Friday, November 11, 2005
Industry Leaders Can Rehabilitate Less-Lethal Technology’s Image by Offering and Aggressively Promoting Safer Stun Guns
Bad press and the attention of human rights groups threaten future buyers’ confidence in stun gun technology and may have precipitated a recent plunge in industry profits. I urge leaders of this market to reign in what seems like inscrutable investor activities and take major steps to rehabilitate stun guns’ image while the window for positive impact remains open.
The bad rap on stun guns is partially deserved. More important, the perception is the reality. Major companies in this market space have acted in ways that many see as inconsiderate, irresponsible, and legally questionable. Whether these people are correct in their assessments becomes a minor point once a perception sets in.
Reuters reported on Oct. 26 that a major stun gun manufacturer had experienced a 95 percent dip in profit during the third quarter. Just two days earlier, MarketWatch and others reported that this same manufacturer’s stocks rose on news of the company’s latest offering, a camera to record users’ activities on its existing weapon. This safety-minded feature received renewed coverage almost two weeks later via an Associated Press story.
On Nov. 6, The Indianapolis Star ran an article adding context to law enforcement cutbacks on orders of stun guns. Meanwhile, Stinger Systems of Florida introduced to the market a stun gun to rival the established leader’s weapon.
To salvage sales, this industry must issue sweeping messages. Someone needs to take concerted actions that are grand and reassuring in scope. And the media need to cover what’s said whether the message comes from new or established players.
Stock prices and profits have been all over the place. Shareholders and other business stakeholders in the stun gun market space are flying by the seats of their pants and jockeying for the big score. Add new players to the fray, and developments will either mellow or become more frenetic.
Human rights organizations are beginning to claim victories in their efforts to enforce safe stun gun use. An Oct. 26 Amnesty International press release noted that a recent court case looking at stun guns, Indiana’s Monroe County Jail, and the death of James Borden coincided with the largest manufacturer’s decision to change its warning labels and the growing movement in law enforcement to curtail use of the weapons.
Pointing to the questionable safety of current stun gun offerings, organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International have fanned the flames of the stun gun debate. An embattled industry has responded with carefully orchestrated media blitzes touting new features to create the perception that manufacturers are devoted to safety.
With sales suffering such a large hit as of late, the success of efforts, thus far, to quell law enforcement’s and the public’s concerns remains unclear. But one this is certain: The maelstrom leaves casual observers blindsided.
Bad press and the attention of human rights groups threaten future buyers’ confidence in stun gun technology and may have precipitated a recent plunge in industry profits. I urge leaders of this market to reign in what seems like inscrutable investor activities and take major steps to rehabilitate stun guns’ image while the window for positive impact remains open.
The bad rap on stun guns is partially deserved. More important, the perception is the reality. Major companies in this market space have acted in ways that many see as inconsiderate, irresponsible, and legally questionable. Whether these people are correct in their assessments becomes a minor point once a perception sets in.
Reuters reported on Oct. 26 that a major stun gun manufacturer had experienced a 95 percent dip in profit during the third quarter. Just two days earlier, MarketWatch and others reported that this same manufacturer’s stocks rose on news of the company’s latest offering, a camera to record users’ activities on its existing weapon. This safety-minded feature received renewed coverage almost two weeks later via an Associated Press story.
On Nov. 6, The Indianapolis Star ran an article adding context to law enforcement cutbacks on orders of stun guns. Meanwhile, Stinger Systems of Florida introduced to the market a stun gun to rival the established leader’s weapon.
To salvage sales, this industry must issue sweeping messages. Someone needs to take concerted actions that are grand and reassuring in scope. And the media need to cover what’s said whether the message comes from new or established players.
Stock prices and profits have been all over the place. Shareholders and other business stakeholders in the stun gun market space are flying by the seats of their pants and jockeying for the big score. Add new players to the fray, and developments will either mellow or become more frenetic.
Human rights organizations are beginning to claim victories in their efforts to enforce safe stun gun use. An Oct. 26 Amnesty International press release noted that a recent court case looking at stun guns, Indiana’s Monroe County Jail, and the death of James Borden coincided with the largest manufacturer’s decision to change its warning labels and the growing movement in law enforcement to curtail use of the weapons.
Pointing to the questionable safety of current stun gun offerings, organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and Amnesty International have fanned the flames of the stun gun debate. An embattled industry has responded with carefully orchestrated media blitzes touting new features to create the perception that manufacturers are devoted to safety.
With sales suffering such a large hit as of late, the success of efforts, thus far, to quell law enforcement’s and the public’s concerns remains unclear. But one this is certain: The maelstrom leaves casual observers blindsided.
