The colors make a sudden psychological impact. The black background feels ominous. Red lettering draped across the top tells the reader in a foreboding tone the below warning appears on every piece of the company’s most important (and most heavily scrutinized these days) product.
In stark white on the black background, the message is clear: no similar product, not even ours, can save you from possible death or serious injury. With the delicate touch of a jackhammer, the message says, ”To avoid these risks, do not engage in the sport of football.”
A check box must be checked acknowledging the warning has been read, and that’s just to enter the Schutt Sports site. ”In the year 2012, there will be VENGEANCE,” says the large ad upon entry.
********
According to Schutt, sales on its football equipment in 2011 were up 15 percent through the first eight months of last year. That figure was driven, according to a press release dated last Sept. 22, by double-digit growth in several key areas.
“Helmets, shoulder pads, faceguards and accessories all registered significant increases compared to the same period in 2010,” it said.
Eight days prior to that release, a report from the Scripps Howard News Service outlined substantial concussion numbers, marking “…that the total number of concussions among young athletes under the age of 24 is about 300,000 a year, half occurring among high school competitors,” it said. “The Brain Injury Association of America estimates there may be as many as 1.6 million to 3.8 million sports and recreation-related concussions among all Americans each year.”
Within football, the report detailed a study done by bone specialists at Brown University that studied collegiate players at three schools for three years.
“They found that running backs and quarterbacks tend to take the hardest hits, since they and opponents are often moving at top speed and from opposite directions, while linebackers and offensive and defensive linemen — who make contact on every play — took hits to the head more often, but with less force,” the study found. “The researchers said among the possible outcomes from their work is that helmet shape or padding might be revised to best protect players at various positions.”
If that was the hope, little, if anything, has changed in 2012. At least, that seems to be the case when even the world’s No. 1 maker of football helmets (according to the Schutt catalog) is willing to concede that its own product can’t protect users.
That said, Schutt continues to try, evidenced by its latest helmet, the “Vengeance,” which was released this past January. Boasting improved absorption technology, the company gave the sense that its newest helmet addresses the concussion issue.
“Our new Dual Density TPU is designed to also meet and better absorb those lower level impacts, which have been shown to potentially have a cumulative, negative effect on the brain, leading to progressive degenerative diseases,” said Glenn Beckmann, director of marketing communications, in the product’s press release.
While the company trumped its advancements in technology, it yelled a lot louder through its marketing efforts. Framing the new equipment piece as a weapon of sorts drew expected raised eyebrows and ire from consumers and watchdogs who were and are as sensitive to football’s dangers as ever. And, that was before Junior Seau’s suicide this month.
Considering its new product’s release only months ago, Schutt is in a precarious spot.
Perhaps seeing a pending crossroad between its marketing efforts for a new product and even more, growing backlash against the sport it depends on for sales, including from former NFL players like Kurt Warner, Schutt offered a new press release on Monday.
“The untimely death of Junior Seau and the announcement by Kurt Warner and others that they don’t want their children playing football, has once again brought the issue of head injuries to the forefront,” the release said. “ESPN’s week long “Concussion Crisis” segments featured stories with former players talking about their health concerns from playing the sport.”
After saying the company “applauded” ESPN for its “continuing focus,” and referring to the message that appears on the site, Beckmann said some of the discussions surrounding concussions may be off-base.
“Our message is and always will be about promoting safety in the game,” Beckmann said. “The earnest discussions going on around the country are a great thing, inspired in part by pieces like the ESPN-OTL series. But some of those discussions are focused on what we believe to be, quite frankly, questionable information.
“We use our pulpit as a helmet maker to help players, coaches, parents and fans differentiate between the good and the bad information. Our position remains the same: we don’t believe any organization can truthfully say a helmet significantly reduces the risk of concussion.
“The false sense of security created by such promises is, in our mind, dangerous.”
One wonders if Schutt’s most recent release is the company’s attempt to avoid a repeat situation from 12 years ago, when the company lost a $12 million decision in which the jury found the company’s technological design was sound, but that Schutt had marketed the helmet in a negligent manner.
