I fully expect some independent to jump in as a third party candidate. I think the 2020 election offers the biggest opening for and independent that's existed in our lifetime.

Is this the guy? Probably not. Someone with zero name recognition going in isn't going to do it.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Ed Stack, the CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods and a longtime Republican donor, is testing the waters for a possible third-party presidential bid that could scramble the dynamics of the 2020 general election.

quote:

Democrats will never allow it because...

What control do Democrats have over someone who wants to run as an independent or third-party?
None.

The Democrats control only their own party.
Sure, there are ballot access challenges in each State, but the Democrats have no control over someone running outside of the Democrat party.

The last sentence in my post made it clear that I wasn’t referring to rules and procedures, as you are. What happened to Howard Schultz? He backed down real damn fast and so will this clown. If he’s not careful, Dick’s will be facing an additional boycott from the left and that’s just their opening salvo.

quote:

What happened to Howard Schultz? He backed down real damn fast and so will this clown.

Howard Schultz isn't really an "independent". He's really a Democrat. He came to the realization (perhaps it was explained to him) that he would be hurting the Democrats and helping re-elect Trump if he were to run 3rd party.

Ed Stack is a little different. Ed Stack is rabidly anti-gun, but other than that he's not really a Democrat. He's more of an "independent" than Howard Schultz.

Nevertheless, he will, most likely, come to the same realization: he would be hurting the Democrats and helping re-elect Trump if he were to run 3rd party. He would have to waste a lot of money to get on the ballot in more than a handful of states.

That's why I hope he does it. It would be a waste of his money, AND it would only help Trump.

I think Schultz just figured out he bit off more than he could chew.

quote:

Originally posted by pessimist:

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Ed Stack, the CEO of Dick’s Sporting Goods and a longtime Republican donor, is testing the waters for a possible third-party presidential bid that could scramble the dynamics of the 2020 general election.

quote:

Democrats will never allow it because...

What control do Democrats have over someone who wants to run as an independent or third-party?
None.

The Democrats control only their own party.
Sure, there are ballot access challenges in each State, but the Democrats have no control over someone running outside of the Democrat party.

The last sentence in my post made it clear that I wasn’t referring to rules and procedures, as you are. What happened to Howard Schultz? He backed down real damn fast and so will this clown. If he’s not careful, Dick’s will be facing an additional boycott from the left and that’s just their opening salvo.

For some time now, I've been looking for a reason to lock this thread. We're just about there, guys.

IBTL #severeddicks

Dick's Sporting Goods contended with both boycotts and "buycotts" in the wake of its decision to draw back from the gun business.

But according to CEO Ed Stack, the consumers who gave the company the cold shoulder had a far greater effect on business than any newfound supporters.

Spurred on by the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, Dick's removed the AR-15 and similar rifles from its Field & Stream stores, which specifically cater to hunters. The National Rifle Association, other gun lobby groups, and conservative commentators condemned the sporting-goods retailer for the move, with right-wing figures and consumers predicting a boycott against Dick's. Meanwhile, gun-reform advocates praised Dick's for taking a stand on firearms.

In a recent interview with Business Insider, Stack said that only the boycotts ended up affecting the company's bottom line, to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars. In an era when consumers are increasingly demanding that companies align with their political values, Dick's experience with phasing out sales of AR-15-style guns serves as a reminder for retailers preparing to take a polarizing stance: buzz around a controversial position doesn't always easily translate into dollars and cents.

In his book "It's How We Play the Game," Stack writes that his company experienced a wave of support following its decision around guns. Shoppers brought in snacks and flowers for store employees, and one Los Angeles eatery even gave discounts to diners who could produce Dick's receipts.

Stack said while he was grateful for the acknowledgments, "buycotts" and online support from gun-reform advocates did little to staunch the exodus of customers who were upset over the news.

"The buycotts were really nice and we appreciated it, but they were kind of short-lived," Stack told Business Insider.

Stack said that alienated consumers included both hunters and non-hunters who felt "angry" over Dick's decision to back away from the gun business. All in all, striking guns from the stores ended up costing the company.

"By the time we got done, it was about a quarter of a billion dollars," Stack said.

That being said, Stack said it hasn't all been bad news for Dick's. The CEO called the pivot a "blessing in disguise," noting that the first slew of stores to nix AR-15-style rifles outperformed the rest of the fleet.

Stack also noted that the company's stock hasn't wobbled much since the announcement. Shareholders, by and large, had a far more muted reaction to the news.

"What was surprising is we didn't have any shareholder that I'm aware of, who called up and said, 'You know what, based on what you did, I'm selling my shares. Just wanted to let you know,'" Stack said. "Conversely, though, we didn't have anybody there call up and say, 'Hey, we love what you're doing. We're going to buy your stock.'"

Those are some refreshingly candid remarks.
It is hardly surprising, however, that although the company got some noisy verbal support early on, it wasn't from people who would be their usual customers. And what isn't surprising in retrospect should have been apparent before the decision.

