-
I think I will avoid Giro (and others) going forward.
It’s easily done and I’m not wild about giving Vista money (now I know more about the company).
The Radavist having a non-position is unsurprising. He is in fairly deep.
If he were to take a stance, he could quite possibly make a difference (to the recruitment and retention of socially-conscious talent in Vista cycling brands) that leaves the gun brands (slightly) compromised ... not sure he realises that.
miro_o-
Doesn’t think it will make a significant enough financial impact on Vista, while boycotting may have long term impact in terms of finances and relationships for Radavist.
Made more difficult if you have friends in those businesses, where a boycott may result in them losing their jobs. -
If he were to take a stance, he could quite possibly make a difference (to the recruitment and retention of socially-conscious talent in Vista cycling brands) that leaves the gun brands (slightly) compromised ... not sure he realises that.
He could make a difference, he could put those people out of a job. If suddenly everyone stops buying Giro stuff you really think that's going to put a dent in Vista's profits? All that would happen is they see it's no longer profitable and close/asset strip the company and make more guns/ammo which are profitable/
Acliff
Sumo
I wasn't referring to his business decision, because as he clearly states he's decided to keep his site solvent in the face of the boycotts. Which is fine. And personally I'm ok with talking about all the ways I'm compromised as a consumer and its accompanying hypocrisy, although I doubt you or anyone else cares.
What I find pathetic is his explicit and implicit defences of gun ownership as a buttress to his business decisions. Despite all the school shootings, all gun-related crime, accidental deaths in the home, facilitated suicides etc, his only opinion about guns in America is 'gun owners are fine with me as long as they are responsible, and so because I've got mates in the bike industry I'm going to keep the ads'. This is the status quo, and precisely why gun deaths in the US are the way they are - a tacit approval of 'no change please'. What I think he's neglected to address is mostly what anyone who has any stake in gun rights in the US is interested in: an active stance, either for or against. It's a corporate PR release with a human signature at the end, nothing more.