More than a decade later, a new product is on the market, concussion concerns have never been higher, and the literal lifeblood of Schutt’s cash cow, the game of football, is being scrutinized more than it ever has been as more information regarding concussions and other long-term health issues becomes available.
So, what’s a company to do?
For now, Schutt appears willing to do what it can; meaning it will continue to develop stronger helmets, even if they come with a complete disclaimer acknowledging the company’s work may actually do very little in curbing or stopping football’s fastest-growing concern.
And, while attempting to market the helmet to fans and those who choose to continue to play, is Schutt setting up for another large payout should someone present another lawsuit claiming marketing negligence?
The path being walked currently certainly seems to have familiar landmarks.
And, on the whole, while it continues to make a sale, is the company helping hasten the entire sport’s demise by confirming that even the equipment market leader can’t figure out how to make it safer?
At this point, it is hard to argue otherwise.
I think you are missing quite a bit of information and color on this one. For example, the wording on the disclaimer that you are making much of has appeared on Schutt product for around ten years. The fact that science cannot presently solve a complex problem like player concussions should not signal the demise of the game. Every ten years or so, the press declares football dead. Yet, the sport has continued unabated.
Here’s a little Occam’s razor puzzle for you: how is it that football has survived all of these years despite the genuine possibility of catastrophic injury? How about boxing? Mixed martial arts? BMX? Ski jumping? Motocross? Is it because people were unaware of the risks or because fundamentally the sport, despite its inherent risks, is providing a tangible value meriting taking such risks?
Bob,
Thanks much for taking time to respond, and welcome to the conversation. It is interesting that your hard-line stance is that because science can’t solve why concussions happen, football should continue as is. I think it is pretty evident, and doesn’t take a lot of science, that running into things with your head, or having things run into your head, can cause injury – sometimes severe, long-lasting ones. Your company obviously understands this, or it would not have kept a warning label on the helmets themselves and made the warning such an unmistakably prominent piece to the website.
My question for you is this: If the label has been a part of the product for the last decade or so, as you said, is this because of a true, honest commitment to safety warning, or is it because it was the best way Schutt decided to proceed following the $12M jury decision to a high school player for what was described as negligent marketing? The player bought the marketing, believing rightly or wrongly that Schutt’s helmet would keep him safe. One of the points to my article was simply wondering aloud whether Schutt is walking the same line again by touting technology advances and tying those to the idea that its helmet can help protect against injuries associated with concussions; while at the same time naming its newest helmet “Vengeance” – a word that invokes an idea of having an upper-hand and of some act of violence.
What vengeance doesn’t invoke is the thought of “I might get hurt doing this.”
That said…
- In your company’s press release this week, Schutt applauds ESPN’s want to continue the concussion conversation. However, it is also noted the company believes that some conversations are based on “questionable” information. Here now, you have stated that I am also missing quite a bit of information. What are we all missing that Schutt knows? If we are all missing it, why hasn’t Schutt (or others) come forward and shouted everything out loud? I have a feeling you have the football world’s ear if you want it.
- Do you feel at all like this current scenario with Vengeance could potentially be walking the same “negligent marketing” path that Schutt faced the first time around? If not, why not?
- As a company, has this conversation come up in meetings?
- How does Schutt view the current football landscape? Is there concern over the general public’s recent spike in safety conversation? If no, why was it deemed necessary to send the press release that came out this week?
- Do you feel your company is playing both sides of the card here? Schutt says Vengeance can help protect against the lower-level impacts associated with potential negative impact on the brain. But, your warning label says “no helmet system can protect you from serious brain and/or neck injuries.” Which is it? Can Vengeance help protect or can’t it?
