Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Safety continues as a dominating issue in the stun gun market
Stun gun manufacturers have been attracting media attention that runs the gamut. Earnings information, questions about safety, and the like have filled pages.
One such company, according to press releases, plans to make new product available soon and has reiterated its resolve not to sell stun guns to civilians who lack the “proper training and safeguards.” This may be a response to market conditions.
A company in this industry may want to reassure stakeholders that it’s extra responsible about safety. The media have become, in this sense, a major stakeholder in the stun gun market space. While I think it’s perfectly fine—even desirable—for civilians to have stun guns at will, media reports may be fostering a climate that will make the possibility an uphill battle.
Siciliano thinks the issue of safety is clearly influencing the stun gun market. In a July 29 column for The Motley Fool, Tim Beyers also explored this and other ideas.
Beyers reported evidence suggesting that investors in the market are still investing in stock such as Taser’s despite swirling, negative reports about safety and possible litigation. His column ran a couple days after press releases from Stinger Systems crossed the wires on July 25 and July 26. Stinger’s releases announced the company’s intentions to make product available to law enforcement but only to civilians who have received proper training and safeguards.
People may not yet see a connection between safety and the prognosis for any given stun gun manufacturer, but I predict that a perception, at least, of the correlation will develop in people’s minds. This, in my opinion, makes safety a factor in the marketing of stun guns. It may be only a matter of time before the build-up of negative publicity takes its toll on these manufacturers. The repercussions will depend on how effectively they market the safety of their weapons.
It is too bad stun gun manufacturers must deal with these issues. Many readers of news do not understand that a stun gun is not a foolproof weapon; it’s simply ‘less lethal.’ A person stands a greatly reduced chance of dying from a stun gun shock than from a firearm’s bullet.
It is in the argument addressing what ‘less lethal’ means that stun gun manufacturers have failed, I think, to educate the public properly. Anxious to rush product to market, they may have encouraged stakeholders to embrace unrealistic expectations about stun guns being some sort of panacea, weapons that are 100 percent safe.
The cleanup will be a challenge for these manufacturers, but the payoff will be worth their efforts. Whoever figures out how to reconcile public opinion with the promise of ‘less-lethal’ weaponry may stand the chance of ruling this market.
Stun gun manufacturers have been attracting media attention that runs the gamut. Earnings information, questions about safety, and the like have filled pages.
One such company, according to press releases, plans to make new product available soon and has reiterated its resolve not to sell stun guns to civilians who lack the “proper training and safeguards.” This may be a response to market conditions.
A company in this industry may want to reassure stakeholders that it’s extra responsible about safety. The media have become, in this sense, a major stakeholder in the stun gun market space. While I think it’s perfectly fine—even desirable—for civilians to have stun guns at will, media reports may be fostering a climate that will make the possibility an uphill battle.
Siciliano thinks the issue of safety is clearly influencing the stun gun market. In a July 29 column for The Motley Fool, Tim Beyers also explored this and other ideas.
Beyers reported evidence suggesting that investors in the market are still investing in stock such as Taser’s despite swirling, negative reports about safety and possible litigation. His column ran a couple days after press releases from Stinger Systems crossed the wires on July 25 and July 26. Stinger’s releases announced the company’s intentions to make product available to law enforcement but only to civilians who have received proper training and safeguards.
People may not yet see a connection between safety and the prognosis for any given stun gun manufacturer, but I predict that a perception, at least, of the correlation will develop in people’s minds. This, in my opinion, makes safety a factor in the marketing of stun guns. It may be only a matter of time before the build-up of negative publicity takes its toll on these manufacturers. The repercussions will depend on how effectively they market the safety of their weapons.
It is too bad stun gun manufacturers must deal with these issues. Many readers of news do not understand that a stun gun is not a foolproof weapon; it’s simply ‘less lethal.’ A person stands a greatly reduced chance of dying from a stun gun shock than from a firearm’s bullet.
It is in the argument addressing what ‘less lethal’ means that stun gun manufacturers have failed, I think, to educate the public properly. Anxious to rush product to market, they may have encouraged stakeholders to embrace unrealistic expectations about stun guns being some sort of panacea, weapons that are 100 percent safe.
The cleanup will be a challenge for these manufacturers, but the payoff will be worth their efforts. Whoever figures out how to reconcile public opinion with the promise of ‘less-lethal’ weaponry may stand the chance of ruling this market.
# posted by IDTheftSecurity.com @ 8:11 AM 
