Radio Shack’s Firearms Einstein
by jhwygirl
Funny. New story up late last night on the free-gun-with-Dish Satellite guy who franchises a Radio Shack down in Hamilton Montana.
Seems he didn’t work things out with Radio Shack or Dish Network – neither sound too happy.
But free-gun-with-Dish Satellite guy is pushing on, saying he isn’t going to stop. He changed his Radio Shack sign, but he’s now added the name of the website he created to explain the offer: getagun dot net.
Not only that – he said that he was planning on using DirectTV satellite as the next offer, while a company spokesperson has said ‘No thanks.’
Even more? Free-gun-with-Dish Satellite guy is planning on lowering the qualifications for the free firearm.
What to say…what to say?
I’d really really love to hear why Radio Shack and Dish Network and DirectTV are wrong to tell him he has to stop. Any conservatives want to justify that one?
-
Recent Comments
petetalbot on Who Can Can Engstrom? petetalbot on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Who Can Can Engstrom… on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Steve W on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ryan Morton on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ryan Morton on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ingemar Johansson on Is UM Discriminating Against F…
March 30, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Maybe he should offer some choices like maybe a couple of spears or a silencer.
March 30, 2011 at 8:59 pm
or an atlatl.
March 30, 2011 at 9:54 pm
OK.. I was confused – until I actually read the article and went back and read the original article.
The owner DID clear the offer with Dish Network. According to the original article (and two of the followup articles), the owner spent months in negotiations with Dish Network prior to the promotion.
The trouble appears to be with Radio Shack. According to the article, as an Independant Owner, he did not feel he was required to clear it with Radio Shack.
The mention of Direct TV is simply to a planned similar promotion for Direct TV. Direct TV has informed the owner that they do not want such a promotion to be made with their company. The article did not mention anything about Dish Network contacting the owner one way or the other following the media bruhaha about the offer.
What I find interesting, is that no where in the article has there been any mention of a law being broken. In fact, I can’t find any applicable law other than maybe some contractual agreement between the owner and Radio Shack that would prevent the owner from doing this.
By “lowering the requirements”, the article is talking about what sales threshhold is necessary to recieve the firearm. The owner cannot change state or federal law when it comes to gun purchases (and this qualifies as a gun purchase by ATF rules).
Again, this seems like a lot of noise and drama over a simple (though controversial) sales promotion. I see it no different than the hundreds, if not thousands of gun raffles held in Montana each year. Each of those raffles has a sponsor, and most of them benefit some charity. If you don’t have a problem with the raffles, what is the big deal about this promotion?
March 31, 2011 at 3:09 am
“Any conservatives want to justify that one?”
Simple.
Unless there is an express or implied contract to the contrary between the parties, both Radio Shack and Dish Network have a right to protect their brand identities by monitoring and controling the use of their trademarked names by their franchisees. Their franchise agreements most likely spell out the requirements for notification and obtaining approval for running ad campaigns and may give them broad discretion in determining what is permissable.
Large companies operating across broad state, national and international jurisdictional lines and marketing their goods and services to diverse cultural and demographic target groups tend to be restrictive in the types of promotions used by their franchisees.
They might be equally reluctant to allow ad promotions giving away certificates for free medical marijuana, alcohol, hunting licenses, or cute puppies.
I can understand large national and international companies controling their brand names. I find it difficuly to understand why so many people representing the Montana Left are so out of touch with the hunting and sports culture of this state that they would make such a big deal out of this.
This is just one more reason why the Left continues to wander in the political wilderness of Montanaand has so little real influence in state wide politics.