How important are "industry celebrities" to you when buying a product?

[farscott]

An endorsement is more valuable to me if the endorser can clearly explain what need the product meets, why it is a better choice than other products, and how it meets those needs. It is much more valuable when there is a logic to the endorsement that one can follow and individually evaluate.

For me, the great example of that is the P30. I can decided that the 1911, as much as I like to shoot it and as well as I do shoot it, was no longer the best choice for me. I was in the midst of transitioning to the Glock 19 (and fighting the issues with extraction) when the discussion here on the P30 really got going. That discussion made me aware of the gun, helped reaffirm my bias towards a gun with a hammer, and got my wife to try one. From there, we ran with the platform.

ToddG's work with the P30, his posts on pistol-training.com, and his part of the discussion here really opened my eyes to the P30. So, yes, his opinions were important to me. I probably never would have tried LEM, instead using a V3 P30S, without the threads here on LEM. Those threads articulated ideas on why the LEM trigger is a good thing under stress (like the discussions on holding people at gunpoint with a gun with a longer, not heavier, trigger pull) and my personal experience with a huge adrenaline dump after an incident.

[voodoo_man]

Since my site was brought up, I always disclose if I bought it myself or was given the item on loan or from a company.

[OnionsAndDragons]

I try to take them as what they are: a single data point.

I then weight the opinion against multiple factors to decide how much value I put on that data. The reviewers experience/creds, financial interests and disclosure or lack thereof, knowledge of their character and style, how in sync their findings tend to be with my experiences. That sort of thing.

Some folks are not good at disclosing their financial interests, or ulterior motives (like getting free review gear) and I tend to just stop paying any attention to these types.

I really like VooDoo Mans reviews, for what it's worth. Matter of fact and up front.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[El Cid]

I try to take them as what they are: a single data point.

I then weight the opinion against multiple factors to decide how much value I put on that data. The reviewers experience/creds, financial interests and disclosure or lack thereof, knowledge of their character and style, how in sync their findings tend to be with my experiences. That sort of thing.

Some folks are not good at disclosing their financial interests, or ulterior motives (like getting free review gear) and I tend to just stop paying any attention to these types.

I really like VooDoo Mans reviews, for what it's worth. Matter of fact and up front.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Agreed - this is what I try to do as well. I don't see myself ever running out and buying product X because trainer/competitor Y said it's great. I will digest what they say, and assign it weight based upon what I know about them, any interactions I've had with them, etc. There are a couple trainers I've been in class with who I respect and trust because of not just their background, but because I've seen them teach (not merely be present while AI's do all the work). I've spoken with them, and may even know people in thier old units who can vouch for them. Even the crowd of trainers who have BTDT aren't always a good source (everyone remembers the Gadget claim of credit recently) as they can go off the reservation. And having a BTDT background may mean you are the baddest mofo on the planet. It doesn't mean you can teach, diagnose, or make your experiences relatable to non-high speed folks. If your only point of reference is taking product X into battle, it might be the best product for doing that. How does that help me decide if I need one?

I will typically research the crap out of a new piece of kit before buying it. As with cars, I now try to let others be the beta testers and wait a year or so before making a purchase. The celeb trainers are part of that research, but so are my local shooting buddies, other LEO's, friends still in DoD, random internet forums and bloggers, etc. I have a shooting buddy on this forum who thinks like an engineer and wants things quantified - I love that! He drives some folks crazy sometimes, but I've seen him shoot in competitions and classes and he has the skills to back up his questions and why he asks them. I also love that he does not have a tactical background. The outside perspective is often very valuable and group think can be detrimental to success. As with anything, the more data points the better the conclusions. The amount of weight I assign to a celeb-trainer may not necessarily be more than random internet blogger - it's different.

[LittleLebowski]

No worries, just wanted to be clear. As for EL, he's not going to push a product that doesn't work, period.

In that regard, while I hold EL's (and many others) opinion very highly when it comes to these types of things, I don't choose guns based on friends who have good experiences. I choose them based on relevant military and LE tests that they have passed, and preferably, a long field use that proves they deserved to pass the test.

Were I in your line of work or carrying a gun for a living again in any capacity, this is the advice I would follow. Since I do not, I'll take chances on certain pieces of kit and weapons recommended by folks whose word I hold in the highest regard like yours and EL's.

