ANTI-GUN NFL rejects Daniel Defense Commercial.

F350-6

TGT Addict
Lifetime Member
May 25, 2009
4,145
113
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
May 31, 2012
7,979
48
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

Dog faced pony soldier
Moderator
Apr 4, 2011
37,117
113
More West Central these days.
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
May 25, 2009
4,145
113
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
Dec 12, 2011
3,864
63
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
Oct 15, 2009
35,372
113
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
Apr 5, 2012
1,179
38
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
Feb 22, 2012
1,081
113
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.
TGT Supporter
Sep 28, 2010
5,947
63
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.
 

Support

Sponsors

Greeneye Tactical
silencers
third coast
DK Firearms
Tyrant Designs
Ranier
Shroud
Every Day Man

Forum statistics

Threads
99,215
Messages
2,251,770
Members
31,479
Latest member
WhitJuly
Top Bottom