- Finally, in answer to your last question, yes, I believe fully that people were unaware to a large degree of the full risks involved playing football. At the highest level, for the longest time, the general public did not see the insane amount of aftermath associated with some of the strongest athletes on the planet. Those stories are just now coming out on a large scale, and the effect is already being felt as, like your company’s release said, guys like Kurt Warner are opposed to their very own children playing. So, while the tangible value may have outweighed the inherent risks from the sport’s beginnings to now, I watch with extreme curiosity whether that scale is shifting before our eyes. It is my assertion that as more stories come out from some of the game’s greatest heroes, and more education is given to the public surrounding brain injury associated with the game, there likely will be a shift away from it if nothing changes.
Curtis-
First, call me “Rob,” “Erb,” or “old, fat, bald guy.” Bob is my dad.
With respect to your response, while it is very thoughtful, I would again suggest your characterization of our company and my response as being misdirected.
I am not taking a hard line stance at all. Rather, I am pointing out some facts that do not appear to be recognized by you in your argument; concussions occur for reasons not currently understood by science. You recognize that a player can receive a concussion without being hit in the head, correct? And you know that simply falling to the ground can trigger a concussive episode, right? As can a violent sneeze. The point is concussive episodes would appear to be caused by a metabolic cascade triggered by a combination of rotational, angular, and linear forces. The exact proportions of which are dependent on the individual and the specifics of the environment. What is the player’s generic predisposition? What is his medical history? How hot is the day? At what angle was he struck? Etc. etc.
We have long understood the distinction between concussive episodes and skull fractures, subdural hematoma, and the like. We focus our time and resources in trying to better understand how to manage impact absorbtion. This is a function of a helmet, correct? No helmet can claim to prevent concussions. Manufacturers that make such claims to parents should put them in writing. I doubt anyone would do so. And the express purpose of putting something in writing on a warning label on the helmet, website, fitting booklet, etc. is make absolutely certain that players, parents, coaches, administrators, retailers, and the public at large understand the risks associated with football and what a helmet can and cannot do.
Again, no helmet can prevent a concussion.
The lawsuit to which you refer, is factually inaccurate. The case brought more than ten years ago against an entirely different company did not involve false claims about protection against concussion and it did not prompt the creation of a warning label. Such a label is mandated byThe National Operating Committee for the Safety of Athletic Standards, “NOCSAE.” I am sure you know this. All information requiring label requirements is posted on their website. Schutt adds verbage to the required warning in an attempt to make its position perfectly clear.
In answer to your specific question, there is no doubt that football helmets are better. The technology advances over the past ten years alone has been remarkable. Such advances are primarily dictated on advances in material science. Better polymers, more precise manufacturing, and field research all contribute to making better, safer products. There is a variety of independent research that bears this out. Look up studies done by Dr. David Viano, David Halstead, and others.
The Vengeance helmet is an example of a great product. It uses a new injection-molded thermal plastic urethane, a new guard system, quick release loop straps, and a softer but more protective liner system. It is undoubtedly the best helmet we have ever made. And since I believe we are the best helmet maker, it is perhaps the best helmet ever made. It absorbs energy better across a wide variety of temperatures than anything else in the market. And we have independent lab results to back up any claims of superiority made in our advertising.
That being said, even the best helmet cannot claim to prevent concussions. There are simply too many variables that take place on the field. We do know this: the players standing on the sideline are not getting concussions. Once they engage in play, they are experiencing a known risk inherent in the game itself. I think that you are somewhat remiss in not pointing out that football does have rules, such as, not leading a tackle with the head. Spearing, butting, ramming, or using a helmet as a weapon are all in violation of the rules. And enforcement of these rules eliminates unnecessary risk. But there will always be a risk of injury when playing the game.
A helmet is the last line of defense against inadvertent contact. As manufacturers, we have to balance a variety of engineering challenges, such as weight, consistentcy of performance, durability, temperature, manufacturability, and cost. This is a balancing act that all manufacturers are faced with.
Your concerns about us are misplaced. Schutt is not in any more or less of a “precarious spot” than it has ever been in. As you recognize, being in a productive helmet business is not for the faint of heart. I see nothing inconsistent is saying that we are making the best protective product available while recognizing that we cannot eliminate the possibility of injury. Are car companies not allowed to market safety features because there are deaths and injury risks associated with driving?
