Target Sports

ANTI-GUN NFL rejects Daniel Defense Commercial.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • poolingmyignorance

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 30, 2011
    450
    11
    houston
    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Sports/2013/11/27/NFL-Rejects-NFL Rejects Super Bowl Commercial from Gun Company


    Email Article
    Print articleSend a Tip


    by AWR Hawkins 27 Nov 2013 572post a comment
    The NFL has rejected a commercial submitted by firearm manufacturer Daniel Defense for the 2014 Super Bowl. Daniel Defense manufactures rifles on the AR-15 platform, but the commercial did not even mention Daniel Defense products. Instead, Guns & Ammo says the commercial "focused on themes of personal protection and fundamental rights."
    The Super Bowl will air on FOX, and FOX says they could not accept the commercial "due to the rules of the NFL itself" regarding firearm-related businesses.
    The NFL's prohibited advertising categories include, but are not limited to, "contraceptives," "fireworks," "distilled spirits and flavored malt beverages," "tobacco," and "firearms, ammunition, or other weapons."
    As Guns & Ammo noted, the "firearms portion of the NFL’s Prohibited Advertising Categories states":
    5. Firearms, ammunition or other weapons are prohibited; however, stores that sell firearms and ammunitions (e.g., outdoor stores and camping stores) will be permitted, provided they sell other products and the ads do not mention firearms, ammunition or other weapons.
    Guns & Ammo noted that "according to these guidelines, Daniel Defense’s Super Bowl commercial does not violate NFL policy for two reasons":
    Daniel Defense has a brick-and-mortar store, where they sell products other than firearms such as apparel.
    The commercial itself does not mention firearms, ammunition or weaponry.
    Although the Daniel Defense commercial did not mention firearms, it did show the Daniel Defense logo at the end--and that logo is of a DDM4 rifle. Upon being rejected, Daniel Defense offered to leave their own logo out of their commercial or even replace it with an American flag. But the NFL refused to budge.
    Guns & Ammo also noted that "the NFL’s decision to deny the ad comes after Daniel Defense ran a commercial in local Georgia markets during the 2012 Super Bowl XLVI on NBC, with no objection from the NFL. That particular commercial pictured the manufacture of firearms and concluded with a clip of Larry Vickers shooting a rifle."
    The ad in question can be seen below:Super-Bowl-Commercial-By-Gun-Company Daniel Defense Commercial - YouTube
    Lynx Defense
     

    Flewda

    Well-Known
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 5, 2012
    1,179
    31
    Ohio (But my heart is in Texas)
    No surprise here. You're talking about millions upon millions of viewers in the US alone. This country wouldn't dare educate people or want them to think for a moment that firearms might actually be a good thing for people to have. But it's okay, because the NFL is working to promote the ACA, so we can all rest easy.
     

    poolingmyignorance

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 30, 2011
    450
    11
    houston
    That's right. Support those Texans and Cowboys! (how many are felons that can't even own a fire arm?) Pour your money into merchandise so they can spend it fighting to remove your freedoms! Are you ready for some Marxist Socialist Dialect?!!
     

    TXARGUY

    Famous Among Dozens
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    May 31, 2012
    7,977
    31
    Wildcat Thicket, Texas
    That's right. Support those Texans and Cowboys! (how many are felons that can't even own a fire arm?) Pour your money into merchandise so they can spend it fighting to remove your freedoms! Are you ready for some Marxist Socialist Dialect?!!

    I have never in my life been a professional sports fan. The thought of a bunch of prancing, felony committing, whiney assholes becoming multi-millionaires playing with a ball sickens me and the bug eyed, rabid fanboys totally clinches it for me. I do however enjoy college and high school sports.
     

    poolingmyignorance

    Active Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 30, 2011
    450
    11
    houston
    I have never in my life been a professional sports fan. The thought of a bunch of prancing, felony committing, whiney assholes becoming multi-millionaires playing with a ball sickens me and the bug eyed, rabid fanboys totally clinches it for me. I do however enjoy college and high school sports.
    Could you imagine if those same fanatics were as passionate about protecting our rights? We'd never have to worry about encroachment into our freedoms again.
     

    Flewda

    Well-Known
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 5, 2012
    1,179
    31
    Ohio (But my heart is in Texas)
    Could you imagine if those same fanatics were as passionate about protecting our rights? We'd never have to worry about encroachment into our freedoms again.

    Fact! It's funny when a professional athlete supports the 2nd amendment and the legal ownership and use of firearms they get hammered 6 ways from Sunday. But if one of them is illegally carrying and/or using a firearm then it just gets swept under the rug and played down. It's no different than with Hollywood celebrities. They have different sets of laws/standards they must follow :(
     

    TX69

    TGT Addict
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 23, 2012
    6,801
    21
    DFW
    Curious how many of the National Felons League players that people worship have weapons charges on record but they can't run a commercial.
     

