# This is nauseating....



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

No, you're not off base, but you're trying to compare 2 wildly different sports, from the general public's point of view.

Curling has it all over archery as a spectator sport. You have strategy, time for discussion, personalities interacting, and you can see what's happening leading to a sense of building tension and excitement. And last but not least, everyone all over the world plays by the same rules.

Archery is phenomenally dull to watch (to a non-archer) because you can't see what's happening. It's kind of like watching two people roll dice. Looks the same, and the result just happens without any sort of anticipation. 

And to make it even less interesting, outside the Olympics, there are dozens of different equipment categories and rounds, and dozens of different "champions". You can't really cheer for one personal favorite athlete or team because no matter what he wins, there are a dozen other people winning the same medal.

Marketing is great, but you have to have a marketable product. Unfortunately, archery is and will continue to be a "novelty" sport in the eyes of the general public, and that's ultimately where the cash comes from.


----------



## DariusXV (Feb 18, 2009)

Excellent point.

Did you enjoy the 2008 Olympic coverage? Did you enjoy NBC's virtual monopoly of it? 

This is why I like Carbon Express arrows and hope that competition will continue on ....STRONG. It ain't American, but it is a viable alternative.

Too much dependence on ANY particular manufacturer has a backroom/boardroom tendency to stagnate.

What would you suggest for promotion?


----------



## TER (Jul 5, 2003)

I don't understand why this makes you sick. They worked to promote their sport and got good results. Maybe replace "nauseating" with "inspiring."


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Interspersed.



Stash said:


> No, you're not off base, but you're trying to compare 2 wildly different sports, from the general public's point of view.


So's softball and hockey, but Newsweek did a comparison between both sports' long term Olympic viability earlier this week. 



> Curling has it all over archery as a spectator sport. You have strategy, time for discussion, personalities interacting, and you can see what's happening leading to a sense of building tension and excitement. And last but not least, everyone all over the world plays by the same rules.


I'll agree to that.



> Archery is phenomenally dull to watch (to a non-archer) because you can't see what's happening. It's kind of like watching two people roll dice. Looks the same, and the result just happens without any sort of anticipation.


I play craps all the time. It's the rules that make things exciting. 



> And to make it even less interesting, outside the Olympics, there are dozens of different equipment categories and rounds, and dozens of different "champions". You can't really cheer for one personal favorite athlete or team because no matter what he wins, there are a dozen other people winning the same medal.


True. But just like Wide World of Sports, editing helped simplify things. Look at Paul Bunyan games?



> Marketing is great, but you have to have a marketable product. Unfortunately, archery is and will continue to be a "novelty" sport in the eyes of the general public, and that's ultimately where the cash comes from.


And curling isn't novelty? Logging games isn't novelty? Heck, not much has changed with a double bitted axe, yet those guys make far more on ESPN2 than most archers do.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

DariusXV said:


> Excellent point.
> 
> Did you enjoy the 2008 Olympic coverage? Did you enjoy NBC's virtual monopoly of it?
> 
> ...


I've said it before - everyone likes destruction. Its in human nature. 

Even curling has some sort of nastiness to it. 

I've mentioned various things in the past. All of them would have appeal, and would promote archery to where it gets on TV. 

Football reinvented itself to include the forward pass. Basketball reinvented itself to have dribbling. Even the simple footrace of eons ago has expanded to long distance, short distance, hurdles, steeplechase, etc. 

Archery needs to reinvent itself. It's at a cusp where it has to. 

-Steve
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

TER said:


> I don't understand why this makes you sick. They worked to promote their sport and got good results. Maybe replace "nauseating" with "inspiring."


It makes me sick when archery isn't marketing themselves. 

I have friends who are asking for airline points in order to make it to matches. Yet curling got enough for each individual curler to where if a US archer got that amount, they could hit all of their requisite shoots. 

Its sick when I see nothing being done to rectify that. Its sick when I see no one actively going outside of the box to promote the sport. 

I'll give you all one example of 'out of the box' thinking. How many of you have thought of working with your local film commission or festival to do an archery tie-in with the upcoming film 'Robin Hood' with Russell Crowe?

I have. And I've already talked with the Phoenix Film Commission about it. Thankfully, at this time Universal is deciding whether or not to tie in local sneak previews with the Arizona State Archery Association. 

I shouldn't be doing this type of work on a local level. I can guarantee you that if someone from USA Archery called instead of little 'ole me and my friend from the film commission, Universal wouldn't be hemming and hawing - they would say yes at the drop of a hat. 

This is what makes me sick. 

-Steve
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## toptox (Jul 9, 2008)

Talking of promotion - from our club's Facebook page:

"Actress and BAIP graduate Stana Katic is featured on page 41 of the March 2010 issue of Shape magazine. Stana is the star of ABC Television’s “Castle” program, seen on Monday nights at 10:00 PM. Stana enjoys archery and tries to get out to the range when ever her schedule allows. We’re pleased that she chose the PRA archery range as the site to shoot this spread. Pick up a copy of the March issue of Shape and see how she includes archery as part of her fitness program." (I've not seen the article yet).

and last year "Women's Health Magazine" promoted our range in a section entitled "Urban Escapes: Cool outdoor adventures inside your city limits".

Unorthodox but widens exposure to archery.

Gary


----------



## Steve N (Apr 27, 2004)

Marketing archery has to start on a grass-roots level. USA Archery doesn't have pot or a window when it comes to funds, so its up to the clubs to get archery in front of the public.

Beastmaster's tie in with Robin Hood is a great idea, but someone has to push it. In this case, it sounds like he has a friend on the film commission, so he had a leg up on anyone else trying this. But all it would take is a few phone calls. By the way, I haven't even seen or heard of this new "Robin Hood" movie.

How many market their local clubs, trying to get more archers shooting? How many would like to see 75-100 club members every Saturday at club shoots? How many can handle the responsibility of running a club that big? How many want to let "outsiders" in to their clubs? How many place ads in the local paper, push for local newspaper coverage, put up flyers, all to try to increase the number of archers? How many are friendly towards new archers, and really talk to new members their first time on the range?

The media isn't going to take notice of archery unless there is some buzz they feel will sell papers/magazines/TV ads. It is going to have to be a bottom-up push.

USA Archery needs to capitalize on Stana Katic's feature in Shape and see if they get her to promote archery, not just to USAA members, but to the general public. It seems to me they dropped the ball when Geena Davis was trying for the Olympics.


----------



## Progen (Mar 17, 2006)

Maybe it's something way way simpler like someone happens to like curling and he's real tight with someone high up at the media station OR someone high up there likes curling?


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

Progen said:


> Maybe it's something way way simpler like someone happens to like curling and he's real tight with someone high up at the media station OR someone high up there likes curling?


It is something simpler, but not what you think. It's what Stash said up front: target archery as a spectator sport inherently dull. For you or me, the Vegas coverage is exciting, but for somebody not familiar with the sport, watching Dietmar Trillus shoot against other compound greats, watching one arrow after another hit the x-ring, time and again, gets tedious. 

It's about as exciting as watching a top Korean archer. The only thing that's gonna be exciting is what's unexpected, like one of them shooting a 5!:mg:

Now, don't excommunicate me, but I think trick shooters like Byron Ferguson do more to make archery appealing to the general public. You want folks to watch an archery tournament, then shoot archery trap with flu flus. There you can actually see something happening. Then have them make those shots while moving themselves, say on horseback (or a simulated horse back, or out of a moving pick-up truck).

Or, as I've written on a number of threads, set up a field tournament and cover it like you would a golf tournament! Spectators just don't get the challenge of hitting the 10 ring at 70m when neither target nor archer is moving. Why do you think that archery hunting shows are so popular?


----------



## moot (Jul 10, 2009)

I find curling exciting to watch because it requires skill & technique (like archery), easy to understand and see (archery requires a scope), strategy (archery has no strategy), teamwork (variety of positions archery doesn't), and both offense & defense (unlike archery). Also athletes like Nicole Joraanstad are easy on the eyes making watching that much more enjoyable. By comparison archery is pretty single dimensional compared to curling. Besides, the pop-belly guys that I shoot with aren't very pretty to see. Nevertheless, I support archery and enjoy shooting with my buddies on Sat morning.

http://curling.teamusa.org/athletes/nicole-joraanstad


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

As usual, Stash is correct.

Archery in it's present form is virtually unmarketable. Even my own family won't come to watch an event. That's pretty bad. 

ZERO strategy, ZERO anticipation, ZERO ability to follow or create "favorites" in this crap-shoot O.R. format, etc., etc.

I've said for years that until we can find a way to defend our own targets, we won't get any kind of coverage. I don't know why on earth we can't have a shooting tree where a hit will flip the target to the competitor's side. This style of competition has been used in pistols and rifles for many years. It is exciting to watch, unlike the mind-numbing stuff we do now.

We're already battling the "weapon" stigma, and that's bad enough...

John.


----------



## Z-MAN (Jan 25, 2004)

Archery has become a disfunctional sport. Too many disciplines in the the sport having different rules, regulations and divisions. Even the coaching aspect of the sport has become too complex for the simple act of shooting a bow and arrow. How many N.A.A., N.F.A.A., I.B.O. ,I.N.F.A.A. local and regional shoots and instructional coaches do you know of in your area?


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

ESPNRise magaine just did a 3-page article on Holly Stover (MI). Holly won the USAA 2009 National Indoor, was on the World Indoor Team in the Jr. Division and is a JDT Member who won a Silver Medal in the El Salvador Olympic Archery Festival in Mixed Team Competition. Holly is the Cover Story for the March edition. It's out already.

Another magazine did a spread on Matt Zumbo, another young archer who is rising to the top.

Is this a start? I think it is. You have to have the human interest first. Marketing by showing what our young archers are doing is where we need to start. Some national sport magazines are taking an interest.


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

Z-MAN said:


> Archery has become a disfunctional sport. Too many disciplines in the the sport having different rules, regulations and divisions. Even the coaching aspect of the sport has become too complex for the simple act of shooting a bow and arrow. How many N.A.A., N.F.A.A., I.B.O. ,I.N.F.A.A. local and regional shoots and instructional coaches do you know of in your area?


You forgot ASA, NASP, Boy Scouts, 4H...

That isn't the problem. Get more archers on the cover of national magazines and in the local papers and on local TV and you'll have to enlarge your range no matter what brand of archery you shoot.


----------



## toptox (Jul 9, 2008)

John,

Interesting you should mention a shooting tree - we have a very similar device that one of our members made up. It is a vertical row of targets - if you hit one it flips to the other side. You can see a photo of Robert and his creation here:

http://lambert-drive.smugmug.com/Archery/Oct09Potluck/10011988_pEBME#685098713_ghjxo

Gary


----------



## Sturdyman (Oct 30, 2009)

I find archery to be very exciting. I watched a match that was in Europe that had teams. Compound, Oly Recurve, and Bare-bow Recurve would shoot. If I remember correctly the match came down to a shoot off where each team had their best archer compete to break the tie. It was set up like golf with galleries and the announcers with the hushed voices. 

TV allows for the super slow motion replay with the great shots of the cavetating arrow leaving the rest. The movement of the limbs of an Oly recurve after the shot. During intermision you could have trick shot artists show their stuff. Maden can use the telestrator to teach the public about the spine of an arrow or the danger of exploding arrows and limbs.

It can be done. It has to be an event. Like the major sports the youth archers would compete for prize money or sponsorship. 

What do you think.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Gary, that's what I mean. Something like that.

In SKI-Archery, they have targets they shoot off the top of a rail. Everyone can see what's going on and it's easy to keep track. A shooting tree for elimination matches would be great IMO.

I mean, half the time at a major U.S. event, the majority of spectators (and other archers) have no idea who is winning a match. God forbid you show up at an event without binoculars or a scope! 

It wouldn't have to be a race either. Each archer could be given six shots to move six "targets" over to his opponent's side of the tree. After two ends, the person with the fewest targets left on their side wins. And everyone could see exactly what's going on. 

It would also be great if we did this at a reasonable distance. That would bascially remove the need to for ultra-high-cost arrows and put competitions within reach of the average person. Something like an 8 cm. target at 30 meters would work for the senior recurve archers. We could have replaceable target arms to install different sized targets for different divisions, or the tree could be moved closer for the younger archers...

John.


----------



## archerymom2 (Mar 28, 2008)

ldfalks said:


> ESPNRise magaine just did a 3-page article on Holly Stover (MI). Holly won the USAA 2009 National Indoor, was on the World Indoor Team in the Jr. Division and is a JDT Member who won a Silver Medal in the El Salvador Olympic Archery Festival in Mixed Team Competition. Holly is the Cover Story for the March edition. It's out already.
> 
> Another magazine did a spread on Matt Zumbo, another young archer who is rising to the top.
> 
> Is this a start? I think it is. You have to have the human interest first. Marketing by showing what our young archers are doing is where we need to start. Some national sport magazines are taking an interest.



Boy's Life magazine is going to do an article on 3 Junior Dream Team members who are also Boy Scouts (Chris Luman and Daniel and Sean McLaughlin). Watch for it -- scheduled for the June edition!


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

Beastmaster said:


> So's softball and hockey, but Newsweek did a comparison between both sports' long term Olympic viability earlier this week.
> ......
> I play craps all the time. It's the rules that make things exciting.
> ......
> ...


Hockey is a viable sport in the Olympics because it's played in a very large number of countries at a high level. Softball is pretty much an American-only sport and it's generally recreational. I didn't read the article, but I can assume what it concluded. 

I didn't say "craps", I said "dice". Craps has some excitement, but that's because there is money on the line. I was trying to picture watching two people roll one die at a time for total points. 

Curling is a bit of a novelty, but although it is more popular internationally than you might realize, at least people will watch it because there's something to watch. Not so with archery.

Never heard of the Paul Bunyan games. Doubt if anyone in the UK, China or Norway has heard of the either, but they all curl.


----------



## Stash (Jun 1, 2002)

limbwalker said:


> As usual, Stash is correct.
> 
> John.


