Military Marketing

C

CauseforAlarm

Joined
Oct 18, 2004
Messages
37
While I realize the marketing value of military ties as a sales point, I am sure I am not alone in seeing these methods as preventative factors for personal purchase. I know that service personnel make up a sizeable portion of this market, but even in advertisements and sales descriptions on the other side of the Dork Ops extreme, mall ninja targeting is present in a seemingly excessive amount of merchandise. As examples of my opinion and preference, I think it'd be more appropriate if stamped K-BAR knives were exclusively available for Marines, with plain versions sold for other buyers. If there was a similar option for the Spyderco Military, it could have been in serious contention for my latest carry purchase.
 
I agree with you. In fact, I get tired of all the military type names and uses given to knives. I was in the military and I use knives more now than I ever did in service. :grumpy: I think it would be cool if companies started naming knives after other things like animals or mythilogical gods. ;)
 
I agree with much of what you say. The names and marketing strategies are aimed at low-IQ folks or socially retarded wannabees, and who want's to be mixed up with them? But here's my philosophy: Life's too short to give up things you want because of what other people think. Why pass up the Military because of a name?

Sure, I prefer not to be seen as some kind of mall-ninja, but I think my personality is such that people who know me won't think that if they see such a name on a knife I have. If they ask, I'll just say I bought it because it was a good knife.

I tend to only carry one knife at a time, and use them fairly discreetly. People at work know I like knives but I don't talk about them all the time, nor do I wear camo or web belts, nor do I wear tactical gloves, nor do I have 5 or 6 knives/multitools/flashlights on me at all times. Me a mall-ninja? Not unless I give 'em a reason to think so.
 
People forget that if you ever are forced to use a knife as a weapon, that knife will become a focal point of your trial. The manufacturer's name and the name given to it by its manufacturer to the knife will certainly be used. Even the manufacturer's advertising for it may become evidence (goes to motive, mindset, etc.).

When a lawyer holds the knife up for the jury and says, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is the MegaDeath Knife Company 'Sudden Vengence' knife..." has a different impact than, "This is the Acme Camping Company model 127C folding knife."

And then comes the question of why you selected this specific knife and why you were carrying it. Did you select it because of it's specially-designed blood groves that control blood splatter? And were you carrying it to covertly deanimate your enemies? Those questions could be raised. And it would be rather unfortunate if the prosecutor could rip the evidence he needs to support that accusation right out of the front of any recent issue of a major knife magazine.
 
Yes I agree in theory, although I like some of the designs. There is certainly an over-abundance of "military" / "combat" / "tactical" knives. Most military personel will never have need of a weapon-knife, and those that do are probably issued suitable and approved bayonets or knives, and the associated training.

As far as actually carrying such a knife and using it on someone, it would be impossible to claim self defense. They're aggressively-designed offensive weapons, not handy tools that could be utilized for defensive purposes.

Just my thoughts,
Bob
 
so if you have a guy coming after you with a baseball bat or a cane, and you disable him with a knife... you cant claim self defense? I cant believe that.. but if its true... wow... :barf:
 
As far as actually carrying such a knife and using it on someone, it would be impossible to claim self defense. They're aggressively-designed offensive weapons, not handy tools that could be utilized for defensive purposes.
Click to expand...

What then of a gun? It's hard to claim that that's anything but a weapon and yet people are frequently acquited on the grounds of self-defense in gun cases.

But, you are correct in that the design of these knives makes justifying carrying them much more difficult.
 
We are not so far evolved from supposedly less civilised times as we might think. I reckon we still mythologise and worship the warrior. Even the less socially retarded subconsciously want a little bit of that 'warrior' mystique to splash on us.

I'm with Wunderbar - I'd like to see a little more mystical/organic/mythological reference to knives. The tactical/spec ops stuff feels a bit off to me. Not because I disrepect that community (hey some of my best friends...........) but because I feel it is disrespectful to take on any of their image when I haven't earned it. I feel the same way myself with people who pretend they have played league footy when they haven't.

I think that's one reason why I'm lovin' my new Manix - although it has the black g10, it is a little more functional, less military looking. The leaf shaped blade looks less like it was made for stabbin.

But hey - don't listen to me, I'm just an old knife hippy ;)
 
because I feel it is disrespectful to take on any of their image when I haven't earned it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's why I would decline to wear a teeshirt with a military insignia on it. It's not that I dislike the military or wouldn't want to be associated with them, wouldn't be proud to be associated with them, but because I don't want to usurp the honor due them.
 
Interesting discussion, Gollnick makes a good point about clothes.

I personally think wearing military surplus clothing is uncool and disrespectful.

Combine wearing military surplus clothes and a tactical style knife in a self defense case...no matter the circumstances, it wouldn't be very defendable.

Collecter
 
Using a military connection in advertising is nothing new. People seem to think things are better if they have military connection. There is some dishonesty in this practice, some companies have submitted products to the military for evaluation and then claim that they are used by the military.

Just because it was tested by the military does not make it any better. What may work for one unit does not make it good for another unit , same with individuals. When it comes to knives get what suits your needs and don't worry so much about marketing.

