While Metcalf may have provided valid and informed arguments in favor of gun regulations, Guns & Ammo readers were still displeased, unsurprisingly. The magazine and its content has always supported the Second Amendment, in turn attracting pro-Second Amendment readers who strongly believe any gun regulations encroach on their rights to bear arms. What were Guns & Ammo editors thinking when they published the editorial publicizing gun regulations?
Editor Jim Bequette claims he believed the editorial would generate healthy debate. Instead, the piece generated a great deal of unhealthy backlash for the Guns & Ammo organization. From a PR perspective, it appears Metcalf, Bequette and the rest of the editorial staff lost sight of the No. 1 communications rule: know your target audience.
Taking the politics out of the situation, this is like Country Living magazine writing about the best cities to live in or Fitness magazine writing about new delicious deals at McDonald's. They wouldn't (or at least they shouldn't). Why? Because these topics completely defy what the publications stand for. Country Living readers don't live in cities. Fitness readers don't eat McDonald's. Guns & Ammo readers don't support gun regulations. Guns & Ammo let their readers down this week because they lost sight of their audience's interests and values.
While an editorial setting up a well thought out argument for gun control may be appropriate for "Time Magazine", "Guns & Ammo" was the most inappropriate place for that editorial to go. While I like to read opposing views on subjects I'm passionate about, not every person wants to know the oppositions opinion. Knowing what your readers want, such as thought provoking material versus an editorial that is a crisis in the making, is something that every magazine should aspire to. This lapse of judgement makes it appear that "Guns & Ammo" doesn't know their target audience or, worse, doesn't care about the wants and needs of their target audience.
ReplyDeleteWow, that is very interesting. I wouldn't pick that as the best place to talk about gun control in "Guns & Ammo". While I think you need to know you're audience and know what they like, you also need to know what they don't like. Bad move and I am glad the subscribers used social media to voice their displeasure.
ReplyDeleteI actually wrote about the same thing, and I mostly agree with what you say here. It's not that the substance of the editorial was necessarily bad, but unfortunately the audience wasn't right for it. At this point, it does seem like the magazine would know its audience better.
ReplyDelete