Can I put you down as a reference? :lol:


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

ldfalks said:


> ...Get more archers on the cover of national magazines and in the local papers and on local TV and you'll have to *enlarge your range *no matter what brand of archery you shoot.


Bold for emphasis.
I think the only thing limiting target archery is having enough people start and lead programs and clubs. I don’t know any area that has too many clubs. The exception is the area that has a for pay club and a free club. The free club doesn’t realized that they hinder the growth of target archery because a business plan can’t depend on giving service away. When the free club volunteers eventually retire, or children move on, the equipment begins to collect dust, club dies and it takes a few years before someone discovers the stack of equipment in the corner and wonders if a youth archery program might be nice, not knowing what they are getting into.

We need to value what instructors, coaches and club leader provide as a service and expertise and pay them so that more will want to do the same. By having more leaders, instructors and coaches, there will be support needed to support all of the kids that would like to get into archery and parents that would like to get their children in a sport program. Curling shows that the community is hungry for youth sports or any sport for that matter. 

In the big picture, we want archers that value the sport. We want participants that want to be archer, not just want to take part in something because its free. 

But Bob, what of the youth that has talent, drive, but no funding. 
Yes indeed. When instructors, coaches and clubs are paid they can offer “scholarships”. I always like it when something is “earned” vs. given for free. I think it helps to development character. Giving archery away cheapens it. 

But Bob, we need to offer free expos to show the public archery.
Yes also. Expos, clinics are great ways of promoting. For instance, Parks and Rec Departments offer activity expo fairs where the public can try all sorts of things for free. Some then move on to take a 8 week session for a nominal fee to see if they like it and if they have talent and interest. After the Parks and Rec program, promising students are invited to take part in a year around youth archery program. Anything sound familiar?

Think of the Expo as Scouts, NASP or a DNR Outdoor fairs.
Think of a Parks and Recreation class as the NFAA/USAA/ASA ASAP program
See JOAD as that year around program that actually costs something to sustain. 
Have JOAD clubs offer expos and conduct inexpensive 8 week ASAP like programs to help grow the sport and contribute to the community.


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

archerymom2 said:


> Boy's Life magazine is going to do an article on 3 Junior Dream Team members who are also Boy Scouts (Chris Luman and Daniel and Sean McLaughlin). Watch for it -- scheduled for the June edition!


Awesome!!!


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

Hey after watching just one evening of USA Womens Curling, I know all their names. 

I couldn't tell you any of the women on the last US Olympic Archery Team.


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

limbwalker said:


> Gary, that's what I mean. Something like that.
> 
> In SKI-Archery, they have targets they shoot off the top of a rail. Everyone can see what's going on and it's easy to keep track. A shooting tree for elimination matches would be great IMO.
> 
> ...


John, what will you call the game...Tree-D? Be careful or someone will complain that you have further fragmented the game by trying to make it interesting.

I think that anything that causes someone to pick up a bow and remain in the sport for an extended period of time is a GOOD thing, regardless of which fragment of the discipline they cling to. ASA, IBO, NAA, NFAA, Boy Scouts, 4H...they're all good as long as someone buys a bow and eventually signs up for some kind of a tournament. Oh yes, and eventually pays for some of what they are getting to do so we can keep the club in business.

This is a big sport and I think we need to exploit every media opprotunity.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Stash said:


> Curling has it all over archery as a spectator sport. You have strategy, time for discussion, personalities interacting, and you can see what's happening leading to a sense of building tension and excitement. And last but not least, everyone all over the world plays by the same rules.


Sad to say, but true. With curling, tv has an opportunity for story telling. There is strategy and the chance for game changing reversals. There is no game strategy in target archery. The goal is always to hit the center of the target. The comparison to rolling dice is an apt one from a spectator's perspective. Note how we have televised poker, which has a human element and game strategy, but not televised craps.

I like archery, don't get me wrong, but target archery will never make compelling television. The hit or miss target just makes it worse, BTW, because instead of rolling dice you are now just flipping a coin: in or out.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

toptox said:


> John,
> 
> Interesting you should mention a shooting tree - we have a very similar device that one of our members made up. It is a vertical row of targets - if you hit one it flips to the other side. You can see a photo of Robert and his creation here:
> 
> ...


Gary, that's acutally a very old machine. Talk to the older shooters - It was called the speed round I believe. You have one side, your opponent has the other. You shoot your side to flip the targets arround to the other archer. After so long, who ever has the least number of targets on their side wins. It was huge in Vegas. I remember as a kid one of those sitting in the corner of the archery shop that I learned in many many years ago. I think I can even remember watching a round being shot. They finally couldn't find replacement rubber shooting cups and retired it to the dumpster I think.

Wow, am I showing my age now or what? LOL


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Well, curling does have the two things archery lacks (and that spectators want to see...) 1) Strategy, and 2) the ability to affect your opponent's result.

We need both of those in archery. This isn't rocket science. We just have to be willing to think out of the box a little. And it's a very tight box we've put ourselves in IMO, which is why I play so much golf... 

John.


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

limbwalker said:


> Well, curling does have the two things archery lacks (and that spectators want to see...) 1) Strategy, and 2) the ability to affect your opponent's result.
> 
> We need both of those in archery. This isn't rocket science. We just have to be willing to think out of the box a little. And it's a very tight box we've put ourselves in IMO, which is why I play so much golf...
> 
> John.


Now we just have to decide how and with what, we're going to block shots with.:smile:


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Well, of course I'm not talking about LITERALLY defending your target... Although that would probably bring in more viewers - but only until all the good archers are killed... LOL!

No, what I mean is - like a shooting tree - we need to have an opportunity to affect our competitor's actions. Force them to respond in a real-time, visible way to what we are (or aren't) doing.

John.


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2010)

the move to this type of round will be a great task to achieve since it will look like more of a carnival game than the accepted norm of choosing a winner. I did infact play this game at a bowhunter jamboree many years ago it was a fun speed round a novelty. We are simply getting the cart before the horse, each club should have someone each week submitt articles on archery, from special interests to league scores anything and everything. My home town paper actually had an archery section each week for league score tournamnet wins local archery stories, when I moved that no long was there since nobody kept it going. IMO we are no where near any type of marketing venue since we have nothing to market nationaly that would be of any real long term service. We have a gazillion different org all claiming to be the best thing, we have 4 orgs that host a World 3D champs and two of those have never held it outside the US, if you think this doesn't leave the non archery media scratching their heads you mistaken. Curling same rules,one world body,one national body for each country and you can actually see what is happening in real time,sorry but archery is in its infancy to being a viable marketing product


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

Sean McKenty said:


> the move to this type of round will be a great task to achieve since it will look like more of a carnival game than the accepted norm of choosing a winner. I did infact play this game at a bowhunter jamboree many years ago it was a fun speed round a novelty. We are simply getting the cart before the horse, each club should have someone each week submitt articles on archery, from special interests to league scores anything and everything. My home town paper actually had an archery section each week for league score tournamnet wins local archery stories, when I moved that no long was there since nobody kept it going. IMO we are no where near any type of marketing venue since we have nothing to market nationaly that would be of any real long term service. We have a gazillion different org all claiming to be the best thing, we have 4 orgs that host a World 3D champs and two of those have never held it outside the US, if you think this doesn't leave the non archery media scratching their heads you mistaken. Curling same rules,one world body,one national body for each country and you can actually see what is happening in real time,sorry but archery is in its infancy to being a viable marketing product


Who holds World 3D championships?


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

a lot of valid points have been raised about archery marketing here...

but unless i am greatly mistaken the competition process of archery vs the rifle/pistol shooting events is not that much different except for the equipment used, the size of the venue and the time involved..

but the process is basically the same--ie--an elimination round followed by the finals but without head to head matches..

how popular are these shooting events? are they also having funding/exposure problems?...perhaps their organization is more effective in marketing their sport?

just wondering...


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

jmvargas said:


> how popular are these shooting events? are they also having funding/exposure problems?...perhaps their organization is more effective in marketing their sport?
> 
> just wondering...


Hmm...from what I gather the fastest growing firearms sport is Cowboy Action Shooting, which has timed events, dynamic targets, etc and which uses a full range of firearms, pistol, rifle and shotgun. 

In any case, I don't think that any of the pure, static paper target competitions are interesting for a general audience. They represent incredible skill and accomplishment, but they are all inherently un-telegenic. What would the color commentary sound like?

"Oh, that looks like he just got a nine. What do you think his strategy on the next shot will be?

"I think he'll try and hit the center of the target."

"A perfect shot! I wonder he plans for his next round?

"I think he'll try and hit the center of the target."

"What do you suppose his competitor's strategy is going to be?

"I think they'll try and hit the center of the target."


I think that for archery to be telegenic it needs to have some sort of contingent actions, where something you do changes how you'll have to approach a future action, as is the case with pool, bowling and golf. Whereas with target archery every shot is approached the same way: try to hit the center of the target.


----------



## Sturdyman (Oct 30, 2009)

You could have an archery compatition similar to basketball's hoarse. The lead archer calls the shot. Different unknown angles and distances.

I still think Field Archery is fine for televised sports with a gallery like golf. My nephews love watching the tournaments on You Tube. It is just a matter of local interest with the proper marketing at all levels.

Go into the city with a grant from Recreation and Parks. Set up a camp and have a few festivals. Invite the next city's youth for a competition. It will be hard work but nothing worth doing is easy.

I do not like this woe is our sport attitude at all. My club has a youth program Saturday mornings. When we have our shoots we invite the youngsters along with their families. We turn it into one big family event.


----------



## tjk009 (Feb 15, 2007)

*look at the bright side*

OK, we can agree coverage of archery is minimal, and numerous folks have complained we can't see scores for weeks sometimes, even on important gigs. If we can't market ourselves who is going to take us seriously. A bright spot is that in the last year three major companies, and numerous small ones, have come out with new recurve risers and limbs. That makes a real difference to the sport and shows that it is growing and stable enough folks are willing to pour money into it. Unfortunately, American culture revolves around the cover of the Wheaties box and perhaps with Brady and Jake shooting like they are maybe archery will gain attention in 2012.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

am watching the women's curling gold medal match live right now and i must say the tv coverage is pretty good...

a lot of action, close-up shots,interesting commentaries from the players and announcers,colorful uniforms and good looking ladies... 

hope we can learn from all this...


----------



## moot (Jul 10, 2009)

Warbow said:


> ...What do you think his strategy on the next shot will be?
> 
> "I think he'll try and hit the center of the target."
> 
> ...


Well put.
:77:

I never thought about color commentary for archery, but I think you just hit the nail on the head. Makes golf and bowling almost seem interesting.


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2010)

ldfalks said:


> Who holds World 3D championships?


Fita/IFAA/IBO/ASA (World Classic), not sure if they still use that name or not anymore


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

jmvargas said:


> a lot of valid points have been raised about archery marketing here...
> 
> but unless i am greatly mistaken the competition process of archery vs the rifle/pistol shooting events is not that much different except for the equipment used, the size of the venue and the time involved..
> 
> ...


I also instruct in the other shooting sport, and have done so for a while now.

Stuff like Cowboy Action Shooting, the Wild Bunch, and the recent Thompson/1920's shooting scenarios have reinvigorated a lot of the pistol/rifle stuff.

Now, bringing up the other shooting sport, it's really funny how segues occur.

I got this in the mail today. I get one every year from USA Shooting and donate to it. And if USA Archery did something like this, I would donate too.

-Steve


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

Sean McKenty said:


> Fita/IFAA/IBO/ASA (World Classic), not sure if they still use that name or not anymore


ASA is just the Championship Classic. We're not so arrogant as to call our shoot a World Championship.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Huntmaster said:


> Gary, that's acutally a very old machine. Talk to the older shooters - It was called the speed round I believe. You have one side, your opponent has the other. You shoot your side to flip the targets arround to the other archer. After so long, who ever has the least number of targets on their side wins. It was huge in Vegas. I remember as a kid one of those sitting in the corner of the archery shop that I learned in many many years ago. I think I can even remember watching a round being shot. They finally couldn't find replacement rubber shooting cups and retired it to the dumpster I think.
> 
> Wow, am I showing my age now or what? LOL


I knew it was arround somewhere. Called Saco. Saunders invented it back in the early 70's.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Huntmaster said:


> I knew it was arround somewhere. Called Saco. Saunders invented it back in the early 70's.


Interesting. Requires bunny blunts, though.

http://www.sausa.com/product.php?product_pk1=16


----------



## Guest (Feb 27, 2010)

Warbow said:


> Interesting. Requires bunny blunts, though.
> 
> http://www.sausa.com/product.php?product_pk1=16


Makes one wonder what it would look like walking up to the line at the World Champs and seeing that at the end of the lane, like the hit/miss target winning it I would expect someone to hand me a stuffed animal and cotton candy


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

From what I've heard, when it was popular in Vegas, the spectators were present like todays shoot off crowd, but you couldn't hear yourself think from all the cheering. Sounds like it was quite an event.

I saw the old Saco tree again tonight at the range......guess he didn't dumpster it after all. Maybe someone would like to host an exhibition event and start a new trend? 

Just imagine - speed round, where you have X seconds to shoot as many as you could? How about a hit / miss with 3 arrows per end, and the winner has the fewest targets showing? Pretty visual. Try that at 50M. There's your answer to visual aids. Now all we gotta do is get a rubber blunt that will go through a clicker


----------



## Brock Samson (Jul 13, 2009)

Beastmaster said:


> I've said it before - everyone likes destruction. Its in human nature.
> 
> Even curling has some sort of nastiness to it._Posted via Mobile Device_


Two words - explosive broadheads.  Ever see the Rambo movies? Everyone remembers him using that bow! Limbwalker suggests defensible targets. What about having a team event where there are archers who shoot for points, and each team has an archer that basically tries to blow up the other team's targets, causing them to lose any points that are in the part of the target that gets blasted. Of course, I know this would never happen, but man, I think it'd be pretty hilarious to see a bunch of recurvers with camo bows hunkered down in bunkers in war dress and face paint trying to dominate the battlefield. Maybe if they used flaming broadheads instead of exploding ones....