    F350-6

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 25, 2009
    4,237
    96
    OK, so call me pessimistic, or a conspiracy wacko, or whatever you like, but something smells a little fishy to me.

    Daniel Defense has been growing at a rate that would make most companies, public or private drool for many years, but it looks like they did around 31.7 million in revenue last year. The upcoming superbowl commercials are going for 4 million per 30 seconds, so the 1 minute video I just found on youtube would cost 8 million.

    If we round the 31.7 to 32 million and Daniel is somehow making a killing at 50% net profit, that leaves 16 million. If they're busy growing as fast as they can manage, does it make sense to spend half of your cash on one 60 second spot? Another way to look at it is, how many companies would spend 25% of their annual sales revenue for one 60 second commercial? Especially when 25% is equal to or greater than profit for the year?

    I'm wondering if they went in with this knowing it would be rejected so the people Daniel Defense wanted to reach would get outraged, talk about it, post it on all the internet forums, etc., thereby giving them plenty of advertising portraying them as being taken advantage of by the system, and having the message reach exactly the right demographic they want to reach.

    Maybe I'm out on a limb here, but I think they're reaching more of the right kind of people from threads like this and the other threads that showed up on a google search than they would by dumping that much cash on a 60 second commercial.
     

    TXARGUY

    Famous Among Dozens
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    20   0   0
    May 31, 2012
    7,977
    31
    Wildcat Thicket, Texas
    OK, so call me pessimistic, or a conspiracy wacko, or whatever you like, but something smells a little fishy to me.

    Daniel Defense has been growing at a rate that would make most companies, public or private drool for many years, but it looks like they did around 31.7 million in revenue last year. The upcoming superbowl commercials are going for 4 million per 30 seconds, so the 1 minute video I just found on youtube would cost 8 million.

    If we round the 31.7 to 32 million and Daniel is somehow making a killing at 50% net profit, that leaves 16 million. If they're busy growing as fast as they can manage, does it make sense to spend half of your cash on one 60 second spot? Another way to look at it is, how many companies would spend 25% of their annual sales revenue for one 60 second commercial? Especially when 25% is equal to or greater than profit for the year?

    I'm wondering if they went in with this knowing it would be rejected so the people Daniel Defense wanted to reach would get outraged, talk about it, post it on all the internet forums, etc., thereby giving them plenty of advertising portraying them as being taken advantage of by the system, and having the message reach exactly the right demographic they want to reach.

    Maybe I'm out on a limb here, but I think they're reaching more of the right kind of people from threads like this and the other threads that showed up on a google search than they would by dumping that much cash on a 60 second commercial.

    I like the way you think.
     

    Vaquero

    Moving stuff to the gas prices thread.....
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Apr 4, 2011
    44,206
    96
    Dixie Land
    OK, so call me pessimistic, or a conspiracy wacko, or whatever you like, but something smells a little fishy to me.

    Daniel Defense has been growing at a rate that would make most companies, public or private drool for many years, but it looks like they did around 31.7 million in revenue last year. The upcoming superbowl commercials are going for 4 million per 30 seconds, so the 1 minute video I just found on youtube would cost 8 million.

    If we round the 31.7 to 32 million and Daniel is somehow making a killing at 50% net profit, that leaves 16 million. If they're busy growing as fast as they can manage, does it make sense to spend half of your cash on one 60 second spot? Another way to look at it is, how many companies would spend 25% of their annual sales revenue for one 60 second commercial? Especially when 25% is equal to or greater than profit for the year?

    I'm wondering if they went in with this knowing it would be rejected so the people Daniel Defense wanted to reach would get outraged, talk about it, post it on all the internet forums, etc., thereby giving them plenty of advertising portraying them as being taken advantage of by the system, and having the message reach exactly the right demographic they want to reach.

    Maybe I'm out on a limb here, but I think they're reaching more of the right kind of people from threads like this and the other threads that showed up on a google search than they would by dumping that much cash on a 60 second commercial.


    Maybe, just maybe, they wanted to convey a message that might not even benefit them monetarily.
    Possibly a corporation wants to put their money where their mouth is.

    I know, pie in the sky, but there has to be a CEO somewhere in this country that gives a ****. If not, we're fucked.
     

    F350-6

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 25, 2009
    4,237
    96
    Maybe, just maybe, they wanted to convey a message that might not even benefit them monetarily.
    Possibly a corporation wants to put their money where their mouth is.

    If that was the goal, there are better ways to do that than one 60 second commercial where who knows how many millions of folks might have gotten up to go take a leak.
     

    stdreb27

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 12, 2011
    3,907
    46
    Corpus christi
    OK, so call me pessimistic, or a conspiracy wacko, or whatever you like, but something smells a little fishy to me.

    Daniel Defense has been growing at a rate that would make most companies, public or private drool for many years, but it looks like they did around 31.7 million in revenue last year. The upcoming superbowl commercials are going for 4 million per 30 seconds, so the 1 minute video I just found on youtube would cost 8 million.