The Kurt Warner and Junior Seau arguments are a red herring. People have been concerned about injury in football since its inception. President Theodore Roosevelt even threatened to outlaw the game if specific rules were not put into place in the early 20th century. This ultimately resulted in the creation of the NCAA. And over forty years ago, NOCSAE was established to create standards for equipment. The standards have changed repeatedly and have become more demanding every year since then. Catastrophic injuries have been dramatically reduced as a result. In fact, heat related illness far exceeds those dying from head injuries.
So, where does that leave us. You point out that concussions are reported to be on the rise. I assume you are relying on CDC data. In which case, you recognize that there is a rise in concussions across all sports and activities. Most academics believe that such a rise is more a function of increased reporting rather than a function of instance, right? You point out that different positions may require different padding. Fair enough. Schutt makes five different models of helmets. You suggest that by claiming that TPU has superior absorption characteristics that it is implying that it can reduce the instances of concussions. Not so. It means that energy from linear impacts can be better absorbed across a large spectrum of temperatures (game-like conditions). You cite to an early press release and a quote by Glenn Beckmann, without pointing out that the release was withdrawn and latter reissued without such a quote – a quote that was inadvertently made up and released by an outside agency. You will note that I publicly apologized for the error. You suggest that the Vengeance is being marketed as a “weapon of sorts.” Not sure how a reasonable person would come to that conclusion, and I would suggest that you look up the word “Vengeance.” I do not believe that vengeance requires an “upper hand,” nor an act of “violence.” And finally you point out that Kurt Warner doesn’t want his kid playing football without referencing the number of former players who have sons currently playing in the game.
For my part, I would suggest that there is nothing wrong with being concerned about injuries in football. And it is important that players and their parents understand the benefits and risks associated with the game. As a parent, both of my sons played football in Schutt helmets because I believed the values created through participation in the game outweighed the risks of injury. You may not agree. Therefore, don’t let your kids play football.
And as for your “extreme curiosity,” about whether football can ultimately withstand the purported “crisis” brought about by the press, I would answer in the affirmative. Football will continue to live and prosper notwithstanding concerns about injury. This will continue to be the case until the head cheerleader starts dating the captain of the chess club (or perhaps a part time author of a sports blog, right Curtis?).
A quick question, Curtis.
On one hand, you say:
“I think it is pretty evident, and doesn’t take a lot of science, that running into things with your head, or having things run into your head, can cause injury – sometimes severe, long-lasting ones.”
On the other hand, you say:
” yes, I believe fully that people were unaware to a large degree of the full risks involved playing football.”
Which is it?
Interesting response, but I’ll play.
Both, Glenn. (And, thank you also for coming into the conversation.)
Running my head into things can cause superficial damage. I can be disfigured, lose blood, etc. It can also cause subterranean issues – ones that were only considered some sign of weakness at one point on a football field – clearing cob webs, stingers, maybe even losing consciousness. All of these things are “injuries” that don’t take scientific backing to determine.
As for the overall impact that some of those injuries might present, considering research and subsequent information is currently being conducted and disseminated, yes, I think you could say that while people could see injuries taking place, the full risks of them were largely unknown.
Now that I’ve answered your question-answer to my questions, how about Schutt taking a stab at answering mine?
In the early 1900s, Teddy Roosevelt called together the Presidents of the Ivy League schools to contemplate the future of the game of football. At that point, college football – and the Ivy League in particular – was the epicenter of the game. It’s violence and physical danger was drawing widespread outrage.
Hundreds of players every year were being maimed, seriously injured and even killed on the field.
Yet, you say that people like President Roosevelt “could see the injuries taking place, [but] the full risks of them were largely unknown.” Hard to believe that anyone thought any risk could be more “full” than catastrophic injury or death.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the game of football is self-evidently violent and dangerous, as you claim, or its danger is an unknown, which you also claim. You can’t duck the opposition and mutual exclusion of those two positions, no matter how much you try.