----------



## viperarcher (Jul 6, 2007)

ldfalks said:


> ESPNRise magaine just did a 3-page article on Holly Stover (MI). Holly won the USAA 2009 National Indoor, was on the World Indoor Team in the Jr. Division and is a JDT Member who won a Silver Medal in the El Salvador Olympic Archery Festival in Mixed Team Competition. Holly is the Cover Story for the March edition. It's out already.
> 
> Another magazine did a spread on Matt Zumbo, another young archer who is rising to the top.
> 
> Is this a start? I think it is. You have to have the human interest first. Marketing by showing what our young archers are doing is where we need to start. Some national sport magazines are taking an interest.


I think this is awsome! More more!


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

I like the SACO tree. Never have seen one, but that's exactly what I mean. 

I wouldn't make it a race though. That would turn it into a carnival act. Just give each shooter 6 arrows and 5 targets per side and let them alternate shooting.

My brother and I were watching the biathalon last night after we got in from shooting. When they would stop to shoot, it was real easy to keep up with who hit/missed what. I thought it was exciting to watch. I've also seen the ESPN great outdoor games (I think our friend Aya shot in those a few years?) and those were easy to follow and exciting to watch.

One bonus to a shootoff like this is that it removes all the scoring and line calling from the equasion. 

And getting the crowd involved would be great. I've not been there in person, but the indoor events in Europe seem very exciting, with all the crowds whistling and cheering. Nothing wrong with that IMO...

John.


----------



## SandSquid (Sep 2, 2008)

> Originally Posted by Z-MAN
> Even the coaching aspect of the sport has become too complex for the simple act of shooting a bow and arrow. How many N.A.A., N.F.A.A., I.B.O. ,I.N.F.A.A. local and regional shoots and instructional coaches do you know of in your area?
> 
> 
> ...


Isn't this the whole catalyst behind the new coaching regime being shared by USAA, NFAA, etc. Basic, Intermediate, Community, Advanced... No matter where you are in the "feeding chain" you are all using the same sheet of music so to speak, with only very minor difference in technique between recurve and compound.






Serious Fun said:


> The free club doesn’t realized that they hinder the growth of target archery because a business plan can’t depend on giving service away.


I don't see that happening, at least here.

My program is just that, a 100% FREE program. It is all bout kids getting off the couch, out from behind the TV or Computer, and off the street corner for a few hours a week.

The kids I'm after I call the "last picked kids". They are the last 2 or three standing there when they are choosing up sides for Gym Class kick-ball. 

They are not the tallest or fastest or strongest or most popular. But in archery none of that matters. Archery gives them something they can do and feel good about themselves doing. it builds self esteem, a feeling of "I can do this" what is wrong with that?

The transformation I have seen in some of my kids is amazing, from D's and F's to B's and C's, and conduct makes from U's to O's. Yes, I'll take that!

If properly structured it should not "hurt" the more advanced programs but help them. For every 10 people that walk through the door, 8 come back a second time, 5 last more than a month... and about 2 of them remain after 6 months. Of those two perhaps one has the desire to advance to the JOAD level... and we feed right into the local JOAD. In fact we tell all our kids "Wednesday night is free here at the Church. If you want to step it up we also assist in the local JOAD program on Friday nights, please come by and at least watch and try it once."

Think about the potential numbers here... If every "free" program see's 100 NEW kids walk through it's door every year. If of these 100 there is only ONE kid that has what they need to go on to JOAD Level, and each JOAD program in the country had only ONE kids to send to JDT Camp, how many kids are we taking about? What does that do for our odds of finding the next Olympic Champion? 

Think about it, our best chance for a podium in 2024 is sitting in some first or second grade classroom right now!

But more importantly, how many kids are we "reaching" getting off the couch, putting down the ring dings and ho-ho's bag of dorito's and red-bull and getting _active_. And perhaps starting a process that might one day save them from the welfare line, prison, or a crack-pipe?




> In the big picture, we want archers that value the sport. We want participants that want to be archer, not just want to take part in something because its free.


You have to start them somewhere. If not the free Church, School or 4-H Kiwanis, etc. then where and how?



> Have JOAD clubs offer expos and conduct inexpensive 8 week ASAP like programs to help grow the sport and contribute to the community.


Great idea, but also consider that _it is_ intimidating, when some kids that has never held a bow is standing there watching some 3 year advanced student shoot. There is a place for the noncompetitive, relaxed "fun" arrow flinging. And if the coaches do their jobs right we are building the foundations to take them to the next level if they choose to go there.


----------



## Sighting In (Feb 5, 2009)

I think I am the first to say this on this thread, but I personally LIKE how things are set up right now. It may not be super viewer friendly, but it is a blast for the shooter, in my opinion. I love the 144 rounds, and the OR rounds. I think they are a lot of fun, and I would be sad to see them go. 

I'm not saying that what you guys are suggesting is NOT fun to shoot, but what is the point of changing the game so that spectators like it, but the athletes don't?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Sean McKenty said:


> Makes one wonder what it would look like walking up to the line at the World Champs and seeing that at the end of the lane, like the hit/miss target winning it I would expect someone to hand me a stuffed animal and cotton candy


That or people would start making expensive grain matched "Competition" bunny blunts.



Huntmaster said:


> Now all we gotta do is get a rubber blunt that will go through a clicker


Just dump the no electronics rule and go with a laser clicker.

(Yes, yes, there are mechanical ways you can do it, but I want a variable pitch electronic clicker who's frequency rises as you get closer to the clicker  )


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

Sighting In said:


> I think I am the first to say this on this thread, but I personally LIKE how things are set up right now. It may not be super viewer friendly, but it is a blast for the shooter, in my opinion. I love the 144 rounds, and the OR rounds. I think they are a lot of fun, and I would be sad to see them go.
> 
> I'm not saying that what you guys are suggesting is NOT fun to shoot, but what is the point of changing the game so that spectators like it, but the athletes don't?



We shot OR and Round Robin matches using the Set System at the JDT Indoor Championship Tournament in CO Springs a couple of weeks ago. The Set System was very exciting and in more than one case the person wining the match did not have the high aggregate score. One bad arrow or match does not knock someone out. They can come from behind to win. Lots of cheering and the spectators were able to stay in the game and root for the underdog or their favorite.

Team round is still aggreagte score. Too bad. It will be more exciting when it goes to match/sets too.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

SandSquid said:


> The kids I'm after I call the "last picked kids". They are the last 2 or three standing there when they are choosing up sides for Gym Class kick-ball.
> 
> They are not the tallest or fastest or strongest or most popular. But in archery none of that matters. Archery gives them something they can do and feel good about themselves doing. it builds self esteem, a feeling of "I can do this" what is wrong with that?
> 
> The transformation I have seen in some of my kids is amazing, from D's and F's to B's and C's, and conduct makes from U's to O's. Yes, I'll take that!


I have to say I'm impressed that you are targeting under-served kids. Very few kids sports programs are individual sports and most schools have only team sports. Also, many programs emphasize recruiting the most talented kids. Anybody can feel like a brilliant coach with a talented student. I think what you are doing is a lot harder and very important.


----------



## MickC (Feb 26, 2006)

ESPNRise? what the heck is that?


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

ESPNRise is a high school specific portion of ESPN.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Like SandSquid, I also spend time with underserved kids in a NASP environment. One of the neatest accomplishments was taking a troubled kid, working with him in a NASP to JOAD transition class, and then seeing him shoot a FITA 900. He won it. 

Ever since then, the school gave him kudos in an awards ceremony, his grades after that has boosted upward, and he's working better with his teachers. 

I'm working with ESDF and the school to get the school a grant so we can expand the program.

-Steve
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Sighting In (Feb 5, 2009)

SandSquid said:


> The kids I'm after I call the "last picked kids". They are the last 2 or three standing there when they are choosing up sides for Gym Class kick-ball.
> 
> They are not the tallest or fastest or strongest or most popular. But in archery none of that matters. Archery gives them something they can do and feel good about themselves doing. it builds self esteem, a feeling of "I can do this" what is wrong with that?
> 
> The transformation I have seen in some of my kids is amazing, from D's and F's to B's and C's, and conduct makes from U's to O's. Yes, I'll take that!


I have seen it too. We have a recurve shooter in our JOAD club that joined about a year and a half ago. When she joined, she was the shyest person I knew. She would barley talk, and only if you spoke first. She was very nice, just quiet. After a year and a half of shooting with us, she has opened up a lot. She will talk and make jokes, and even poke fun at some of us (in a nice way of course). It just goes to show you what archery can do.


----------



## tjc45 (Feb 28, 2010)

As a newbie looking to get into archery I find accessibility a problem. I live in a major metropolitan area. Yet, the closest Indoor Archery range to my home is 30 minutes away and across a toll bridge. They don't offer lessons or rentals. For lessons, that's over an hour away, a real bear to get to, and the lessons are sold only in package form. I'd have to commit to x number of lessons pre-paid. And, I'd have to adhere to a lesson schedule that is convenient for children after school but doesn't work for grown ups who have to make a living. I've also tried local clubs, closest to my home also about an hour away. So far this has been a bust as even when I call ahead the clubs are closed when I get there. I'll keep trying this avenue, but...

Bottom line- as a sport, Archery in my area has a very high PIA factor. The limited access acts as a barrier. How far should I go in getting into the new to me activity of Archery before I just give up and try Curling instead? Could it be any less accessible?


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

tjc45 said:


> As a newbie looking to get into archery I find accessibility a problem. I live in a major metropolitan area. Yet, the closest Indoor Archery range to my home is 30 minutes away and across a toll bridge. They don't offer lessons or rentals. For lessons, that's over an hour away, a real bear to get to, and the lessons are sold only in package form. I'd have to commit to x number of lessons pre-paid. And, I'd have to adhere to a lesson schedule that is convenient for children after school but doesn't work for grown ups who have to make a living. I've also tried local clubs, closest to my home also about an hour away. So far this has been a bust as even when I call ahead the clubs are closed when I get there. I'll keep trying this avenue, but...
> 
> Bottom line- as a sport, Archery in my area has a very high PIA factor. The limited access acts as a barrier. How far should I go in getting into the new to me activity of Archery before I just give up and try Curling instead? Could it be any less accessible?


May I suggest to fill out your AT Registered User - Public Profile - “About me”

It helps the AT forum viewers to understand your perspective when asking questions and commenting. It helps the process of clear communications. Disclosure helps greatly with credibility. 

Those that post, please take a moment and fill out the “About Me” information.
I have found that folks are much more open and even friendlier when posting to a person that has a name, is somewhere recognizable and offers some information about themselves.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Serious Fun said:


> May I suggest to fill out your AT Registered User - Public Profile - “About me”
> 
> It helps the AT forum viewers to understand your perspective when asking questions and commenting. It helps the process of clear communications. Disclosure helps greatly with credibility.
> 
> ...


SF, people should fill in their profiles if they want to. And they should feel free not to. If there is some specific information you think you need about the poster to answer their question please indicate it and ask for it specifically, especially as such information may not be something they would think to put in their profile. 

Whether or not to be friendly to people in this forum is a choice we all make, and it is a choice that is not dependent on whether people have filled out their profiles. Why not ask everybody to be more friendly rather than tell everybody to fill out their profile and imply, regardless of whether it is your intention, that people should eschew anybody who has not filled out their profile to your satisfaction?


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

tjc45 said:


> How far should I go in getting into the new to me activity of Archery before I just give up and try Curling instead? Could it be any less accessible?


Well, yes, yes it could. I'm pretty sure curling is less accessible as you need access to an ice rink with curling markers under the ice and pristine ice, which take up large swaths of ice rink space that can make more money renting to hockey teams, whereas indoor archery ranges can be put in any building that has 20 yards of range space.

Archery isn't a public utility so it isn't surprising that their are areas that don't have ranges convenient to them, but that is true of any and every sport. But, unlike curling, many people have sufficient space for a short indoor range at home, something you can't do with curling.

And yes, I know that you were kidding about curling, but I do think it is a silly comparison. Whether or not any sport is "accessible" will depend on where you live, but archery, which can be done indoors and out, at target ranges and field ranges and in all sorts of hunting environments, is more versatile than many sports and can be practiced in summer and winter (if you have access to an indoor range). Certainly more versatile than golf, though golf has more dependance on terrain and conditions and makes for more complex strategy.


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

Archery ranges come and go, as I can attest over 35 years. Wherever I've lived, I've had to make accomodations to play my sport. 

Whatever you do, you have to make the most of your particular situation and geographical area. 

With the communication and logistical tools available to us today, it's much easier to get the correct information and equipment, the first time, and in a much quicker fashion.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

titanium man said:


> Archery ranges come and go, as I can attest over 35 years. Wherever I've lived, I've had to make accomodations to play my sport.
> 
> Whatever you do, you have to make the most of your particular situation and geographical area.
> 
> With the communication and logistical tools available to us today, it's much easier to get the correct information and equipment, the first time, and in a much quicker fashion.


Yup, people need to make the best of what they can. I do have to agree somewhat with tjc45, though. Archery, especially FITA Recurve, is daunting to get into IMO, especially if you are an adult. I live in the San Francisco Bay area and when I looked into archery years ago, it seemed pretty lacking in archery resources. I took recreational archery in college and the local archery story just sold hunting stuff. Later I looked into FITA Recurve and couldn't find any organized programs to learn as an adult. It was hire a private coach for $50 an hour or nothing. And I had to read up on archery and figure out equipment purchases through a long process of haunting the forums and buying used and on line. But, it turns out, the Bay Area is actually pretty darned rich in terms of FITA Recurve, if you know where to look. It just took me years to find that out. Nowadays with the web there are lists of bay area archery resources posted, which I wish had been around when I got started and could have helped me find my bearings more quickly. 

It still isn't perfect, though. FITA Recurve is still relatively small. Outdoor FITA competitions are still an hour and a half or more away. JOAD's for kids exist but are scattered and have limited opportunity to compete against one another and NFA dominates over FITA. And there is no IBO or ASA. But we have 5 or more public field archery ranges. A number of indoor archery ranges. Two competitive collegiate teams. A level 5 coach available for hire. A number of level 4's. And great weather.

