attendance as a section match. I don't deny that 3 gun is popular, I simply say that many 3 gunners SUCK majorly at pistol, I've watched entire squads struggle with huge steel plates at 7-10 yards. So perhaps marketing to that to leech some of the shooters off? Not all the 3 gunners started in USPSA, lots of people jumped right into 3 gun. If we can pull some of those back even as a secondary match would be a benefit, after all the typical 3 gun pistol would fit right in to limited or open.
Yeah, something like "Want to be a 3 gun stud on 3rd Saturday? Come light up USPSA on 2nd Saturday!" is probably the way to approach it.
This right here. To the extent that USPSA is losing market share, it's losing it to 3-Gun.
-C
My blog: The Way of the Multigun
A slight detour, but just for my education: what critical thinking skills does USPSA possess? I guess I am trying to understand a meaning of critical. Admittedly, I am new to the sport, so I am confused.
You come to the match and walk through the stages. Then you go shoot each stage and you formulate your stage strategy; you can be as simple as just shoot them, or as sophisticated as figuring out your predicted HF and what exactly you want to achieve. You then can go airgun it and burn it in. That's all requires experience and skill, but you have an asston of time to do it. Then you try to execute it the best you can, and I've not seen people to change much from their prior plan, short of makeup shots. So, what's critical about it? Is critical being used in an analytical connotation in the planning stage, or as in "critical dynamic incident"?
I certainly did not mean it in the "critical dynamic incident" way. Critical thinking being the ability to analyze, conceptualize, and apply information based on observation, experience etc. (There are better definitions out there, but that's the basic idea) While we use critical thinking in just about everything, USPSA allows us to observe a stage and develop a plan using our own creative process that is based on our personal strengths and weaknesses. It allows us to develop plans, observe our plans in action, develop contingency and use those contingencies on the fly and then see how our scores stack up.
Are you really good at long, tight shots and maybe not the best shoot on the move guy? Then maybe you can clear some targets from an earlier shooting position and eliminate a later position or a reload, etc.
Did you just miss 2 steel on the plate rack and now your reload plan is screwed, how are you going to recover from that?
It's not that IDPA doesn't require any critical thinking, it's just that USPSA requires a lot more.
Although, you can also just do what the guy in front of you does and not worry about it.
I'm in the ad business. If a client came to us with a problem like this, we'd probably call our solution about half rebranding exercise and half new line of business launch. There’s a lot of good thinking in this thread, but rebranding is a long, complex problem with a lot of moving parts. I see a lot of good thinking in this thread, but the things you're talking about need a super-solid foundation. Here’s how the agencies where I’ve worked would provide it:
People move through a psychological progression as they buy things or change their behavior (start shooting USPSA instead of another sport, or try it to begin with). They start by becoming aware of a product or change, then they consider it, then they come to prefer it to other similar products or changes, and then they actually buy it or do it.
Before you can start to move people through that progression, you want to ensure that your efforts will move them through every step without skipping any. The best way to do that is to talk about your product in a positive way and help others talk about it that way. So to do that, we’d start by clarifying our goal. In this case, let’s say that it’s “get more people to shoot in USPSA events”.
To achieve that, we’d define USPSA clearly and talk about it in a positive way that highlights its strengths. If people think it’s a gear race with a $2k bar to entry, then let’s position it as a path to self-improvement. Instead of calling it “the harder sport”, maybe we call it “where good shooters go to get better”. Same idea, different spin. We’d also look for ways to spread that message head-to-head with the negative messages about it, especially in gun shops and online forums where USPSA takes a beating.
We’d also use research to define our audience more clearly. As people have noted, the “average CCW” (if there is such a thing) probably neither shoots much nor cares much about gear or skill, so that might not be who we want. They also might not have enough money to participate often enough to make it worth our while. But we also assume that we understand the “average CCW”. Are our assumptions true? If so, then who do we go after and why? If not, then why not? What do we really know about our audience(s)?
From there, we’d identify the people most likely to be receptive to our message. That would probably be shooters already in some kind of action sport like IDPA, Speed Steel, or even Sporting Clays—we know that they understand the premise and that they're OK with the idea of people moving around with loaded guns during a match. The next easiest group might be people who own multiple guns and are planning to buy more guns in the next 12 months—we know that they probably have enough interest and income to be viable prospects, so the problem is getting them to divert some of it to shooting USPSA matches. But we focus on low-hanging fruit: we don’t start going after net new shooters until we get through existing gun owners.
Once we identified these audience segments, we’d find the best ways to reach them. Word of mouth is best, so we’d look for people who these shooters already trust and find ways to get them to spread the word. Forums like this are a good place—when a poster you recognize and trust says good things, you’re more inclined to listen.