Merrian-Webster definition:
Vengeance:
: punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense : retribution
The connotation can’t be denied. Schutt attempts to stay within the boundaries that NOCSAE has put in place. While at the same time try to appeal to the emotions of the buyer and the athletes who play the game. Schutt knows this. No one is going to buy a helmet with a name of a flower. It just won’t sell. However, it is ironic, to a degree that I’m surprised Schutt has missed, that Merrian-Webster’s definition of the word includes the word “injury”. Maybe, Schutt should look up the words in the dictionary before deciding on the name of their new product.
Maybe you are being a little too literal on the term injury, Curtis.
In any event, you also fail to recognize that Schutt sells exclusively through dealers (not directly to consumers), the model name does not appear on the outside of the helmet, and the helmet purchase decision does not revolve around the model name. Did you buy your last car because of the name? How about your computer? Coffee table? Had you followed the commentary after the single Huffington Post article you are making much of, you would have seen that the vast majority of folks find the name acceptable and understandable. “Vegeance is mine,” sayith the Lord. I wonder if that implies reduction in concussive injury?
You are confusing so many issues here: concussions, CTE, helmet technology, comparative marketing, historical context, injury in football, and now symantics. Yet, it is not lost on me that you have refrained from pointing out Riddell’s anti-concussion technology, Xenith’s claim to be the first helmet manufacturer to design a helmet to reduce concussions, etc.
There would appear to be more rage than reason in your arguments, Curtis.
Cars, computers and coffee tables are not good comparisons for purchasing decisions being influenced by a brand or model name. How about shoes? Baseball bats?
Also, the model name may not appear on the outside of the helmet, but it certainly does on this YouTube video posted by Schutt:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG7uhMm986U
I’m pretty sure that helmet/equipment dealers are not the only people that have access to YouTube…in fact, the top three comments on that video are from end users who are trying to figure out how to purchase the Vengeance helmet.
Pretending that the name ‘Vengeance’ is irrelevant is insulting. Obviously Schutt picked that name for a reason (or several reasons). If you want to stand by it, that’s fine…but don’t pretend end users will know or care about Schutt’s company history (which is, apparently, very short when it comes to 12-year-old lawsuits and very long when it comes to being THE established name in football helmets…). So which is it?
I think we are no advancing the arguments, Curtis. So, this will have to be my last comment. I am glad that you recognize that Schutt is THE brand in football. We hope that will always be the case.
You have my personal commitment to be much more reflective and sensitive about model names in the future, regardless of intent. I certainly would not want to be accused of hastening the demise of the game. Okay?
Curtis Kitchen was not the one who made the comment. Do you mean too literal as in life-long injuries that a family and the victim have to endure from the moment of impact or the literal insensitivity to the matter at hand?
The ongoing debate on whether or not football is too violent or worth the risks will go on for years to come. I’m sure. Who will win? Probably no one. But, to have just recently settled a lawsuit within the past year where the outcome, in which a Schutt product was used to protect the individual, didn’t, and refer to a new product as “Vengeance”, does not show that Schutt really understands what the helmet is supposed to do in the first place. Whether a helmet’s physical properties will ever be sufficient is not the issue.
There are two sides of the fence here; those that believe the sport is too violent and should cease to exist, and the other that says it’s worth it. The side that a helmet manufacture should morally be on is safety. Always. The inevitability that the sport will continue and that Schutt is doing everything they can to protect the athletes donning their equipment should be portrayed. This should be their mindset within the company and this should be easily apparent to the consumer. To refer to a product that’s primary function is to protect an individual with a name that does not exactly portray safety is the mistake here.
As a company with the number one goal of protecting an athlete from injury, the name should represent this effort-not sensationalize the opposite. While the name Vengeance may only be for internal use, as you say, the Internet is vast and information is easy to get. Schutt might be better off choosing the names more carefully and yes, succumbing to the forces of politics and public perception by choosing a name that hopefully represents their goals as a company. This can, in turn, reinforce the mission statement of the company, and help avoid criticism from the press.
