Author\u2019s Disclaimer: I am not a member of the NRA. I do not work for nor have ever worked for any anti-second-amendment companies. I have shot guns many, many times, and will do so in the future, I can talk quasi-eloquently about gun brands and guns themselves. I have friends and have lost friends in the armed forces. I am pro-registration, pro-legislation, and I see no reason that a normal person\u2019s right to own an assault rifle is more important than the lowering of human deaths. This is a complex issue, one that even opening a discussion about I have seen polarize friends and families. I grew up in London, England and have lived in America 8 years.<\/i><\/p>\n
I\u2019m not going to repeat the exact details of what happened on June 14 2016. They were horrifying. 49 people innocent people died because a man who was previously on the terrorist watchlist was able to purchase a weapon. They were shot to death with an AR-15, a kind of assault rifle that\u2019s\u00a0so easily available in states that it\u2019s at first comical and then terrifying to your core. Whether or not he was actually a terrorist, or simply a man with an axe to grind and a murderous intent, is of little value to those who have lost and those they have lost.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m also the guy who hates any and all \u201chow can we find a PR angle?\u201d pieces, but this one is, after a phonecall with a reporter, one that actually might need discussing. It\u2019s terrifyingly polarized, and even I\u2019m scared typing this out that I may have said something critically wrong, despite how many times I\u2019ve read it.<\/p>\n
Most of us are lucky in that we get to pitch dumb things like apps and gadgets. We don\u2019t have to pitch weapons, we don\u2019t have to pitch silencers, we don\u2019t have to pitch things that aid in the taking of or take lives.<\/p>\n
But some of us do. In fact, shortly after the San Bernardino shooting \u2013 the same day, if I\u2019m correct within an hour or so \u2013 a PR firm I won\u2019t name form-pitched out a\u00a0silencer company<\/i>. The pitch was simple:<\/p>\n
Subject: Gun Manufacturer Releases Fall Fashion Line<\/i><\/p>\n
[company], the leading silencer manufacturer is known for its social campaigns and dynamic videos. To continue promoting support for a social culture among 2nd amendment supporters, suppressor owners and hunters alike \u2013 [company] will introduce its Fall Fashion Line.<\/i><\/p>\n
Their explanation was that it was a form pitch, sent by an intern, already cued up.<\/p>\n
They had no answer to my simple question: why would you take on this client?<\/p>\n
If you don\u2019t know what a silencer is, it attaches to a gun and significantly reduces the sound it makes when firing, thus making the person who shot it (and the actual firing of said weapon) hard to hear and identify. The stupid, wrong (if you\u2019re reading this and disagree, I don\u2019t care) response is sometimes \u201cbut I\u2019m using it for hunting.\u201d Yes, there are military uses. I\u2019m discussing civilians here. They\u2019re not legal in some states. In some they are legal for both citizen use and hunting.<\/p>\n
But this is a firm, with I\u2019m imagining over a million dollars a year in revenue, profiting off of the proliferation and intentional fame of a device, attached to a gun, existing for the injury and possible murder of others.<\/p>\n
The politicization of gun rights has overrun the NRA, and pretty much anything you find online to do with guns is focused on either \u201cTHIS GUN SHOOTS THE GOOD BULLETS AT THE BAD MAN, JUST HOW YOU LIKE IT,\u201d or \u201cTHE NOSFERATU OBAMA IS COMING FOR THE GUNS.\u201d<\/p>\n
The problem is that the PR for guns continues to drum-beat this ultra-macho feeling that the gun gives you\u00a0the power<\/i>. This is understandable, but this never changes \u2013 there are two gears, chest-thumping because the gun is so good, or angry flag-waving, saying that taking the guns are bad. What PR is doing is binary and stupid in the gun industry. The NRA is by far the worst.<\/p>\n
The NRA\u2019s PR Messaging Gauntlet \u2013 What Do They Even Want?<\/b><\/p>\n
In the days following the Orlando shooting, the NRA\u2019s website proudly displayed a piece called \u201cThe AR-15: Americans\u2019 Best Defense Against Terror and Crime.\u201d The piece is about a Navy SEAL or somesuch business and how AR-15s are good at shooting. The connotations, the messaging, the\u00a0tone<\/i>\u00a0is such that while they can defend and say \u201coh, we mean uh, the soldiers have it,\u201d if they are really pushed. But read that and tell me \u2013 seriously \u2013 that it doesn\u2019t suggest that it\u2019s\u00a0An American\u2019s<\/i>\u00a0best defense.<\/i>\u00a0You. An American. Your best defense against\u00a0crime<\/i>.\u00a0Terrorism.<\/i>\u00a0Heart strings are pulled, the AR-15 placed on a pedestal marked \u201cnot today, SCUM!\u201d<\/p>\n
The NRA News repeatedly retweets pro-second-amendment statements,\u00a0mobilizing obfuscated, hypocritical statements\u00a0about its future. I won\u2019t dig into their tweets too far because my brain hurts. Nevertheless,\u00a0their firm Ackerman McQueen\u00a0(at least I was able to follow that trail to 2013 \u2013 I\u2019m not sure when) sure seems to have some direction that deviates from the overall message of the NRA.<\/p>\n