As our audiences became aware of USPSA, we’d try to reach them in as many places as we could. We’d try to get gun makers to start labeling products as “USPSA ready”, as BladeTech does with their IDPA-approved holsters. This helps you win the gear race issue—the “USPSA Ready” label on a $600 pistol sidesteps the negative opinions of gun store commandos on either side of the counter before they’re even expressed. Component and ammo makers stand to benefit hugely from ammo-intensive sports like this, so we’d try to get them on board as well.
The result is a lot of credible people saying good things about USPSA, which helps move potential shooters through the awareness and consideration phases of the progression.
Note that up to this point, USPSA itself has not changed at all—we’ve just clarified our goals, settled on a story, identified our audiences, and found effective ways to tell our story to those audiences in ways that help us achieve our goals. All of these measures could get people to matches—but what will they find when they get there? This is where we’d use data to find out what USPSA can do for our audience that it isn’t doing already. Without data, I’m reduced to guessing—but I’ll guess that it would be a division where people can use inexpensive IDPA-type guns and gear without IDPA-type restrictions. But no matter what, three things are key at this point:
- Any change must deliver the new experience that prospective shooters want.
- USPSA and local clubs must be ready to not only handle a rush of newcomers, but to welcome them with open arms.
- Whatever you call it must IMMEDIATELY make sense to newcomers AND reinforce the positive messages decided on above. “Stock”, “Open”, and “Limited” don’t do this. Something like “Street”, “Concealed”, or “Defensive” would be better.
At this point, we’d launch a three-pronged PR initiative. First, gun writers: announce the new division with a big match that’s just for them. Make it fun but easy so they score well, provide a bunch of factory "USPSA-ready" guns and boatloads of ammo, feed them well, and buy ads in their magazines. Suddenly, they’ll be telling the world that this new USPSA thing is a good deal and not to be afraid of it. Second, work with bloggers: many of them are already action shooters, so engage them in discussions about the future of USPSA. What do they think? What do their readers think? This will generate a LOT of thoughtful coverage in the places where many shooters look for guidance. It will be positive and negative, from both bloggers and commenters, so it’s a good way to gauge opinion. Third, engage well-known former Tier I trainers who believe that competition is good. Most will be willing to support the idea in some way, even if it’s just a positive quote. Approach them individually and see how they’re willing to help.
Nail all of this down and you’ll have people paying attention to USPSA who ignored it before. At that point, things like changing course design, moving people through matches more quickly, hosting clinics, etc. start to make sense. If you change too soon, then nobody will know about it. You'll also piss off existing shooters, and they’re what makes new shooters get involved or walk away.
Okie John
Hello, I'm pretty sure I'm the target demographic for this thread. I shot my first USPSA match a couple weekends ago. I've shot steel and IDPA a few matches a year for about two years. Here's what's kept me from shooting USPSA for that long.
1) The gear. If you happen to shoot a production gun anyway, you don't understand why this is annoying. You already have everything. 3 Mags and a double carrier and you're set. If you happen to own a revolver or a 1911, though, you're looking at a whole bag full of magazines and carriers around half your damn belt for them. The more you raise the startup investment, the more you keep people from trying out the sport. I still don't actually own enough mag carriers for my 1911 for a USPSA match - I borrowed one from a friend.
I shot my first IDPA match literally with a revolver and a couple pockets of speedloaders. I've seen people shoot steel with only the mag that goes in the gun. Neither is really ideal, but it's reasonable. And then once you're at the match you realize what you should be doing.
Once people have the foot in the door they have a much better sense of why they should want all the other stuff.
2) The match length/organization. Standing around all day for a couple runs is just tough. Some places organize differently - sending groups through as soon as they fill up, that sort of thing. It's a *big* difference to people who want to come, but are stretching family obligations to take a whole day.
3) Yes, the scoring is f'ing confusing. It's not worth changing, but I read through the rules 3-4 times and I still don't really understand it.
4) Beyond gear, long stages are intimidating, when you're still getting your feet under yourself on the rules, the 180 line, reloads, etc.
5) The rules aren't confusing, but the rulebook is. My friend explaining single stack as "your gear behind your hips, 8 round mags, no real mods" makes sense. Trying to find out if my gear is legal by reading the book is much less helpful.
6) Similarly, the discussions are not helpful to the image that you can just show up with your glock and shoot. Even if not everyone shoots a race gun, everyone still seems to be talking about race guns.
7) Overall, the impression given from IDPA is "come here if you want to get better with your defensive pistol". From USPSA it's a bit more "come here only if you can compete with the BEST." Which, it could make a lot of sense to go to USPSA as a natural progression *from* IDPA - but to do that you'd have to convince everyone to drop the tribalism, and that's tough.
Jeff, thanks, I thought that this what you and others meant. I certainly find that part of USPSA appealing and enjoy it myself, although I also find that USPSA aficionados often blow it up out of proportion a bit.
Reply With Quote