Brandon,
Let’s do a fact check here. The lawsuit that Curtis referred to occurred in 2000, not within the last 12 months, as you state and uphold as a moral barometer by which we should conduct our business. Curtis also blithely refers to negligent or misleading marketing in the finding of the lawsuit. While correct in general, the specifics are this: the jury found that the warning label on the helmet did not specifically refer to neck injuries. While the jury obviously found that was enough evidence to rule against the company at that time, everyone is free to do their own analysis.
That lawsuit verdict, by the way, was rendered against a completely different company, under different ownership – a company that no longer exists. While a fine line of distinction perhaps, it makes a big difference to us as we continue to make the finest football helmets in the game.
There are not only two sides to the debate that you refer to. There is a third position that is the proper one to take: to promote the continuation of football while making adjustments to the game that ensure that the players receive the maximum protection they can while playing. This involves far more than just equipment.
That’s the position we take. If we were to take the extremist view of “safety,” as you definite it, we would not make helmets. Instead, we would be advocating for the elimination of the game – and all games, for that matter. After all, the only way to stay completely safe is to not engage in the sport. Or any sport.
Finally, the term “Vengeance” is not the same as revenge, as you seem to believe. Vengeance refers to righting a wrong, seeking justice for injustice. It is not simply retribution. In our case,”Vengeance” was chosen as a sign, a banner if you will, to portray the resiliency and determination of our company, its products and employees. A little over 18 months ago, this company was on the brink of extinction and now, we’re under a new ownership group, our company is growing, our employees have been emboldened and we’re introducing the best football helmet that’s ever been made. THAT’S what Vengeance means here. Yes, it also connects in a small way with the the emotional attitude of the elite athletes that wear our equipment, but, no football player has ever purchased a helmet based upon its name.
The moment, by the way, that we start to formulate our mission statement in order to, as you state, “avoid criticism from the press” is the day we no longer deserve to be in business. We have ever moral, ethical and, yes, financial incentive to make the best football helmets we can. And we’ll continue to do so. And we do that without having to be led there by the press.
This may be a little late, but I think by “too literal” he means that not all injuries are necessarily physical. You can have vengeance after an injury to your pride, after all.
Here’s what I won’t do: I’m not going to dive back in with a post attempting to dazzle and grandstand. We’ve seen enough of that already here. Instead, I will bring this conversation back past the impressive technological explanations of the helmet (thanks, Rob) and the history lessons (thanks, Glenn), and go back to my original question line I don’t feel has been addressed: Marketing.
Since I was called out to look it up, “vengeance,” how about this from dictionary.com:
1. infliction of injury, harm, humiliation, or the like, on a person by another who has been harmed by that person; violent revenge: But have you the right to vengeance?
2. an act or opportunity of inflicting such trouble: to take one’s vengeance.
3. the desire for revenge: a man full of vengeance.
4. Obsolete . hurt; injury.
5. Obsolete . curse; imprecation.
6. with a vengeance,
a. with force or violence.
b. greatly; extremely.
c. to an unreasonable, excessive, or surprising degree: He attacked the job with a vengeance.
I think the point is pretty clear. And yes, a reasonable mind could infer naming a product named “Vengeance,” based on that definition, could have some weapon connotation to it (especially when your own product release tells folks to face foes with it “head-on”…more there later).
Now, as I’ve been led to believe in this string of comments, Schutt, after I’m sure doing its due diligence in marketing research, chose to name its newest helmet “Vengeance,” not because it thought it would help drive sales of equipment in a violent game through promotional vehicles like the video I included originally, but because it wanted to portray “resiliency and determination” of the company.
You might get Schutt employees to buy that. Maybe. And, that’s going to be a tough sell.
Never mind the fact that this reason for the name seems to change pretty regularly. In the Huff Post article, Rob was quoted as saying about the product name, “I don’t think that it matters.”
Really? A product name doesn’t matter?