Anyway, so I actually agree with a number of tjc45's points, but I think I reacted to their very defeatist sounding post. I don't know where they live, but if they like archery I hope they find a program that works for them, but I'd also understand if it isn't practical for their circumstances.


----------



## MickC (Feb 26, 2006)

New winter Olympic sport... like the biathlon but you have to snow shoe with a bow on your back and than hit targets just like in the biathlon. Sounds like a winner if we get the targets to flip a flag when they get hit or something.


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

MickC said:


> New winter Olympic sport... like the biathlon but you have to snow shoe with a bow on your back and than hit targets just like in the biathlon. Sounds like a winner if we get the targets to flip a flag when they get hit or something.




We have Ski/Arc don't we??:dontknow: I haven't heard much about it lately. It's not an Olympic sport, but you have to start somewhere.


----------



## bbloom96 (May 5, 2009)

The same people whining on this thread about archery exposure and interest are the same whiners who bit_h and moan about the interest by thousands of new archers in Crossbows. You can't have it both ways!!!


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

titanium man said:


> We have Ski/Arc don't we??:dontknow: I haven't heard much about it lately. It's not an Olympic sport, but you have to start somewhere.


I can't say as I know anything about ski archery but IIRC it is bit more more about the speed/aerobic athleticism of the cross country skiing than the skill of the archery, but I don't know if that is true or not.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

bbloom96 said:


> The same people whining on this thread about archery exposure and interest are the same whiners who bit_h and moan about the interest by thousands of new archers in Crossbows. You can't have it both ways!!!


Dunno. I can't recall where I've personally "bit*hed" and "moaned" about crossbows. Frankly, anything flung by a string is archery to me.

-Steve


----------



## tjc45 (Feb 28, 2010)

I live in the Jersey suburbs of Philly. About six million people within about 20 miles of where I'm sitting. For the record, I'm not defeated, just a bit frustrated. If I can't easily access the sport in such a populous area, how does that bode for others in more remote areas?

This isn't a criticism of Archery. I don't know enough to stand in judgement of anything. Only a newbie's POV on trying to find a way in. 

So what's a newbie to do? Certainly, I could go to the local big box sporting goods store buy a bow and have at it in my back yard. More likely because Lancaster Archery is within driving distance, is I'll go there, gear up with the help of this forum, do a lot of reading, and then hit the back yard. Possibly by then i'll be able to hook up with a club as spring brings more people out of hibernation.


----------



## titanium man (Mar 5, 2005)

bbloom96 said:


> The same people whining on this thread about archery exposure and interest are the same whiners who bit_h and moan about the interest by thousands of new archers in Crossbows. You can't have it both ways!!!


Xbows don't bother me. There must be money in them, because everybody and his brother is making them now.

My favorite now is the new one by PSE, that takes an AR Lower.:mg:


----------



## Shinsou (Aug 7, 2008)

Bow Paintball!!!

:izza:


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

tjc45 said:


> I live in the Jersey suburbs of Philly...
> So what's a newbie to do? Certainly, I could go to the local big box sporting goods store buy a bow and have at it in my back yard. More likely because Lancaster Archery is within driving distance, is I'll go there, gear up with the help of this forum, do a lot of reading, and then hit the back yard. Possibly by then i'll be able to hook up with a club as spring brings more people out of hibernation.


Well, if LA isn't too far away for you, then try to hook up with these guys:

http://www.cloverleafarcheryclub.com/

They're just a few miles from the Quakertown Exit off the PA Turnpike's NE Ext.


----------



## toxicolosopher (Mar 1, 2010)

The entire problem falls squarely on the head of NAA/USAA, or whatever they are calling themselves today.

Want to see poor PR? Go to the usarchery.org website and try to look up anything in the archives. Go ahead, I dare you.

Now, imagine if you're a reporter on deadline and you needed to know who won the XYZ Tournament last year.

Tough luck, buddy. And don't even try to get a live person on the phone.


----------



## buchleiter (Jan 12, 2010)

*A quick thought then a shameless plug...*

We've all heard the old adage: Practice makes perfect. It's a lie. Reality is that "perfect practice makes perfect" or as one coach put it for me "Practice makes permanent."

Same holds true in the marketing world. Good marketing - good exposure. Bad marketing (or no marketing) = no exposure. Despite what you may have heard, there is such a thing as bad publicity! I'm working with a company right now that has experienced this over the past few years. It's a difficult boat to turn around, but it can (and will) be done!

I agree with most of what has been said here. What the industry needs is an overall communications strategy that includes both marketing of products and services and public education and awareness initiatives.

Now for the shameless plugs...
1) If any of you have a club or product you need marketing help with, I have been an independent marketing consultant for over 10 years and would love to talk to any of you about how I can help your efforts. (www.bmbcreations.com)

2) As part of the education initiative I started a not-for-profit that (like many folks on this thread) is focusing on youth education programs among other things. I'm hoping to raise funds and equipment to worth with several christian camps over the summer to improve (or build from scratch) their archery programs. If anyone is interested in helping in some way, let me know! (www.newgroundadventures.org)

I appologize for the self-promotion, but wanted to infuse a few "action-items" into the thread.:thumbs_up


----------



## SandSquid (Sep 2, 2008)

buchleiter said:


> 2) As part of the education initiative I started a not-for-profit that (like many folks on this thread) is focusing on youth education programs among other things. I'm hoping to raise funds and equipment to worth with several christian camps over the summer to improve (or build from scratch) their archery programs. If anyone is interested in helping in some way, let me know! (www.newgroundadventures.org)



Sound exactly like what we are doing this summer, I'm calling you now!


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

*New formats for competition?*

Okay, folks, I've been reading alot of belly-aching about archery's lack of popularity, in particular the lack of televised coverage, not just on this thread, but on plenty of others as well.

One of the things that keeps popping up is mention of the ESPN Great Outdoor Games. All I can seem to find on it on the net is an old article announcing that the ATA would no longer be sponsoring the "Eliminator" archery contest (since they wanted to concentrate more on grass roots programs, a noble undertaking, but perhaps a two pronged approach would be more effective). 

From what I've heard and read, it was one of the most popular parts of the games and was even televised by ABC sports. But what was it like? How did the guys compete? I cannot imagine what the targets looked like.

I'd appreciate any information I can get! Thanks!


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

Then again, perhaps we can't get the kind of publicity we need because archery is so fractured as an organized sport. I mean, you only have _ONE_ NFL, NBA, PGA, NHL and so on and so forth. 

But when it comes to archery, we have the NFAA, IBO, ASA, NAA (did I forget anybody? If so, I'm truly sorry!). Same thing over here in Germany. And each of these has their own set of rules, their own championships, etc. So there is no equivalent of the World Series or the Super Bowl or the Stanley Cup in the archery world.

If we can't gather all archers under the auspices of one national organisation, how can we expect the public to even be aware of us?

Impossible, you say! Oh, ye of little faith... Last year, Austria's various archery associations banded together to form the Austrian Archery Federation, figuring that "united we stand, divided we fall." This has done more to promote the sport than almost anything else in the history of Austrian archery.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

> Last year, Austria's various archery associations banded together to form the Austrian Archery Federation, figuring that "united we stand, divided we fall." This has done more to promote the sport than almost anything else in the history of Austrian archery.


I think it's time we do this here in the U.S. But I'm not sure we can get that many Americans to agree on anything these days. Arguing has become a recreational sport all to it's own here unfortunately.

John.


----------



## Guest (Mar 7, 2010)

We have done similar here in Ontario and Canada, The National hold both IFAA and Fita affiliation, there isn't any IBO or ASA here, in Ontario there is one archery body OAA that incompasses all aspects from indoor to field/target /3D from trad to xbow. 

i think that in the US there is just to many "personalities" to acomplish this

heck even at the Worls level both Fita and the IFAA have a working relationship


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

limbwalker said:


> I think it's time we do this here in the U.S. But I'm not sure we can get that many Americans to agree on anything these days.


Given how much resistance USA Archery has gotten over it's attempt to unify it's coaching system and mandate BEST Method I'd say it seems it would be a great challenge to unify archery in the US. The same arguments I think I recall you making about the attempts to push BEST on everybody might also apply to attempts to generally unify the archery orgs in the US. USA Archery has to start by unifying USA Archery and its affiliate programs, such JOAD, the JDT, the RA program, CAP, etc. Trying to bring those silos into a unified whole will be more than challenge enough for a long time to come.

However, USA Archery, the NFAA and the ASA have managed to work together to create a unified basic coaching program. But that breaks down at higher levels as USA Archery's BEST Method causes the interests of the organizations to diverge. Also, NASP has its own coaching program tailored to its program. So I don't know what to think about the possibility of unifying archery in the US--there are just so many competing interests.



> Arguing has become a recreational sport all to it's own here unfortunately.


No it hasn't! :wink:

Nothing wrong with arguing in the philosophical sense of the term and so long as people base their arguments in reason and are willing to examine their opponents arguments honestly and rationally.


----------



## ldfalks (Mar 14, 2003)

Here's your link to ESPN Rise Magazine

http://sports.espn.go.com/highschool/rise/news/story?id=4969970


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

ldfalks said:


> Here's your link to ESPN Rise Magazine
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/highschool/rise/news/story?id=4969970


Great article! Nice to see archery showcased in ESPN's youth magazine. Even though it did sort of hint at archery being boring for spectators...


----------



## Paula (Sep 8, 2009)

Flint Hills Tex said:


> Great article! Nice to see archery showcased in ESPN's youth magazine. Even though it did sort of hint at archery being boring for spectators...


Wonderful article,,,very positive which is what this sport needs!!!!!


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

How much does it cost to get setup for Curling vs Archery, that is the difference my friend, MONEY. No matter what form of archery, Compound, FITA, Traditional, you are going to spend big bucks to stay in the game. Who's fault is that, ours. Because we constantly whant the latest and greatest, we are fueling the bow companies desire to "market" new bows every six to eight months. It's terrible. I have many friends who want to get into the sport, one look at all of the equipment costs and they are happy to walk away.
I shoot traditional and we aren't far behind the Compounders and the FITA shooters, between 600-1000 for a custom bow, and wait about 6-8 months to get it, good luck trying to find a shop that has any in stock.
If you want the sport to grow, we need sensible equipment at value cost. That is the best marketing you can do.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Archery, like any sport, costs money. 

I used to coach and field a pretty competitive baseball team. 

Also remember that the child will grow, so some of these costs are repetitive for a while. 

An individual child's cost would be, per season:

Registration: 100 for an 8 week season
Uniform: 30 for a jersey. If the team colors happen to be different from past seasons, add another 20 bucks. 
Shoes: 20-50 bucks
Bat(s): 50 bucks for an okay one. 200 for high end ones. You should have two. This will last as long as they stay in the specific age group category and will still fit it. Call it 2-3 seasons. Then you repeat the cycle. 
Glove: depends. A good fielding one will cost in the 40's at a minimum. If you play catcher, add 80 or so. 
Cup/Jock - 20

If I go 'middle of the road' to a point, I'm at $470 to equip a child to where they are effective for at least 3 8 week seasons, with repeating costs of 200 bucks for 2 more seasons plus uniform fees of another 60 bucks. 

That's $730. 

For that amount, I can equip a child with:

A 2010 PSE Chaos ($300)
24 arrows (90 bucks if you shop around)
Release (TruFire Patriot Junior - 20 bucks)
HHA OL5000 sight (100 bucks)
Quiver (20 bucks)
Cartel stabilizer (40 bucks)

That's $580. And that setup will last the child a LONG time. At least one year, if arrow breakage is at a minimum. If the arrows last and aren't cut too short, that setup will last for years. The bow pretty much will last 3 years, if not more. 

Baseball is more popular because of perceived value. This is, again, where marketing comes into play. 

-Steve
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SandSquid (Sep 2, 2008)

LongStick64 said:


> How much does it cost to get setup for Curling vs Archery, that is the difference my friend, MONEY.


i dunno.... Since we are picking on Curling go to http://www.dakotacurlingsupplies.com/  and shop around.. 

Curling Brushes can run from $44.95 to $185.95 for a handle and $52.95 for a bison hair brush.
Shoes.. OMG! $249.95 for the Grand Slam Ultra-Lite 
Curling Pants $74.00
Leather Jacket $199.95 
Gloves or Mitts $39.00

You are up to nearly $1,000 and have not even looked at "Sliders" & Grippers" (whatever _they_ are) and that puck thingie the are trying to guide.


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

Steve, I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but you forgot to throw in travel expenses... 

That's where our sport REALLY gets expensive. 

I sent a student to the Jr. World Championships in Mexico several years ago with no more than $800 worth of equipment. Most of it was second-hand, and much of it was over 20 years old. He finished 4th in the world with that gear, so by now, we all should realize that even moderately priced equipment will compete just fine. 

It's the price of traveling to tournaments that really adds up quick. One trip to Nationals cost their family more than all the gear the kid owned. 

John.


----------



## Paula (Sep 8, 2009)

LongStick64 said:


> How much does it cost to get setup for Curling vs Archery, that is the difference my friend, MONEY. No matter what form of archery, Compound, FITA, Traditional, you are going to spend big bucks to stay in the game. Who's fault is that, ours. Because we constantly whant the latest and greatest, we are fueling the bow companies desire to "market" new bows every six to eight months. It's terrible. I have many friends who want to get into the sport, one look at all of the equipment costs and they are happy to walk away.
> I shoot traditional and we aren't far behind the Compounders and the FITA shooters, between 600-1000 for a custom bow, and wait about 6-8 months to get it, good luck trying to find a shop that has any in stock.
> If you want the sport to grow, we need sensible equipment at value cost. That is the best marketing you can do.