Said message is, from their own website:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe National Rifle Association is America\u2019s longest-standing civil rights organization. Together with our more than five million members, we\u2019re proud defenders of history\u2019s patriots and diligent protectors of the Second Amendment.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n
When you Google them, something\u00a0else<\/i>\u00a0comes up under the link to their website:<\/p>\n
\u201c[The NRA\u2019s] Purposes and objectives include protecting the right to keep and bear arms, furthering the shooting sports, marksmanship and safety training, and the promotion of hunter safety.\u201d<\/i><\/p>\n
So, which is it? Who knows. But look at the goals here, compare them between NRA.com (so the first that people would see if they went to the website) and Google\u2019s results (what they\u2019d see if they googled \u201cNRA\u201d), and see what issues there are.<\/p>\n
NRA.com:<\/b><\/p>\n Google Results:<\/b><\/p>\n Their relevance is that if the NRA had any part in making this statement, they\u2019re already<\/p>\n <\/p>\n I don\u2019t know their agency, nor do I know their PR chair, nor do I even know roughly what their goals are. Their tweets are but a small sample of the overall message of the NRA \u2013 their website features a menu with Politics & legislation, programs, news, publications, ring of freedom, membership, membership benefits, events, foundation, museum, store, about the NRA, privacy, careers and regional promotions. Under these categories I could not find a single use of the word safety, not even under \u201cprograms.\u201d I am 100% sure there\u2019re safety courses somewhere. They aren\u2019t prominent and they aren\u2019t there.<\/p>\n At present, I can\u2019t categorize those serving the NRA as acting in the best interests of actual humans if they are willingly allowing the NRA to continue to promote themselves in this manner. There are distinct politics in play, I get it, but let\u2019s make something really abundantly\u00a0fucking clear<\/i>\u00a0that\u2019s unrelated to what side of the debate you are on:<\/p>\n To me the NRA seems focused on one thing, and if that\u2019s what they want to do I wish they\u2019d just fucking stick to it instead of using vague wording and PR obfuscation.<\/p>\n So What Can PR Actually Do?<\/b><\/p>\n If the NRA \u2013 and seriously, if they tried I\u2019d have some begrudging respect \u2013 wants to help here, without the second amendment even being\u00a0discussed<\/b>, there\u2019s a clear answer. The following is the only counsel I think the NRA should be following in their social media presence, because the rest is just a clusterfuck:<\/p>\n 49 people just died, and everyone is calling for a really small movement on your part to back the idea that a terrorist watchlist should stop you getting a gun. Considering how ardently you target an audience that loves to call liberals weak, you\u2019re being pissy little babies over something that literally has no effect on you. It would stop a potential terrorist buying a gun. Come on. Anyway.<\/p>\n Take out the endless stream of anti-Hillary, pro-2A tweets, and replace them with a week-long tweet-fest about gun safety. Say, if you\u2019re worried about your fans suggesting that you\u2019ve gone \u201call liberal\u201d on them, that this isn\u2019t a political statement other than that, as you believe guns are a right, you should also promote their safe use so that people don\u2019t get killed.<\/p>\n I have more ideas too, but they apply to all gun manufacturers.<\/p>\n How To Do This Semi-Right<\/b><\/p>\n This isn\u2019t a piece about whether it\u2019s right or wrong to own a gun beyond what I said in my disclaimer, so I won\u2019t go into that. I will get to the ethics of representation, but if you\u2019re repping a gun manufacturer, or anything gun related, the best thing you can do \u2013\u00a0for both the world and your own image, but really the world<\/b>\u00a0\u2013 is to appeal to your audience to remember gun safety. If you don\u2019t want to promote these things, yeah, you\u2019re a big asshole. If you think a gun is a right, then you should treat it like a car \u2013 you do everything you can both within the law and within the ethics of your own industry to promote its safe and appropriate use.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the industry is entrenched in this weird world where guns can\u2019t be fun (at the range, or for hunting \u2013 this isn\u2019t me saying this is fun for you or me, it\u2019s that they can be, for someone, I hate disclaimers), that they are either there to shoot THE SCUMBAG as he comes into your home to steal your Led Zeppelin CDs or protect your civil rights from some sort of government that comes to take your civil liberties. Sure, dig into Guns & Ammo and you\u2019ll find these things \u2013 but it\u2019s as if these companies\u2026don\u2019t want to promote anything other than the sickly idea that you\u2019re gonna be the hero.<\/i>\u00a0Their Facebook pages love to post gun reviews, or gun pictures, or honor veterans. Rarely do they discuss safety, or nailing a target at 250FT with iron sights by some dude in Iowa, which would be both cool\u00a0and<\/i>\u00a0not violent (depending on how you view guns, that is), or training.