I would think, if the name was based on your own company’s fortitude, the name would certainly matter. But, that’s okay because I don’t think anyone actually believes the company line or that a product name doesn’t matter.
Further, the lead sentence in the release announcing the Vengeance said: “NFL and college-level football players will soon have the opportunity to face their foes head-on with Vengeance – the newest and most technologically-advanced helmet released by Schutt Sports.”
In today’s concussion-concerned environment, I’d say that seems unfortunate at best, and really just unbelievably careless. And, the response to my questioning the name is to have me check a word’s definition?
Pretty eye-opening.
Rob, as far as what you apologized for, you apologized for and retracted “concussive impact,” correct?
Glenn, as far as the lawsuits go, I did reference one from back in 2000; you’re absolutely right. But, the jury did award the settlement because there had been negligence in the way the helmet back then was marketed.
That was of interest to me because it struck me as having potentially some of the same characteristics as this apparent marketing gaffe. I didn’t bring up other lawsuits that Schutt has lost recently, everything from prep injury to patent infringement, though perhaps I should have. (And, you’re right, Riddell has been successfully sued for injuries as well, so maybe I should reference the NY Times article that shows that some equipment manufacturers hold the stance that it’s up to the user to know when equipment won’t keep them safe.)
As far as the semantics of a business changing names and/or ownership being different, of course I understand that you and Rob are aware how that works considering you needed it to help boost the company out of bankruptcy a few years ago. The basic product lines didn’t change – just the money funding them.
Finally, at the beginning of all of this, my honest, interested question was how does a company like Schutt balance trying to sell a new product in an increasingly harsh environment where public and scientific perception is changing almost daily – not because of anything the equipment maker has or has not done, but because the sport it sells to is under fire?
This very unexpected comment thread has been the result of my questions.
This one is REALLY eye-opening.
Come on, Curtis. This is “REALLY eye-opening”? Just more of the same nonsence. The lawsuits you cite to were against an estate that did not defend. Neck injuries and subdural hematoma have absolutely nothng to do with concussions. You know this, but continue to mix and match pieces of statements and facts without context to drive what point exactly?
Let’s do what you asked, and go back to the question of marketing. Since you claim to be knowledgeable in the subject, let’s have you name helmets and padding in contact sports off the top of your head. Since model names are so vital to the end user. Can you do it?
Let’s assume not. This is because products in the space are sold foremost on brand reputation then the “mirror test,’ then features and benefits. A press release is a small component of the marketing communications mix. As is responding to simplistic and extreme arguments made by bloggers.
Again, your facts are wrong. Nothing that is made today is the same as was made in 2009/2010. This is a different company, with an entirely new line of products, with an entirely different ownership. I do not think that is semantics.
Schutt is up double digits again. The Vengeance model has not even hit the market as yet. So, something is working. And since marketing is about communication that results in sales, we have to believe whatever marketing is being done here is working, right? Even if it doesn’t make you happy.
Your definition of “vengeance” is not out of the O.E.D., and you did not cite to your source for your definition. Dictionary.com? All I can say, as the guy that named the product, is that you are misinterpreting the intent of a model name. If you are claiming that the entire world is confounded, confused, and distraught over the model name – and I assume you have done double-blind studies and the like since you are a professional – I will own this in its entirety. Call the helmet whatever pleases you. Most simply call it a Schutt.
If you are sincere in your desire to understand how we balance trying to sell a new product in an increasingly harsh and changing enviorment, let me explain. We never take our eye off of the goal of making the best protective gear in the market. If the sport does not survive because it is under fire, then we move on to the next sport. The key learnings and capabilities of this organization are readily transferrable to a variety of applications: other sports (e.g., hockey, ski, bull riding), activities (e.g., cycling, motor sports), or applications (e.g., military and paramilitary).
As one of the few remaining domestic manufacturers, we are nothing if not flexible. We give customers what they want, when they want it, timely delivered and at a reasonable price. We are, in short, a mass-customization house.
I hope this answers your “real” question.