The cost of shooting is only as expensive as you want it to be.There is plenty of good used equipment that goes on sale everyday on this forum.If you can shoot the bow with the same form and the sight or tip of your arrow is on the spot,,,it will go there.And it truely makes no differance what type of equipment you are using.Sure some of us crave a new bow or other pieces of equipment that may give us more confidence and better scores for a while.But in the end you cannot buy a game.You earn it,through hard work and hopefully some good positive coaching.
This sport needs to become a sport that can be done in high schools as a varsity sport.From there we need to have these kids go on to college and get scholarships and an education.But that takes two things that we still need.Someone to be a full time,out in the public eye, giving archery promotion.Second we need a sugar daddy to give us the money to do that.The archery corporations do a wonderful job in giving money,,,but we need something more like a Microsoft or Apple or similiar company. Just a couple thoughts...hugs Paula


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

limbwalker said:


> Steve, I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but you forgot to throw in travel expenses...
> 
> That's where our sport REALLY gets expensive.
> 
> ...


Hehe...I agree.

I won't get into travel ball (baseball/volleyball/softball). If you look at expenses with travel, the cost for any sport goes up dramatically. Heck, I cringe every time I have to drive to a tournament....let alone fly.

This is where stuff like the mail in tournaments are effective. They just need to catch the scoring up to the 21st century.

John, you know what it is like yourself. You've traveled all over the place to get where you are today. 

Now, if I look at our specific club and how we alleviate costs, we do fundraisers mostly for Vegas. The perceived value (again, marketing) is better when they go to Vegas versus any of the other USAA tournaments. This year, we actually were able to pay for both mail in tournaments, plus pay for each kid's Vegas entry fee and some small travel cash. 

Now, in looking at the mail in tournaments, the nationals, and factoring in the average scoring for our club's top 21 kids (kids who score consistently at 260 or more, ranging from an 8 year old shooting up one in Bowman, to an 18 year old who's working his butt off to get a USAT placement), I could say that our kids would have better spent the money going to one of the USAT JOAD regionals instead of going to Vegas and the WAF.

Why do I say that? If I take the youngest of the top 21 kids at our club (an 8 year old shooting up a level at Bowman compound), his low average scores are currently in the 265's, with a personal best of 271 (in of all things, a non sanctioned money league shooting as a youth shooter to get a gift certificate)

If I compare that to the overall scores that I've seen in the posted results so far in Nationals, and if he went, his low average alone would have got him a fighting chance for 4th or 5th overall in the nation. Not bad for a kid who turned 8 in December of 2009. But, he couldn't go because of external reasons.

Anyhow, you get better parent buy in when things are in a place like Vegas. Until the kids are able to transport themselves, parents have to go along.

Convince the parents, and the kids will literally follow. Is it no wonder that many of the successful kids in archery also have a parent that is involved in the shooting sports industry in some way, shape, or form?

With travel ball/travel swim/travel cheer/etcetera, the parents involved perceive a "value"...whatever that value may be. Archery can't coalesce that yet. If they want to be successful in competing for dollars, they have to show that value. Big sponsors look at that value. We (as an archery industry) can't parlay that into good sponsorships.

I guess I've spent too much time in Corporate America and I'm thankful I got out of that rat race, mostly for my health and lower stress. But when you used to have a high-tech sales job where your average sale was in the 10-30 million a sale range, the average salesperson lasted 6 months, you had to do 4 sales a year minimum, and you had the job for over 7 years - you know how to compete for dollars. 

Perceived value is everything - from large corporate sales to the mom and pop putting their kid into a sport.

It's a pity that people have more perceived value in Curling than they do in Archery.

-Steve


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

Paula said:


> This sport needs to become a sport that can be done in high schools as a varsity sport.From there we need to have these kids go on to college and get scholarships and an education.But that takes two things that we still need.Someone to be a full time,out in the public eye, giving archery promotion.Second we need a sugar daddy to give us the money to do that.The archery corporations do a wonderful job in giving money,,,but we need something more like a Microsoft or Apple or similiar company. Just a couple thoughts...hugs Paula


The NASP and ASAP programs are the best around for getting archery into schools! As for scholarships, well, you either need a corporate sponsor or a wealthy private patron to set up a scholarship fund exclusively for archery. Unless a prominent alumnus is a successful archer, you're gonna be hard pressed to find someone to do that. 

Positive public exposure is always good, but how do you go about getting it? The 2007 FITA Outdoor World Championships were held in Leipzig, but there was NO media coverage here in Germany, with the exception of a 20 minute recap of the finals, aired on a local Saxon TV station during the break in a motorcycle race. Last year, Katarina Winter won the FITA Indoor World Championships in Women's Olympic Recurve. There wasn't a single mention of this achievement in national media. Had she won a horse jumping or fencing championship, it would have been on the evening news. I know that the problem is pretty much the same in the US. I can think of no other serious Olympic sport with the same lack of media attention. And I just don't understand it...

And maybe the archery manufacturers are good about sponsorships in the US, but here in Europe, you can pretty much forget it. I am secretary of our archery club and tried contacting manufacturers about sponsoring some beginner's set ups for getting kids courses going. Of the 10 manufacturers I wrote, only one even bothered to answer, and the best he could offer (which was very generous) was a 50% rebate and free shipping on at least 10 set-ups. Local companies I wrote to treated us the same. Most didn't even respond (even though I came by in person to talk to them about it), and those that did turned us down, claiming they don't sponsor sports clubs (even though anybody can see their logos on the soccer club's jerseys and big ads on the fencing around the soccer fields).

If any of you know the secret of how to convince a prospective sponsor to open up the check book, please share it with me!


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

SandSquid said:


> i dunno.... Since we are picking on Curling go to http://www.dakotacurlingsupplies.com/ and shop around..
> 
> Curling Brushes can run from $44.95 to $185.95 for a handle and $52.95 for a bison hair brush.
> Shoes.. OMG! $249.95 for the Grand Slam Ultra-Lite
> ...


Hehe.....let's pick on the stones (those iron-like things they fling down the ice).

IIRC, A "sheet" of stones costs about 4000 dollars a sheet. One sheet of stones yields about 16 individual stones. And that's used.

New stones are 6400 bucks - or 400 bucks a stone.

And, the stones are normally rink equipment, not individually owned. Since each team has 8 stones, imagine trying to haul that crap around. I can't...

Now, if you look at what USA Curling gives each member each year (12,000 dollars a head), that gives enough money to give each member enough to do a lot. Shoes, brooms, broom heads, stones, whatever.

-Steve


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Flint Hills Tex said:


> The NASP and ASAP programs are the best around for getting archery into schools!


I "unofficially" coach a large school NASP team. The reason why I say "unofficially" is because I have more training as a instructor, but I have never taken the NASP specific training, nor will I.

NASP may sound like it's successful, but they really do skew the numbers in attempts to get the program to look good.

90 Percent of the kids involved in NASP go through the Physical Education component of NASP. 

This, unfortunately, does not really get a child into archery. It's merely doing the footsteps necessary to see if they garner interest, and the kids just do it because it's part of PE.

The remaining 10 percent actually get into archery via a NASP related club component.

Now, here's where I really have a problem with NASP.

Since it's inception, NASP has flushed through (according to their statistics) 4.6 million kids.

How many of those kids have risen to the top and continued on to other things in archery?

If I base it off of the small microcosm we call ArcheryTalk here, one. A girl from Kentucky (?) who won the NASP tournament last year - she's now shooting competitively in semi-pro 3D.

If you did that with ANY other sport, it would be considered a failure. 4.6 million kids and only ONE going on as a semi-pro?

So, either the statistics presented are wrong because of marketing hype, or the training/methods used are ineffective.

One thing NASP does do correctly.

http://www.nasponlinetournaments.org/

This has software that you load locally. It uploads scores to a master web site and the web site tabulates the scores, ranks it, and so on.

You want a successful mail in tournament, or even on-line real time Nationals rankings - follow this program.

-Steve


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

So what your telling me is that a kid paying 600 for archery equip is going to use that for years and compete all the way to major competitions. Not happening. We have some major competitors here, lets ask what their setups cost. 
Your trying to compare pro curling equipment used in the Olympics to Used archery equipment used at the local range. Not exactly fair.
I've been to local FITA events, no one was using KAP Trex bow....


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

LongStick64 said:


> So what your telling me is that a kid paying 600 for archery equip is going to use that for years and compete all the way to major competitions. Not happening. We have some major competitors here, lets ask what their setups cost.
> Your trying to compare pro curling equipment used in the Olympics to Used archery equipment used at the local range. Not exactly fair.
> I've been to local FITA events, no one was using KAP Trex bow....


Not knowing who you're quoting (myself, John, or Paula) makes it a bit hard to reply back to your message.

I'm also gathering that you're referring to recurve rather than compound.

-Steve


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

Beast

I'm not really trying to reply to anyone in particular, just making a point here that anyone that anyone who is seriously involved in this sport has spent more than 1000 easily. And more likely 3 times that amount.

Just ask any Olympic hopefuls how much they are invested, ask any college archer, ask anyone who shoots at any state tournament. 

My Morrison Cheyenne longbow, 700 just for the limbs, 1200 complete bow, doesn't include arrows, points, tab, quiver. Over the years, how many arrows, fletching, glue, tips, nocks am I going to spend on.
Maybe the cost of elite curling equipment might be up there too, but I doubt they market "new" stones like they do bows because I doubt anyone is buying stones as frequently as we buy bows.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

LongStick64 said:


> Beast
> 
> I'm not really trying to reply to anyone in particular, just making a point here that anyone that anyone who is seriously involved in this sport has spent more than 1000 easily. And more likely 3 times that amount.
> 
> ...


Guys, I really don't think that the equipment costs are what's keeping kids out of archery. There are plenty of obscure sports out there that get plenty of financing for their Olympic programs, but that money is not being funneled into youth programs or anything. 

I think it does have something to do with the perceived value (for parents and kids) you mentioned earlier, Steve. You usually can't go to college on an archery scholarship, for example. Plus the fact that most of the "popular" sports are school run, meaning that your kid can probably loan equipment at little or no cost from the school's athletic dept. The school also pays for buses to take the kids to and from competitions without parent chaperons being necessary. Heck, growing up in TX, they even picked up hotel costs if it was an overnighter...and that was for All-State _choir_ auditions!

Now, I'm not sponsored by NASP, LOL, but even if their program is "only" getting one in ten kids into some kind of archery program, I'd still rate that a success, since most of those kids were not previously involved in any kind of organized sport. Whether it leads them to a (semi-)professional career in archery is not as important in my eyes. And the P.E. aspect isn't too bad, either. I had to learn the rules and be able to perform the basic skills of plenty of sports that I never ended up playing, not even recreationally. If nothing else, the NASP is raising awareness that archery exists as an organized sport and enables kids who aren't good at much else sportwise to compete and succeed at something.


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Flint Hills Tex said:


> Guys, I really don't think that the equipment costs are what's keeping kids out of archery. There are plenty of obscure sports out there that get plenty of financing for their Olympic programs, but that money is not being funneled into youth programs or anything.
> 
> I think it does have something to do with the perceived value (for parents and kids) you mentioned earlier, Steve. You usually can't go to college on an archery scholarship, for example. Plus the fact that most of the "popular" sports are school run, meaning that your kid can probably loan equipment at little or no cost from the school's athletic dept. The school also pays for buses to take the kids to and from competitions without parent chaperons being necessary. Heck, growing up in TX, they even picked up hotel costs if it was an overnighter...and that was for All-State _choir_ auditions!
> 
> Now, I'm not sponsored by NASP, LOL, but even if their program is "only" getting one in ten kids into some kind of archery program, I'd still rate that a success, since most of those kids were not previously involved in any kind of organized sport. Whether it leads them to a (semi-)professional career in archery is not as important in my eyes. And the P.E. aspect isn't too bad, either. I had to learn the rules and be able to perform the basic skills of plenty of sports that I never ended up playing, not even recreationally. If nothing else, the NASP is raising awareness that archery exists as an organized sport and enables kids who aren't good at much else sportwise to compete and succeed at something.


Interesting you should mention that. I seem to remember a conversation along that line somewhere. The problem with NASP or any of those programs is that it's a two week course in school, and once they are done, they are forgotten about as they forget about archery. There is no lead into getting the kids on to another, more perminant program. The instructors simply say thanks and get ready for the next class. Many are local coaches who have little knowledge of archery or the programs available. 

Devise a way to inform the kids of their options, be it 3D, FITA, competitive compound, or even barebow, and point them in a direction, and you have a demand for clubs and organized shoots and a growing archery community.


----------



## Vittorio (Jul 17, 2003)

Flint Hills Tex said:


> ...Positive public exposure is always good, but how do you go about getting it? The 2007 FITA Outdoor World Championships were held in Leipzig, but there was NO media coverage here in Germany, with the exception of a 20 minute recap of the finals, aired on a local Saxon TV station during the break in a motorcycle race. Last year, Katarina Winter won the FITA Indoor World Championships in Women's Olympic Recurve. There wasn't a single mention of this achievement in national media. Had she won a horse jumping or fencing championship, it would have been on the evening news. I know that the problem is pretty much the same in the US. I can think of no other serious Olympic sport with the same lack of media attention. And I just don't understand it...


Think problem is related to your federation internal organization. Germany has all shooting sports in the same federation. If trap shooting or 20 mt air compressed shooting or any other rifle/pistol shooting gets same (lack of ) attention, then problem is in your federation Press Office. 
With a good Press Office you can't do miracles to promot our sport, but surley without it you can't do anything...


----------



## LongStick64 (Aug 29, 2009)

If you don't think the cost of archery is significant in any way, I suggest that you visit some inner city areas where children are lucky to even have a computer at home let alone anywhere local they can shoot safely.

In NYC the New York Rangers made a great effort to bring Ice Hockey to the children in Harlem NY, not exactly a hockey hotbed. By taking such an effort, no cost to the kids at all, there are now roller rinks and Ice rinks available to kids in these areas.

The efforts should be made in archery to lower the costs and increase the availability. the problem is most archers are only interested in their own scores.


----------



## SandSquid (Sep 2, 2008)

LongStick64 said:


> I suggest that you visit some inner city areas where children are lucky to even have a computer at home let alone anywhere local they can shoot safely.
> 
> The efforts should be made in archery to lower the costs and increase the availability. .