If nothing else, perhaps their experience will serve as a cautionary tale for other companies.

Somewhat related, I would be interested in knowing how Benchmade has done since the story about their helping destroy seized guns.

https://www.newsmax.com/financ...020/02/04/id/952608/

"Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc., the largest U.S. sporting-goods chain, is staking its future on winning more female customers.
On Tuesday, the company unveiled a wide-ranging set of efforts to support women’s sports. They include a $5 million grant to the U.S. Soccer Foundation, a sponsorship of USA Softball as it rejoins the Olympics, and retail changes at stores around the country to give expand its selection of women’s and girls’ products.


The company is also planning a national ad campaign supporting women’s sports. Altogether, the effort is a low-eight-figure investment for the company, which is projected to top $8.7 billion in sales this fiscal year.
“Today is a proud moment for our company,” Dick’s President Lauren Hobart said in a statement.
The search for more female customers may be helped by another high-profile push at Dick’s: its move away from guns. Over the past few years, the company has pulled firearms from its stores and become a corporate leader in advocating for gun reform -- a position supported by women more often than men."

I wonder when they'll transition the company name to reflect their new direction.

quote:

I wonder when they'll transition the company name to reflect their new direction.

Clits?

Latest news; they're to stop selling firearms and close out the hunting departments in 440 more stores.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/1...4-2020-earnings.html

quote:

Originally posted by Puckpilot78:

quote:

I wonder when they'll transition the company name to reflect their new direction.

Clits?

Boobs seems more fitting.

I wonder if they are going the way of sports authority. Sports Authority dumped handguns at all their stores and then reduced the number of stores carrying long guns. Corporate told us it was because of sales. Apparently they made a higher mark up on sneakers than firearms and ammo.

quote:

Originally posted by CD228:
I wonder if they are going the way of sports authority. Sports Authority dumped handguns at all their stores and then reduced the number of stores carrying long guns. Corporate told us it was because of sales. Apparently they made a higher mark up on sneakers than firearms and ammo.

TSA died because Dick's (DSG) provided similar product but in a nicer store and Big 5 occupied the ultimate bottom-feeder space, thus TSA got squeezed-out in a limited market place.

Margins in apparel and footwear ranges between 48-55% depending on category and volume of their buy, the only category better my understanding is beverages (to include alcohol) and stationary. Firearms and ammo have very low margins, only electronics and food/produce have lower margins.

Both TSA and DSG rely on a large portion of their assortments on Special Make Up styles: brands producing similar items to their inline styles but, utilizing unique colors, less $$$ fabrics, or, less features than an inline style. Retailers then agree to buy a very large volume of these SMU styles, this is how stores are able to sell items that look similar to what you may find on a brand's website (or not at all) but, comes in at a lower cost with some slight changes. Stores like DSG also leverage their volume for additional $$$ for advertising and promotions from brands.

Working at Dick's tomorrow, I told my company's owner we should turn down jobs for Dick's (jokingly), he's a gun guy too. I feel almost dirty walking in there now. Last two jobs were away from gun section, this time I going to wonder over and see how they've fallen. Thought about using my Dick's CC and buying a 50¢ item every time I go in there and request only paper billing. Make their card cost them money to service the account. Probably closed by now, haven't used it in over two years.

Could change name from Dick's to Pussy's. Just saying.
Rod

quote:

Originally posted by corsair:

quote:

Originally posted by CD228:
I wonder if they are going the way of sports authority. Sports Authority dumped handguns at all their stores and then reduced the number of stores carrying long guns. Corporate told us it was because of sales. Apparently they made a higher mark up on sneakers than firearms and ammo.

TSA died because Dick's (DSG) provided similar product but in a nicer store and Big 5 occupied the ultimate bottom-feeder space, thus TSA got squeezed-out in a limited market place.

Margins in apparel and footwear ranges between 48-55% depending on category and volume of their buy, the only category better my understanding is beverages (to include alcohol) and stationary. Firearms and ammo have very low margins, only electronics and food/produce have lower margins.

Both TSA and DSG rely on a large portion of their assortments on Special Make Up styles: brands producing similar items to their inline styles but, utilizing unique colors, less $$$ fabrics, or, less features than an inline style. Retailers then agree to buy a very large volume of these SMU styles, this is how stores are able to sell items that look similar to what you may find on a brand's website (or not at all) but, comes in at a lower cost with some slight changes. Stores like DSG also leverage their volume for additional $$$ for advertising and promotions from brands.

correct, some apparel etc may have as much as 70% markup, and some have buy back guarantees on some disco product,


ammo and new firearms typically runs 8-15%, and involves a large chunk of capital,

If they had said that they were getting out of the guns and ammo business because it didn't make economic sense where there stores were located, or wasn't a profitable section of their business model, then I wouldn't care and would still patronize them.

Instead, they chose to make a political issue out of it and thus have lost me as a customer forever.

quote:

Originally posted by Puckpilot78:
[QUOTE]I wonder when they'll transition the company name to reflect their new direction.

No-Nuts