    If we round the 31.7 to 32 million and Daniel is somehow making a killing at 50% net profit, that leaves 16 million. If they're busy growing as fast as they can manage, does it make sense to spend half of your cash on one 60 second spot? Another way to look at it is, how many companies would spend 25% of their annual sales revenue for one 60 second commercial? Especially when 25% is equal to or greater than profit for the year?

    I'm wondering if they went in with this knowing it would be rejected so the people Daniel Defense wanted to reach would get outraged, talk about it, post it on all the internet forums, etc., thereby giving them plenty of advertising portraying them as being taken advantage of by the system, and having the message reach exactly the right demographic they want to reach.

    Maybe I'm out on a limb here, but I think they're reaching more of the right kind of people from threads like this and the other threads that showed up on a google search than they would by dumping that much cash on a 60 second commercial.

    The "rejected" Super Bowl add is now a cottage industry.
     

    Dawico

    Uncoiled
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    14   0   0
    Oct 15, 2009
    38,006
    96
    Lampasas, Texas
    If that was the goal, there are better ways to do that than one 60 second commercial where who knows how many millions of folks might have gotten up to go take a leak.

    I pee during the game not the commercials. Just saying......

    I find myself less and less interested in the NFL every year, and it is the only professional sport I pay any attention to at all. This kind of news doesn't help the situation.
     

    Flewda

    Well-Known
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Apr 5, 2012
    1,179
    31
    Ohio (But my heart is in Texas)
    OK, so call me pessimistic, or a conspiracy wacko, or whatever you like, but something smells a little fishy to me.

    Daniel Defense has been growing at a rate that would make most companies, public or private drool for many years, but it looks like they did around 31.7 million in revenue last year. The upcoming superbowl commercials are going for 4 million per 30 seconds, so the 1 minute video I just found on youtube would cost 8 million.

    If we round the 31.7 to 32 million and Daniel is somehow making a killing at 50% net profit, that leaves 16 million. If they're busy growing as fast as they can manage, does it make sense to spend half of your cash on one 60 second spot? Another way to look at it is, how many companies would spend 25% of their annual sales revenue for one 60 second commercial? Especially when 25% is equal to or greater than profit for the year?

    I'm wondering if they went in with this knowing it would be rejected so the people Daniel Defense wanted to reach would get outraged, talk about it, post it on all the internet forums, etc., thereby giving them plenty of advertising portraying them as being taken advantage of by the system, and having the message reach exactly the right demographic they want to reach.

    Maybe I'm out on a limb here, but I think they're reaching more of the right kind of people from threads like this and the other threads that showed up on a google search than they would by dumping that much cash on a 60 second commercial.

    That's a really good point. It does make you wonder a bit. However, having said that, after watching the commercial that was linked to youtube in the OP you could clearly see that it was aimed at pro-2A and more of a general statement about our rights than just Daniel Defense products. Because of that, how many people do you think would donate money (outside of Daniel Defense) to put a commercial ? If DD said they were able to secure a spot during the Super Bowl but needed money to back it up, knowing that it wasn't going to just be a commercial trying to get them more money like your typical beer commercial, then I'd be more than happy to throw a few bucks their way. I imagine many of you would, too, just to make such an important statement to so many people.

    In addition to that, while they are a business and in general the thought of spending more than 25% of your income on 1 minute is economically absurd, think about this. DD is primarily retail (I don't know what their deals with LE agencies and military are, but I imagine most of their money comes from the consumer). If you're thinking that your business is in trouble from laws and restrictions, and it's that serious, I know I wouldn't rule out using a hefty chunk to combat that risk. It certainly is a gamble, and one that wouldn't likely return in more profit for them like most commercials experience, but if it helps make people more aware of the situation, especially putting it in terms like the posted commercial explained, then it might pay off for them the next time ol Joe Biden comes up with a new plan.

    Just a thought. I think your observation is quite solid, too. Just looking at another angle.
     

    Sam Colt

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Feb 22, 2012
    2,245
    96
    Austin
    I showed the ad to several non-shooters. None of them knew what it meant or who it was supposed to advertise. As a "mock outrage" piece pandering to the faithful it is gaining traction. As a legitimate mainstream ad it would be a very expensive failure.
     

    London

    The advocate's Devil.
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Sep 28, 2010
    6,286
    96
    Twilight Zone
    Thanks to our mindless fellow Americans (many of them our fellow TGTers), the NFL leadership is wealthy enough to not have to give a shit about your freedoms or your worthless opinion. They're billionaires today and they'll be billionaires tomorrow all because people would rather pay money to watch millionaires play a ball game than boycott hoplophobes. Bread and circuses...

    Regarding DD's motives; frankly who cares? They're exposing the NFL for the bunch of over-paid, gun-hating purveyors of mindless entertainment they are, and getting free publicity to boot. Good for them.
     
    Top Bottom