Precisely my point! And exactly what I am doing to promote the sport. (See the church marquee in my avatar)

I have children that walk up to 2 miles to come shoot because their parents don't even own a car... 

At 5pm, before we shoot I make and serve a healthy meal which is enjoyed by many. Spaghetti, home made tacos, cold-cut hero sandwiches, etc. You can feed 20 people on $30, if you are careful. I do this because I know many of the kids that are there will not get supper that day either because they are there, or it is the only supper they get all week. It is just too hearbreaking to sit there and try and scarf down my supper while setting up, and to see the kids staring at my food, so I did something about it. My justification is I cannot expect them to pay attention and grow mentally and physically while their bodies are lacking healthy sustenance. It is yet another hidden expense associated with running an inner city sports program, I never would have imagined. It has definitely given my own children a new appreciation for all they have, and how little others have. Especially when these other kids sit right beside them in the same classroom. But I digress.


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

a lot of good ideas here but unfortunately mostly on the micro-level...

well and good but micro-level ideas can only move things on a slow mode..

most sports that are popular and therefore attract more attention and funding really do it on the macro-level...

for archery to do that we will need the following to happen:

1)we need a high profile hero--a la michael jordan, tiger woods, michael phelps,..

2)we need a strong and unified association--a la usga,pga, nba, nra...

3)we need strong private sector support--a la callaway golf, ferrari, nike..

4)with #1-3 in place we should be able to get the media support we need... 

if we can get 1-4 we have a good chance....JMHO..


----------



## jmvargas (Oct 21, 2004)

just reread my post and i would like to change the order and place #2) ahead of #1)...


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

LongStick64 said:


> If you don't think the cost of archery is significant in any way, I suggest that you visit some inner city areas where children are lucky to even have a computer at home let alone anywhere local they can shoot safely.
> 
> In NYC the New York Rangers made a great effort to bring Ice Hockey to the children in Harlem NY, not exactly a hockey hotbed. By taking such an effort, no cost to the kids at all, there are now roller rinks and Ice rinks available to kids in these areas.
> 
> The efforts should be made in archery to lower the costs and increase the availability. the problem is most archers are only interested in their own scores.


Now wait a minute...what I was trying to say is that the cost of archery _equipment_ can be kept moderate as compared to other sports (we're comparing it with curling on this thread), and almost every grass roots effort I'm familiar with provides equipment and instruction at little or no cost to the children participating. As for underprivileged inner-city kids, I don't see any of them in curling... But then, it really doesn't matter what sport or activity it is, if you're giving these kids a meaningful pastime, encouragement and acceptance (and, as in Squid's case, a tasty meal) then it's a great thing indeed, and something we definitely need more of!


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

Vittorio said:


> Think problem is related to your federation internal organization. Germany has all shooting sports in the same federation. If trap shooting or 20 mt air compressed shooting or any other rifle/pistol shooting gets same (lack of ) attention, then problem is in your federation Press Office.
> With a good Press Office you can't do miracles to promot our sport, but surley without it you can't do anything...


Yes, German archery is run under the auspices of the German Shooting Sports Federation (DSB), so archery is always an afterthought, in both financial and PR affairs. Reunification in Germany brought with it a historic opportunity to form anew, since archers from former East Germany were members of the German Archery Association (DBSV). Unfortunately, the archers in former West Germany did not want to leave the DSB. 

Since the East was more or less assimilated by West Germany, almost all of the political and organisational structures were adapted to Western standards. FITA has ruled that each member nation may be represented by only one national organisation. That meant, even if you wanted to stay in the DBSV, you had to join the DSB if you ever hoped to compete at an international competition. Germany's archers remain in splintered factions, and that has hurt the sport sorely.


----------



## TomB (Jan 28, 2003)

We still have a fundamental process problem. Besides the kids, we still need three things for a successful youth program, equipment, venues, and someone to teach them how to use the equipment. There is grant money and help for the equipment. However, because of past abuses and current govt. (IRS) restrictions, grant money for range access and coaching are not allowed. It does programs little good to have equipment but no place to shoot and no one to teach them how to shoot. I don't care what kind of place you have to shoot, there are operating costs, and those currently are not being funded.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

I've been doing some more brainstorming the past few days. 

In looking at some of the curling vs archery and other sports vs archery and even archery vs archery, I'm seeing some stuff come up. 

One - it's very hard for an NGB of any sort to move quickly. Especially one the size of USA Archery. In order to survive today's marketplace, one can't survive by doing the traditional 'ready, aim, fire', it has to survive on the lines of 'ready, fire, aim'. 

Two - someone has to be a market leader, others are followers. In my poor attempt to be politics neutral, being nice to the rest of the world sometimes doesn't work. While I realize that the world doesn't revolve around the US, I'd say that thanks to hunters and target shooters combined, the US has the most archers per capita than the rest of the world. 

USA Archery should be the ones to innovate - the one whose ideas should flow outward. We should experiment to show what can work. 

This next thought should be one that sounds the most controversial, but it's the one that makes the most sense. 

USA Archery's Board of Directors needs to incorporate more non-archers. We have at least two that I know of - we should have more in at large positions. 

There is a reason why corporate boards consist of people in that business segment, and people who are outside that business segment. You get a cross-pollination of people. There is precedence for this as recent as late 2009 - USA Volleyball added a private equity firm partner as an at large director, and he doesn't play volleyball. I know we have two so far that consists of a corporate turnaround specialist and a lawyer. But we need to attract more heavy hitters (like a Meg Whitman or Carly Fiorino or Rudy Guiliani type, or even a movie star like Russell Crowe) to attract corporate attention. Heck, USA Volleyball has people from Universal Studios and Fox Sports on their board. 

I now come to the main issue - marketing. I know that by now, Denise Parker probably has printed targets with my face on it and shoots it every day, but I'm going to grind on it again. 
I look at various things that have occurred from other NGB's. USA Shooting did a mailer that arrived right when the winter Olympics was in swing. USA Curling got a huge boost. One was a winter sport, one wasn't. Both took advantage of the Olympic timeframe to push a campaign. 

Where were we? Pardon the crudeness - I realize that USA Archery is in the middle of a revamp. But someone at the top needs to grab the advertising needs by the brass ones and get some stuff moving. 

Other NGB's have dedicated PR people to market their specific sport. Where are we in that?

Finally - I ask this:

Is USA Archery (as an NGB) stretched too thin? Are we asking too much of them?

-Steve
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## onionringer (Dec 11, 2009)

Beastmaster said:


> .....I know that by now, Denise Parker probably has printed targets with my face on it and shoots it every day.....


Where can I get some of those targets? Just Kidding.

Steve, I'm glad you are saying what is on many people's minds.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

onionringer said:


> Where can I get some of those targets? Just Kidding.
> 
> Steve, I'm glad you are saying what is on many people's minds.


Hehe. I bet a lot of people have one printed up and around. 

Anyhow, one thing I did neglect to mention - there are LOTS of people who are willing to help. It is not a sense of weakness if the NGB needs help. 

If they don't ask - no one is going to help, and the bad perception just continues to fester. 

-Steve
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Sighting In (Feb 5, 2009)

jmvargas said:


> 1)we need a high profile hero--a la michael jordan, tiger woods, michael phelps,..
> 
> 2)we need a strong and unified association--a la usga,pga, nba, nra...
> 
> ...


1) Cousins, Wilde, Galentine, Elison, Johnson. 

3) Hoyt, Easton, Carter

I guess the problem is the NGB? Isn't that what people on this thread have been saying for quite a while now? 

Steve, you keep saying that USAA needs to market better. I agree. My question to you is, how? What kind of marketing do you think the public would respond well to? You know some people in charge, come up with some creative ideas and send them on up the line. Diane reads this forum (or at least sometimes, I think) get her to pass on your ideas. I understand what you are saying, and I agree, but just saying "somebody needs to market" doesn't do any good. Why not you?

Oh, and Steve, I think I have the perfect picture for that. I think I might have to bring it in for you next week. :wink:


----------



## Sighting In (Feb 5, 2009)

Honestly, I don't know many ways to get archery out there accept by word of mouth. Now, I don't have a degree in anything, so it's not like I should have one. The only thing that I can see would be effective is to do more articles in the news (local, ESPN, etc.). I was just reading one posted on this thread the other day about Holly Stover. More things like that would be helpful to get the world out, as well as videos and such. But as it stands, a commercial on NBC saying "Archery World Cup Next week on NBC" does not seem likely, even though it would for sure help the sport.


----------



## Serious Fun (May 12, 2003)

Sighting In said:


> Honestly, I don't know many ways to get archery out there accept by word of mouth. Now, I don't have a degree in anything, so it's not like I should have one. The only thing that I can see would be effective is to do more articles in the news (local, ESPN, etc.). I was just reading one posted on this thread the other day about Holly Stover. More things like that would be helpful to get the world out, as well as videos and such. But as it stands, a commercial on NBC saying "Archery World Cup Next week on NBC" does not seem likely, even though it would for sure help the sport.


It’s a bit of a chicken before the egg situation. 
The best place to show of target archery is at the range. Just as people see golf course and driving ranges and see people having fun, Archery needs to be visible and plentiful. For that to happen we need more customers and that’s the chicken before the egg problem. We don’t want to run adds about giving archery a try when there are no places that aren’t already full to give archery a try.

But there is a step by step process.

Certify coaches to be able to teach and certify instructors. The USAA has a grant program to help certify coaches
Certify instructors that establish new JOAD clubs. For a club to exist there needs to be leaders and archery club leaders I suggest should be at least an Intermediate instructor level.
JOAD Clubs conduct introduction programs like Parks and Recreation program, intermediate and advance programs. Kids like archery! Intro programs typically have no problem filling every class.
New archers create a demand for ranges to practice and train and take lessons. Just like golf driving ranges.
Archers compete in local, state and nationals events creating more demand for events. Here is where press releases with photos of World Champions and Olympians so off the best of the best. After the Winter Olympics, the local curling club was overrun with those that wanted to give curling a try.

By training and certifying coaches and instructors, we encourage new clubs and new programs. We allow the sport to be ready to give those interested in archery a quality introductory experience. 

Thank your certified coach, instructor and club leader when you see them for helping to grow the sport. By the way, you need to pay them so they can afford to coach, instruct and provide for the club.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Interspersed...





Sighting In said:


> 1) Cousins, Wilde, Galentine, Elison, Johnson.


Issue is that no one outside of archery knows who Dave Cousins, Reo/Logan/Dee Wilde, or the rest of who you mention are.



> 3) Hoyt, Easton, Carter


Same issue. Other than Easton, who does products outside of archery, no one knows who Hoyt or Carter are other than Archery.



> I guess the problem is the NGB? Isn't that what people on this thread have been saying for quite a while now?


Sort of. I know that the USOC has been after USAA to get it's ducks in a row. It's still in a somewhat "rebuilding" stage.




> Steve, you keep saying that USAA needs to market better. I agree. My question to you is, how? What kind of marketing do you think the public would respond well to? You know some people in charge, come up with some creative ideas and send them on up the line. Diane reads this forum (or at least sometimes, I think) get her to pass on your ideas. I understand what you are saying, and I agree, but just saying "somebody needs to market" doesn't do any good. Why not you?


Hehe...actually, you're talking to someone who's been acting as the unofficial marketing guy for the Arizona State Archery Association for the past few months. I can't affect anything on a national scale. I can affect things on a local scale.

Things that I have been working on are:

1) Working with Universal Studios to see if the Arizona State Archery Association can tie in with the new Russell Crowe movie "Robin Hood". I have a friend who is the head of the Arizona Film Commission, so I'm leveraging that friendship to see if we can get something like that done.

The sad part is that I'm trying to leverage it from the small scale. I still fully believe that if someone from USA Archery called up Universal Studios, they would have a partnership tie in done by now. An NGB has far more leverage than a State Association does. 

Combine that with the printed fact that Russell Crowe has said in interviews that he's become smitten with archery, and you have a built in poster boy that is going to attract far more people than Reo/Dave/Braden/etc.

http://blog.taragana.com/e/2009/11/29/russell-crowe-obsessed-with-archery-65370/

Sorry, but if my meager Google-Fu attempt is able to find this straight off the bat, why aren't we (as a group) taking advantage of it?

2) I have two friends who are in the news business. One of them is a producer and assignment editor for Fox 10 News here in Phoenix. I've been trying to get them to come out to one of the events. 

Getting coverage needs a certain element of luck. Since archery events isn't exciting enough to demand front billing, archery is relegated to being a "filler".

3) Mike Cullumber and I have been brainstorming on some stuff. One of the side brainstorms recently has blossomed to where I'm talking with US Airways and Southwest Airlines....not for a "traditional" sponsorship, but where they help partially to nearly fully subsidize airfare to faraway places. Plus, I'm trying to get US Airways to waive their fees to transfer points to where people can donate points to an ASAA member so they can travel for less.

The discussion with US Airways and Southwest Airlines was thanks to a conversation with Kari Granville at ASU Archery. I was willing to donate enough airline miles so it would subsidize one of her trips....until the cost involved was nearly as much as a trip itself. That blossomed into an idea to where the airline could either waive the "fees" involved, to another idea where they will do some sort of corporate matching - for every dollar you spend, you get a discount of sorts for that flight.

The other boost I'm trying to work on is negotiating things to where you don't pay for oversized luggage. Ironically, that's more tricky than getting a subsidy. Sad, but true. But, if the golf industry can swing it for their oddball Scottish gaming offshoot, we should be able to as an industry too.

Anyhow, all are small steps. All of these ideas are outside the "normal" thought process. I have some other ideas in the back burner. One of them is getting Dillon Precision to donate some of those composite non-destructable target circles to do a shooting tree. I haven't gotten a chance to pin down Mike Dillon yet, but once I do, I will hopefully have about 12 of those 8" composite plates to mount to a 4x4 wood post and drag it over to Corner Archery to test it out.