[voodoo_man]

I want to bring this thread back up and ask another question:

When you see companies say things like "extensive testing" and "through research in real world use" but then that information is never cited, does the information of who/how/when/where/documented results interest you enough that you'd like to see it before buying a product?

[orionz06]

I want to bring this thread back up and ask another question:

When you see companies say things like "extensive testing" and "through research in real world use" but then that information is never cited, does the information of who/how/when/where/documented results interest you enough that you'd like to see it before buying a product?

When I read "extensive testing" most of the time I wonder how much time was wasted and if there are any meaningful results. Too much "testing" winds up with nothing useful because people suck and don't often know what the fuck they're talking about. That's fine though because neither do the customers.

[voodoo_man]

When I read "extensive testing" most of the time I wonder how much time was wasted and if there are any meaningful results. Too much "testing" winds up with nothing useful because people suck and don't often know what the fuck they're talking about. That's fine though because neither do the customers.

On one side you have a company that wants people to want its product so they slap on the catch-all "extensively tested" or "tested by professionals" "tested in the most harsh conditions" or whatever other catch line to appease the customers. On the other side you hear about the people who actually test certain products and break them, or find serious flaws, and the companies not do a thing about them - sure they were "tested" by "someone" but who? Where? In what conditions? Some stuff, it doesn't really matter, but other stuff that is specifically you may want to know works before you buy it.

I have no reason to post this other than a quick google result -

http://media.vistaoutdoor.com/brands/weaver/news.aspx

ANOKA, Minn. - April 7, 2014 - Weaver® Optics announces that two of its tactical scopes have received the prestigious “Member Tested and Recommended” seal of approval from the National Tactical Officers Association (NTOA). After extensive testing by law enforcement officials, the Weaver 1-5x24 Illuminated Close-Intermediate Range Scope and Weaver 2-10x36 1/10 Mil Tactical Scope received a score of 4.32 and 4.27 out of a possible 5, respectively. The two NTOA approved scopes are a part of the Weaver Super Slam™ series of tactical optics.

Rigorously tested in the field by law enforcement professionals, products that earn the NTOA’s seal of approval are listed on the association’s comprehensive online database and will be included in the quarterly journal, The Tactical Edge.

Short- and Long-Range Consistency
The Weaver 1-5x24mm Tactical Scope with Illuminated Close-Intermediate Range Tactical reticle features powerful 5x magnification for a wide range of applications. From CQB scenarios to extended shots out to 600-plus yards, the Weaver 1-5x24 Tactical Scope’s one-piece design gives rugged durability for any tactical situation.

The Weaver optic features a first-focal plane reticle for accurate Mil units at all magnifications and can be illuminated in red or green. Reset-to-zero turrets eliminate the need to loosen caps for on-the-fly adjustments.

One NTOA tester awarded a perfect score for the categories of Design, Performance, Size, Quality, Versatility, Application, Accuracy and Cleaning and Maintenance.

Versatility in the Field
The Weaver 2-10x36mm 1/10 Tactical Scope with the Enhanced MilDot Ranging reticle features fully multi-coated lenses with an extra hard coating on exterior lenses for life-long durability. Waterproof, fog-proof and shockproof, the tactical scope provides precise shot placement round after round.

The wide range of magnification allows shooters to quickly change between long- and short-range targets. One law enforcement tester cited this versatility as one of its strongest assets due to the range of magnifications achieved. From long-range shots taken at high magnification to short-range encounters, an officer can quickly dial down to a low-power magnification for quick sight acquisition on close-range or moving targets.

Another tester gave this scope a perfect score in the categories of Performance, Ease of Use, Size, Durability, Versatility, Application and Cleaning and Maintenance.

Who are the people who tested this optic? How long? What are the conditions? The catch-all "law enforcement" does not really narrow it down to anything. Was it a patrol officer who has never used an optic in conjunction with a rifle, or was it a seasoned HRT-level sniper with years of experience using optics and rifles?

[rob_s]

I want to bring this thread back up and ask another question:

When you see companies say things like "extensive testing" and "through research in real world use" but then that information is never cited, does the information of who/how/when/where/documented results interest you enough that you'd like to see it before buying a product?

4 out of 5 housewives prefer Tide.

[voodoo_man]

So, I saw this short video today and thought of this thread.

http://instagram.com/p/BNSAbMrhH-K/


This has to be some of the worst types of gun Industry celebs doing bad training.

But yet people will jump for their products.