<\/p>\n Every mass-shooting and god, does writing that make me\u00a0physically sick<\/i>, you need to go through the basics of gun safety. Hell, every month, for a week or at least a\u00a0day<\/i>, you should go through such things as:<\/p>\n There\u2019s an argument against some of this that we\u2019d be training some sort of future militia, or future terrorist, or future murderer. The sad truth is that without any education they are still out there, and they will still hurt people until the laws get in their way.<\/p>\n Even if you are the furthest thing from a gun rights advocate, you want anyone owning a gun to be as safe with it as possible. If you are a gun rights advocate, working in PR, or anywhere really, if you\u00a0truly\u00a0<\/i>want to make a change quickly \u2013 look to create as many safe gun owners as possible. If somehow you walk into somewhere and that person has their gun and the barrel is pointed even near a person, even if its action is open and there\u2019s not a single bullet near it, ask them to turn the barrel away.<\/p>\n The Ethical Issue<\/b><\/p>\n Ethically, I don\u2019t accept gun or gun-related clients. I\u2019d talk to a pro-registration client, but I\u2019d need to be 100% sure I was capable, and my team was capable, of working for them. I don\u2019t know what it\u2019d look like.<\/p>\n What I do know is that it\u2019s wholly unethical to represent any gun-related organization without focusing heavily on education, safety and the ramifications of owning a weapon. Sig Sauer\u2019s\u00a0own website\u00a0says that \u201cSIG SAUER\u00ae world renowned\u00a0firearms<\/b>\u00a0are the\u00a0weapons<\/b>\u00a0of choice for many of the premier global military, law enforcement and commercial users.\u201d Emphasis mine again.<\/p>\n The point is, they sell weapons. Gun manufacturers sell weapons. As a result, they should be treating their PR strategy, whatever that is, to promote their thing (which is their job, agree with it or not) but also to retain their responsibility to the public by making sure they are well-educated in its use.<\/p>\n However, a quick google of \u201csig sauer press release safety\u201d\u00a0came up with this as the first result.\u00a0The \u201cshut the fuck up when a mass shooting\u00a0happens\u201d response is admirable only in its ability to not get pilloried by the public, but any time this happens, every manufacturer, if they have the fucking\u00a0balls<\/i>\u00a0to admit something horrible could happen with a weapon, should put out a thing saying they are sorry that X people died, and that every gun owner, regardless of political affiliation, should remember key safety features.<\/p>\n Yes, these are ideas could be crocodile tears from a company that may not care \u2013 I\u2019m not even accusing them of that. They may truly not know. They may truly care but not have intelligent counsel.<\/p>\n The point is they aren\u2019t doing it.<\/p>\n Ethically, if someone\u00a0thinks it\u2019s okay<\/i>\u00a0to represent a gun company, which is their choice, and happens, and you will never stop it happening, the only response in the face of tragedy is education, if they are not willing to stand with legislation. And their job, beyond that, is the continuous education and discussion with their followers and fans and any and all gun owners.<\/p>\n If you promote companies that make things like silencers to civilians \u2013 things that have no real purpose other than to make it easier to cause human harm \u2013 just go to hell. Ah, forget I said that, you\u2019re on the way already.<\/p>\n If you disagree, I don\u2019t know what to tell you. This isn\u2019t like a monitor or a keyboard. It\u2019s not like if someone doesn\u2019t get how to use a keyboard or an app they\u2019ll have a gaping hole in their chest, one that will likely permanently harm or kill them. Your intent may be to sell more machines to deliver, with speed and power, objects that are intended to cause damage, but your duty to humanity is to make sure, as best you can, that you\u2019re also promoting how to use them safely.<\/p>\n And no, your vacuous, backward analogy of \u201cwell car manufacturers don\u2019t do that!\u201d is irrelevant. To quote my friend Phil Broughton, \u201cthe good counter-point to this argument is the manufacturer\u2019s intent. Yes, cars may kill but no manufacturer makes a proud statement of their vehicle\u2019s performance in pedestrian collision or Chevrolet ROADMASTER(tm) Roadkill Traction Correction technology.\u201d<\/p>\n The problem with the world we\u2019re in is no matter how terrible or volatile or dangerous a thing is, there will always be someone out there to promote it. The PR industry can\u2019t pretend it doesn\u2019t represent weaponry. It can\u2019t deny the damage that guns have done to people. It can\u2019t deny that many of these companies are ill-represented and should be doing things differently.\u2019<\/p>\n Or we can keep plugging our ears and pretend there isn\u2019t an issue.<\/p>\n Ed Zitron is the CEO of\u00a0<\/i>EZPR<\/i>, a San Francisco and New York based public relations firm. He wrote the best-selling This Is How You Pitch and has been named one of Business Insider\u2019s top 50 PR People in technology three years running, which is why he mentioned it in the piece. His next book, Fire Your Publicist, will be out when he feels like it, also as an audiobook read by James Frain.<\/i><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Author\u2019s Disclaimer: I am not a member of the NRA. I do not work for nor have ever worked for … <\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n