> Oh, and Steve, I think I have the perfect picture for that. I think I might have to bring it in for you next week. :wink:


Bring it. Let's talk.

-Steve


----------



## mcullumber (Jul 31, 2006)

I think we need to realize that we can do more to promote Archery at the grassroots level than at the national level. It just takes persistence. USA Archery is busy repairing years past, it needs to get past that first. That in itself is a tall order, because most people are resistant to change, especially archers.

We at the state and club level need to send press release to the media about events or our own local archers when they do well. They won't be noticed at first, as Steve knows you just have to keep at it. We need to work with communities to create an interest in ranges. It was done here in Chandler with the Paseo Range, it can be done elsewhere.

More than anything it simply takes people to do it. Promote your club to your friends. Do anything it takes to overflow the system. When there are more archers than ranges, then you can go to the city for help. Until then, most think very little of archery.

We shouldn't sit back and wait for any NGB to do the work for us.


Mike


----------



## Z-MAN (Jan 25, 2004)

If archery is every to have the following of the viewing public such as baseball, football, golf, etc., the structure of the whole sport has to be simplified and standardized with one universal set of rules, regulations, instructional teaching and coaching guidelines. We are not talking about rocket science here, just the simple art of shooting a bow and arrow. Take a look at how other popular sports, such as little league baseball, is organized and operates. The sport needs structure at the local level first with support from the national organization to deliver the message and move the sport forward. Simplify and unify first.


----------



## Warbow (Apr 18, 2006)

Z-MAN said:


> If archery is every to have the following of the viewing public such as baseball, football, golf, etc., the structure of the whole sport has to be simplified and standardized with one universal set of rules, regulations, instructional teaching and coaching guidelines.


The rules are irrelevant if the sport is boring to watch. 

I love archery, but watching a game with no strategy where all people do is try to do the exact same thing to the exact same target over and over again is not much of a spectator sport--no matter what the rules are, hit or mis, 3 spot, 5 spot, full FITA face, or what ever. I really can't think of a sport comparable to archery that is popular on TV. Even darts has more variety than target archery since they don't just try for the bullseye every time.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Warbow said:


> The rules are irrelevant if the sport is boring to watch.
> 
> I love archery, but watching a game with no strategy where all people do is try to do the exact same thing to the exact same target over and over again is not much of a spectator sport--no matter what the rules are, hit or mis, 3 spot, 5 spot, full FITA face, or what ever. I really can't think of a sport comparable to archery that is popular on TV. Even darts has more variety than target archery since they don't just try for the bullseye every time.


Very true.

The sad part is that in order to gain popularity, we may have to fractionalize in a way.

Look at the exhibition shooters from Benelli. Tom Knapp and Tim Bradley do stuff that makes an instructor like me cringe. It's entertaining, and they are extremely accurate, but it still makes me cringe to watch them.

To do good target archery that will attract crowds, you're gonna have to do stuff that is going to be horrid for your form.

Or, you rely on something that I've always talked about - do shooting based upon arrow destruction.

People like that. Quoting Russell Crowe again, the "...are you not entertained??" They want entertainment. And the easiest way to do that is to destroy something.

Tom Knapp and Tim Bradley do that. Hence why they generate crowds. 

Now, picking on at large board positions - this is also why other sports have media personalities or media executives there. USA Soccer has Drew Carey, the Governator, and Spike Lee. USA Volleyball has Steve Simpson (VP at Fox Sports) and Adam Rymer (VP of Universal Pictures). 

If membership has it's benefits, we need to also explore making those benefits tangible to where it's going to help our constituents. 

Looking at other groups - US Bowling Congress negotiates travel rates for their members. USBC members also get discounts with guys like Lifelock and other corporate negotiated discounts.

It is not a hard thing to do to have your USA Archery membership card allow you to have Sam's Club/Costco membership discounts, or discounts at national chain restaurants, or stuff like that.

Anyhow, either the powers that be are furiously scribbling stuff down, or they are hurrying to copy more targets with my face on it so they can shoot it with 27's....

-Steve


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

mcullumber said:


> We shouldn't sit back and wait for any NGB to do the work for us.
> Mike


Agreed. But an NGB has far more marketing power and name recognition than our state organization does.

Case in point - and it's a very simple change in words that gives a perfect example of how an NGB's name can open a door.

For one of the sidebar discussions that you and I were having, I tried another little social experiment (I love doing these social experiments...I definitely was put in the wrong profession...). But I digress. 

In one call, I called on "...behalf of the Arizona State Archery Association". Didn't get too far.

In a following call (to the same entity, a day later), I called as "...the state representative for USA Archery". Gee, thanks to the recent Olympic coverage, that ended up opening a door.

The syntactical use of both variants are accurate. ASAA is the state of Arizona's representative for USA Archery. One identifies us as our operational and organization name, the other is a manifestation of who we represent here in the state of Arizona.

It's all in wording. But the fact that an Olympic level organization appears to be represented ends up helping rather than hurting.

Now, will this actually translate to better responses thanks to an NGB's name being invoked? Well, if it's a large corporate entity....it seems to.

-Steve


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

The ASA tried this with baloons in cutouts...You had to shoot either 4 or 5 baloons before the other competitor in one of the classes..it was more a race if I remember correctly.



limbwalker said:


> I like the SACO tree. Never have seen one, but that's exactly what I mean.
> 
> I wouldn't make it a race though. That would turn it into a carnival act. Just give each shooter 6 arrows and 5 targets per side and let them alternate shooting.
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Go to YouTube.com and type in Ron LaClair. Wanna see some shooting?? How about a coke can off the top of a thrown frizbee. Of course you can't do this kind of shooting with an Oly style or compound bow.

Art



Beastmaster said:


> Very true.
> 
> The sad part is that in order to gain popularity, we may have to fractionalize in a way.
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

I was talking to a speed skater....It's a premier event at the Olympics with hours of coverage, but the skaters have the same money problems archery does.



Flint Hills Tex said:


> Guys, I really don't think that the equipment costs are what's keeping kids out of archery. There are plenty of obscure sports out there that get plenty of financing for their Olympic programs, but that money is not being funneled into youth programs or anything.
> 
> I think it does have something to do with the perceived value (for parents and kids) you mentioned earlier, Steve. You usually can't go to college on an archery scholarship, for example. Plus the fact that most of the "popular" sports are school run, meaning that your kid can probably loan equipment at little or no cost from the school's athletic dept. The school also pays for buses to take the kids to and from competitions without parent chaperons being necessary. Heck, growing up in TX, they even picked up hotel costs if it was an overnighter...and that was for All-State _choir_ auditions!
> 
> Now, I'm not sponsored by NASP, LOL, but even if their program is "only" getting one in ten kids into some kind of archery program, I'd still rate that a success, since most of those kids were not previously involved in any kind of organized sport. Whether it leads them to a (semi-)professional career in archery is not as important in my eyes. And the P.E. aspect isn't too bad, either. I had to learn the rules and be able to perform the basic skills of plenty of sports that I never ended up playing, not even recreationally. If nothing else, the NASP is raising awareness that archery exists as an organized sport and enables kids who aren't good at much else sportwise to compete and succeed at something.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

mcullumber said:


> I think we need to realize that we can do more to promote Archery at the grassroots level than at the national level...
> 
> We shouldn't sit back and wait for any NGB to do the work for us.
> 
> ...


Why does it have to be "either/or"? I think that you need to work from both ends, the grass roots level and the national level, and this work has to be coordinated to some extent.

Let me make an analogy: our church has missions outreach programs for the underprivileged here in town, but for dealings with the Federal Govt. on tax exemption status, we turn to our NGB, so to speak, the Church's national body (if you're Lutheran, it's the national synod, if you're Southern Baptist it's...etc.) since they offer more leverage. They also take care of international missions, they fund our seminaries, etc. But the local doesn't function without the national and vice versa.

Now, back to archery. There are some things better dealt with at a local or state level, but there are definitely some things that the NGB has to do, because a local organisation just doesn't have the resources nor the leverage to do them. The promotion of archery is something that needs to be done as a concerted effort at both levels!


----------



## mcullumber (Jul 31, 2006)

Flint Hills Tex said:


> Why does it have to be "either/or"? I think that you need to work from both ends, the grass roots level and the national level, and this work has to be coordinated to some extent.
> 
> Let me make an analogy: our church has missions outreach programs for the underprivileged here in town, but for dealings with the Federal Govt. on tax exemption status, we turn to our NGB, so to speak, the Church's national body (if you're Lutheran, it's the national synod, if you're Southern Baptist it's...etc.) since they offer more leverage. They also take care of international missions, they fund our seminaries, etc. But the local doesn't function without the national and vice versa.
> 
> Now, back to archery. There are some things better dealt with at a local or state level, but there are definitely some things that the NGB has to do, because a local organisation just doesn't have the resources nor the leverage to do them. The promotion of archery is something that needs to be done as a concerted effort at both levels!


My Bad. I should have done a better job explaining. I totally agree. It needs to come from both the top and the bottom. I just don't think we should wait for the top to do something. 


Mike


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

Right on....Curling is like bowling. You rent the rink for you time to play. The stones are furnished, so you equipment cost is you specialized shoes..that's it. Archery is entirely different....especially when you ad in the cost of travel.
Art



limbwalker said:


> Steve, I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but you forgot to throw in travel expenses...
> 
> That's where our sport REALLY gets expensive.
> 
> ...


----------



## ArtV (Jan 29, 2008)

*Interest in Archery*

At one time, here in TN you could attend 3 different archery shoots on any given weekend from Feb thru August. They gave out humungous trophy's for placing as far down as 5 place. Tons of kids were involved with their parents.

Now, there is only one local club that still holds monthly competitve shoots. 
And only one facility that has a winter indoor league shoot. Burn out was and is the cluprit. Only a few at each club did the work and after awhile they just gave it up.



We only have one club that still supports NFAA Field and none that support NAA or Oly style field shooting...the NAA can't even get an indoor State Championship going...they tried...4 shooters showed up State wide.

The big growth here has been in traditional archery (bows with elevated rests are band.) They have several shoots with several hundred showing up at each shoot. Frankly I think the reason for the turn out is that traditional archery has a strong fun element. Not that FITA or NFAA isn't fun.

I know everyone likes to poopoo traditional archery, but for those who are interested in seeing growth in NAA or NFAA styles perhaps they shoot take a strong look at why traditional seems to be so healthy.

For those who are keenly interested the work has to be done on a grass roots basis if the sport is to grow.

Art


----------



## Sighting In (Feb 5, 2009)

Beastmaster said:


> 2) I have two friends who are in the news business. One of them is a producer and assignment editor for Fox 10 News here in Phoenix. I've been trying to get them to come out to one of the events.


State Champs is a few weeks away. Why don't you make some phone calls? The second half is shoot offs. That should be fun to watch. Who knows, they just might come out and watch. It's worth a shot.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Sighting In said:


> State Champs is a few weeks away. Why don't you make some phone calls? The second half is shoot offs. That should be fun to watch. Who knows, they just might come out and watch. It's worth a shot.


Hehe. Already on the planning board for various news places. 

The issue is that we are at the mercy of what happens elsewhere. If the news day is not slow, we lose. 

For example, Brady's coverage at Ben Avery got dumped because a 12 year old kid got shot...elsewhere at Ben Avery and the crews couldn't stay from morning to afternoon. 

Anyhow, that's an example where we get pre-empted. 

-Steve
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Minor update - the TV stations involved called me stating the accident was on BASF proper. 

It seems (from other sources) that it was off BASF. 

Either way, we lost out. It is a perfect example of how we as a sport gets the low end of the stick. 

-Steve
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

ArtV said:


> The big growth here has been in traditional archery (bows with elevated rests are band.) They have several shoots with several hundred showing up at each shoot. Frankly I think the reason for the turn out is that traditional archery has a strong fun element. Not that FITA or NFAA isn't fun.
> 
> I know everyone likes to poopoo traditional archery, but for those who are interested in seeing growth in NAA or NFAA styles perhaps they shoot take a strong look at why traditional seems to be so healthy.
> 
> Art


Oh, yeah, it's all the rage here in Germany, too! I would agree that the "fun" element is a big part of traditional archery's appeal, plus they are usually shooting at 3-D targets, which seems to appeal to John & Jane Q. Public's notion of what archery is all about: the hunt! 

We "serious" archers really shouldn't be so demeaning towards the trad scene; then, maybe, we'd see more crossovers. Plus, if we were to embrace this growth sector, we could get some good coaching in before they learn a bunch of bad habits!


----------



## Huntmaster (Jan 30, 2003)

Flint Hills Tex said:


> We "serious" archers really shouldn't be so demeaning towards the trad scene; then, maybe, we'd see more crossovers. Plus, if we were to embrace this growth sector, we could get some good coaching in before they learn a bunch of bad habits!


I'll never forget when I was a kid. My father found a little Bear bow in the attic left by the previous owner. I started shooting with that Bear bow and soon got a Browning Wasp (which still adorns my wall). I HATED THAT STUPID THING! I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with it! I wanted sights so bad, yet I wasn't allowed. THAT is what pushed me out of archery as a kid and drained my interest in the sport when I was young.

Eventually you want to hit stuff reliably. I don't think trad. is the answer to bringing the sport up. Many of those who get interested may just switch over to someting with a sight, it's not likely to go the other direction.


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

Huntmaster said:


> I'll never forget when I was a kid. My father found a little Bear bow in the attic left by the previous owner. I started shooting with that Bear bow and soon got a Browning Wasp (which still adorns my wall). I HATED THAT STUPID THING! I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with it! I wanted sights so bad, yet I wasn't allowed. THAT is what pushed me out of archery as a kid and drained my interest in the sport when I was young.
> 
> Eventually you want to hit stuff reliably. I don't think trad. is the answer to bringing the sport up. Many of those who get interested may just switch over to someting with a sight, it's not likely to go the other direction.


Well, that's precisely what I'm talking about. If you don't scare off the trad crowd, then you can coach them. If they shoot next to these folks with FITA set ups who are really scoring well, and don't feel ostracized by us, they will be more apt to try our style of shooting. It's all about lowering the threshold...


----------



## onionringer (Dec 11, 2009)

onionringer said:


> Where can I get some of those targets? Just Kidding.
> 
> Steve, I'm glad you are saying what is on many people's minds.


If it's archery relative LAS carries it. Hey Beastmaster, I just order me some targets...... still kiddin'

Check it out. Live coverage!
http://curling.teamusa.org/live.html


----------



## onionringer (Dec 11, 2009)

*sponsor*

Oh by the way, did anyone else catch the usa curing sponsor Laphrogaig? I'm not sure but Laphrogaig may be an UK based company. Hats off to USA Curling for doing a great job getting sponsors.


----------



## feildfool (Jul 22, 2009)

I don't normally hang with too many Curlers but I suspect that 12-18% of all the bud produced in the USA is consumed by Field and 3-D archers - jk. You'd think that A.B. would consider sponsoring some of fine young ladies and men shooting for the Olympics.
:darkbeer:


----------



## Flint Hills Tex (Nov 3, 2008)

feildfool said:


> I don't normally hang with too many Curlers but I suspect that 12-18% of all the bud produced in the USA is consumed by Field and 3-D archers - jk. You'd think that A.B. would consider sponsoring some of fine young ladies and men shooting for the Olympics.
> :darkbeer:


Well, I don't have a problem with breweries sponsoring sports, but I think that maybe NAA might feel a little uncomfortable. It could lead to a big image problem, you know, combining a _shooting_ sport with inebriating drinks...:mg:

Of course, as I've said before, here in Bavaria where beer is by law considered to be part of the breads-and-cereals food group, you would be hard pressed to find a club that does not serve beer at tournaments. And most breweries over here sponsor local sports clubs. So, "this Bud's for you!":darkbeer:


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Bowling is another sport in which one opponent has no ability to affect the other guy's score, and it's been on TV forever. 

Curling is a mystery - I was mesmerized by it during the Olympic coverage. Something about it was captivating 'in slow motion'. It was just so visually accessible. Maybe everyone has played shuffleboard as a kid (or retiree in Florida!), so it's something the public at large can relate to (bowling, too). 

Seems to me that archery is as much (probably more) of a pursuit and a discipline as it is a 'sport.' Pursuits and disciplines are inherently uninteresting for most people to watch (unless you inject sex appeal into it). 

I'm not arguing one way or the other, here, but I am wondering if those who push a great expansion in popularity via media exposure have contemplated how many times a sport or activity or travel spot/location has been promoted/'sold'/'marketed'/expanded - with the best of intentions - only then to have the influx of people/attention/traffic actually take something away from the inherent beauty of the original 'thing'. Would the 'gain' be worth the 'loss' ? Just asking ...


----------



## cityhic (Jan 3, 2009)

*if it's good enough for homer......*

You know you're sport is in the mainstream when Homer takes it up.
http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/the-simpsons-lets-curl/263661a708ccc21d3907263661a708ccc21d3907-38678757637


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

It's [no wonder] that archery isn't more popular in today's world of "warm and fuzzy", "we're all winners by just showing up", and "no absolutes" mantras and lifeviews being pushed by our current education system (and some political camps). Why?

1) Archery is brutally fair:
a) No prejudice - your score doesn't have anything to do with whether your ancestors were on the Mayflower or Ellis Island or Saigon or Juarez. No excuses of history, social experience, etc.

b) Individual responsibility - you get what you deserve. If you hit the 10, you deserved it. If you miss the target, you deserve that, too. A teacher or parent can't explain away the 'miss' and tell you that you deserved the same '10' as the archer next to you got.

c) Preparing through hard work - if the guy next to you is hitting 10's all day, and you're hitting 6's all day, no one has to guess who's been practicing and training and working harder and longer to achieve his/her goal. There is no way to spin it. A 10 is a 10. A 6 is a 6. The '10' archer doesn't have to give 2 points to the '6' archer out of today's distorted definition of 'fairness'

d) Being mouthy or flashy or strutting or histrionic doesn't change anything. You can't John McEnroe the target for 5 minutes if you don't like the '5' you just scored ("You canNOT be serious! You canNOT be serious!"). The target won't change that '5', and you can't berate it so that you influence its 'judgment call' on the next arrow, either. 

Archery rewards discipline, hard work, concentration, consistency, dedication, an ability to control oneself and to focus, and where in large part 'the reward is the pursuit'. Let's face it - are those requirements that are going to find a big audience in today's society?


----------



## limbwalker (Sep 26, 2003)

All great points Larry. It's no wonder archery was more popular with earlier generations that valued those qualities more.

I've often said that I can't stand "judged" sports in the Olympics. How many of the original Olympic sports were "judged" sports? 

Give me a stopwatch, a # of goals, a scorecard or any other objective, measureable action anytime...

Another thing about archery - for the most part is the individual vs. team mentality. Most of archery is an individual sport, which demands personal responsibility. Many parents would rather have thier kids involved in team sports because of the social aspects and the lack of personal responsibility. It's easier on the parents.

John.



lksseven said:


> It's [no wonder] that archery isn't more popular in today's world of "warm and fuzzy", "we're all winners by just showing up", and "no absolutes" mantras and lifeviews being pushed by our current education system (and some political camps). Why?
> 
> 1) Archery is brutally fair:
> a) No prejudice - your score doesn't have anything to do with whether your ancestors were on the Mayflower or Ellis Island or Saigon or Juarez. No excuses of history, social experience, etc.
> ...


----------



## Toxophile (Sep 17, 2007)

Interesting thread! I totally agree about the personal qualities required of an archer who wants to perform well. But I also think that it is the exercise of these attributes which makes the sport so attractive (to me at least).

I had always fancied "having a go" at archery, and when I finally succumbed, quite late on in life, I said to the wife, "I'm thinking of joining that archery club in Glasgow" she immediately said, "Archery? I've always fancied that!" We had been married for 20 years and neither of us knew about the other's interest in archery.

So we both joined and we both love it. The club wasn't so great, unfortunately :zip: .

And once I got to the stage where I could actually call myself an archer, I started telling my friends about it. They nearly all said they have always fancied that sport!

So there's a real disconnect between the popularity of the sport and the interest it creates. I just do not know why. Maybe it's just not in your face enough, ie. advertised and promoted.


----------



## arc2x4 (Jun 4, 2007)

Actually it's really simple: you just need to get Budweiser, Coors, Miller, or Molson to sponsor the tournaments and their marketing departments will take care of everything needed to make it interesting.

Beer, Food, Babes in Bikinis, and TV coverage.

Cycling gets coverage, and what? you can see 10 seconds worth after you stand in the sun all day?, Golf gets coverage, and its expensive and Boring with a capital B.

Whats missing is the Beer Brewery endorsements GUYs and I know we all like beer too....:darkbeer::beer:


----------



## Paula (Sep 8, 2009)

lksseven said:


> It's [no wonder] that archery isn't more popular in today's world of "warm and fuzzy", "we're all winners by just showing up", and "no absolutes" mantras and lifeviews being pushed by our current education system (and some political camps). Why?
> 
> 1) Archery is brutally fair:
> a) No prejudice - your score doesn't have anything to do with whether your ancestors were on the Mayflower or Ellis Island or Saigon or Juarez. No excuses of history, social experience, etc.
> ...


Very well said!!!!


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

arc2x4 said:


> Actually it's really simple: you just need to get Budweiser, Coors, Miller, or Molson to sponsor the tournaments and their marketing departments will take care of everything needed to make it interesting.
> 
> Beer, Food, Babes in Bikinis, and TV coverage.
> 
> ...


Sorry...but if pistol/rifle shoots don't have beer sponsors, there's no way archery is going to have beer sponsors.

-Steve


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

Very well said. I have a few comments.

1) Many sports are like what you mention in number 1. Bowling, curling (the original sport mentioned in this thread), other shooting sports, baseball/softball, racing, and others all have a Darwinian process to determine the winner. People watch it - people want to associate with a winner. 

2) Ancestry can help, but whoever works hard for their results ends up being the winner. 

3) Mouthy and flashy has its place. Getting into the opponents head is just as important in some sports as skill in the sport itself. Trash talk occurs all the time - we just don't see it as much on TV. McEnroe's performance was just as much to play up to his sociopathic tendencies as much as it was to tick off his opponent and judges alike.

-Steve



lksseven said:


> It's [no wonder] that archery isn't more popular in today's world of "warm and fuzzy", "we're all winners by just showing up", and "no absolutes" mantras and lifeviews being pushed by our current education system (and some political camps). Why?
> 
> 1) Archery is brutally fair:
> a) No prejudice - your score doesn't have anything to do with whether your ancestors were on the Mayflower or Ellis Island or Saigon or Juarez. No excuses of history, social experience, etc.
> ...


----------



## arc2x4 (Jun 4, 2007)

Beastmaster said:


> Sorry...but if pistol/rifle shoots don't have beer sponsors, there's no way archery is going to have beer sponsors.
> 
> -Steve



I shoot bullseye, and I got news for ya its less popular than archery as a spectator sport, and more likely to lose participants in the next few years, Marksmanship is a declining sport.

I'm not talking about drinking while you are shooting, I'm talking about money and sponsors, and attracting new archers, that requires MONEY, PUBLICITY, MONEY, PUBLICITY.

FOLKS, that means sponsors, who sell, beer, sneakers, cars, hamburgers etc.


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

arc2x4 said:


> I shoot bullseye, and I got news for ya its less popular than archery as a spectator sport, and more likely to lose participants in the next few years, Marksmanship is a declining sport.
> 
> I'm not talking about drinking while you are shooting, I'm talking about money and sponsors, and attracting new archers, that requires MONEY, PUBLICITY, MONEY, PUBLICITY.
> 
> FOLKS, that means sponsors, who sell, beer, sneakers, cars, hamburgers etc.


Heh. I know what you mean. I shoot tactical rifle and there's zero sponsorship monies outside of manufacturers.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Toxophile,

I have had exactly the same experience - almost half of everyone who finds out I'm pursuing archery exclaims "I've always loved archery. Haven't done it since I was a kid, though. What made you start up?"

There's an almost primal draw (pun intended) to archery (especially the longer distances, imo). I still stand by my contention that the pool of participants will probably never be a big pool ... but maybe marketing could be used as a way to increase viewership (or I should say 'begin' viewership) of archery competitions.



Toxophile said:


> And once I got to the stage where I could actually call myself an archer, I started telling my friends about it. They nearly all said they have always fancied that sport!
> 
> So there's a real disconnect between the popularity of the sport and the interest it creates. I just do not know why. Maybe it's just not in your face enough, ie. advertised and promoted.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

Beastmaster said:


> 3) Mouthy and flashy has its place. Getting into the opponents head is just as important in some sports as skill in the sport itself. Trash talk occurs all the time - we just don't see it as much on TV. McEnroe's performance was just as much to play up to his sociopathic tendencies as much as it was to tick off his opponent and judges alike.
> 
> -Steve


I would agree that there is merit to 'showmanship' and a certain amount of gamesmanship. But it's a fine line between that and being a 'bore' or 'jerk' or worse. McEnroe was a VERY gifted and skillful player, but I was disgusted with his antics, and even more disgusted with the officials who tolerated it. They did tennis fans a disservice (notice I said 'tennis fans'. I'm sure the tennis 'powers that be' probably did polling that showed that TV viewership increased with the antics, so they tolerated it ... the prostitution of core tenants in pursuit of more cash ... sigh...). It's the same thing with baseball now - go to a game and they don't even call it a game - they say "enjoy the show", and there's a guy with a wireless microphone screeching between every half inning, kids spinning around bats, dance contests, singing contests, taco mascots racing around, balloon pop contests, bean bag toss contests ... oh yeah, and a baseball game is going on somewhere out there. Baseball fans take it in the shorts, but the business suits running the 'show' don't care - they're shoveling glitz and noise to attract non-baseball-fan people (but paying customers) who show up in droves with their kids for the glitz and noise and buy concessions out the wazzou. I miss the old days when you could go out to the ballpark and "take in a game", talk/visit with the person next to you, have a beer, and leave relaxed and somehow soothed.


----------



## lksseven (Mar 21, 2010)

I completely agree, now that you've said it and I thought about it. If the beer mnfgrs decided to 'anoint' archery, their marketing depts would absolutely make sure it was successful on TV. That would be a brilliant use of applied leverage. Anyone happen to be related to the Director of Marketing for one of the big breweries?




arc2x4 said:


> Actually it's really simple: you just need to get Budweiser, Coors, Miller, or Molson to sponsor the tournaments and their marketing departments will take care of everything needed to make it interesting.
> 
> Beer, Food, Babes in Bikinis, and TV coverage.
> 
> ...


----------



## arc2x4 (Jun 4, 2007)

One thing Archery has over firearm sports/ Shooting Guns, is that Archery hasnt been demonized by the mainstream media the way guns have. Only Gun makers want their products associated with firearms, and they are a small, small industry with very little money.

The sport of archery is non threatening to the liberal masses, and has a sort of romance attached to it in movies. So the question is do any of the Beer industry folks have management that is interested in archery, that would be the door in....


----------



## Beastmaster (Jan 20, 2009)

arc2x4 said:


> One thing Archery has over firearm sports/ Shooting Guns, is that Archery hasnt been demonized by the mainstream media the way guns have. Only Gun makers want their products associated with firearms, and they are a small, small industry with very little money.
> 
> The sport of archery is non threatening to the liberal masses, and has a sort of romance attached to it in movies. So the question is do any of the Beer industry folks have management that is interested in archery, that would be the door in....


Being blunt:

1) one of the little not so well known things about me is that I am a part owner of a beer magazine. Using that influence I have talked to various brewers. Archery does not reach the masses. That option is a no go. 

2) I don't think that we want to expose our youth to more alcohol based ads. They are already innundated with it already. 

I have already mentioned in this sub forum as to what I feel would attract viewers on stuff like ESPN. Hook 'em with the flashy stuff and then they see the other stuff. 

-Steve
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------