For years the Buck 110 was carried by both military and cops without any marketing directed specifically at either market. The 110 was and still is a good knife and that is why it sold.
 
An interesting discussion. I think a lot of the "military marketing" from some companies is just that...Marketing knives to and for the military i.e. Emerson, Strider, etc. I can agree in principle w/ the comment regarding the stamped Ka-bars but I don't think it's that big a deal. I don't really look twice at guy's wearing military surplus even though I think unless your in the field it's pretty tacky. I wholeheartly agree that you shouldn't wear an insignia you didn't earn. I won't wear anything with a unit designation I wasn't either in or worked with, swapped for etc.
Court room defense is a very valid point, but I think most of the cutlery companies that I would do business with keep this in mind with their marketing.
 
The Sebenza is as capable of heavy duty use in a combat or survival situation as most knives marketed as "tactical" But Chris Reeve doesn't design them to look, or name them in a way, that suggests this. Sebenza comes from the Zulu word for "work".

His fixed blades were first made to satisfy his personal need for a military knife, but even these are named neutrally and marketed generally, not specifically for military personnel, although many are sold to them. The exceptions are the Yarborough/Green Beret knives, which are actually a collaboration with Bill Harsey, designed to satisfy a specific military contract.

It is perfectly possible to satisfy fantasies of being a Texas Ranger, mountain man, or survivalist in a ruined civilization without needing the imprimatur of an armed service on one's equipment.

Nevertheless, there are items of equipment that were first developed or improved for military use that have become popular for civilian utility purposes, like cargo pants, for example. As long as the military affiliations are only a matter of record and not of doctrine and practice, what's the harm?

And if self-defense is considered, why not select from legitimate military designs which have already been optimized for this? Your circumstances and behavior will count for much, much more in court than the logo on your pocket knife.
 
collecter said:
I personally think wearing military surplus clothing is uncool and disrespectful.

Collecter
Click to expand...

I think its ok if you're wearing it while camping and stuff, but not if you going to the mall. You gotta admit, BDU pants are rugged and have lots of pockets. Good for field use. Though I prefer olive drab and khaki over DPM.

I personally feel its only disrespectful if you wear t-shirts covered with military insignia like NAVY SEAL,, ARMY RANGER or Special Air Service. Its degrading to the men who worked so hard to be in these units only to have their units insignia used as a marketing gimmick, brings down the prestige.
 
I think a lot of the "military marketing" from some companies is just that...Marketing knives to and for the military
Click to expand...


One company that definitely does market to the military and with great success is Benchmade. They have substantial military contracts both with the US military and with other countries. If you want to talk about something that is actually used by the Navy Seals, for example, Benchmade knives would be a good example.

I've seen the catalogs and materials they use to market to military customers and I can tell you that they don't mention any "covert deanimation missions" or anything like that. Mostly, it's a value pitch, in fact.
 
"What then of a gun? It's hard to claim that that's anything but a weapon and yet people are frequently acquited on the grounds of self-defense in gun cases."

Unless someone's broken into your home or is actively threatening you, it's very difficult to claim self-defense using any gun or knife. And if you had the chance to run away and didn't, it's legally no longer self defense (unless you have a really good lawyer). The long-term difficulty might not be with the cops or criminal prosecution, but with "wrongful death" or injury lawsuits from survivors and family.

Many of the knives that fall into the "tactical" category aren't marketed as "self-defense" knives, they're marketed as "combat" knives. Combat is not self-defense... Good for marketing, bad for carrying.

Overall, the trend is useless hype. Although like I said, I do like some of the modern designs.

Best Wishes,
Bob
 
Bob W said:
"What then of a gun? It's hard to claim that that's anything but a weapon and yet people are frequently acquited on the grounds of self-defense in gun cases."
Click to expand...

A weapon is something designed to kill or hurt someone either offensively or defensively. Not all guns are weapons, or at least not designed to be weapons. My Perazzi trap gun was not so designed, as an example. It was designed to break clay pigeons in an organized shooting game. Almost anything can be used as a weapon - a Perazzi trap gun or a Stanley hammer or a Chevrolet. That doesn't make them inherently weapons.

On the other side, not all weapons are used as weapons. The vast majority of "tactical" knives and many, many AR15 rifles are used for completely different purposes quite unrelated to weaponry. I think the whole business of weaponry and "tactical" products is unfortunate. The knife industry would actually do well to steer clear of it or the lawmakers are likely to "deanimate" the industry.
 
Today, most military members use multi-tools and the knife blade within. In my 20 plus years in the Army I used a SAK type pocket knife the most. I had a Randal for a short while and grew tired of its extra weight and limited use -- sold it to a Rambo-want-to-be in the early 70s. It was great knife; but, I used it too little to justify its extra weight -- I always had too much weight to hump -- I'm sure this remains true today.

The reason the multi-tool is the knife (device) of choice for most in the military is simple -- it's the lightest and most practical approach for what is needed -- a tool and not a weapon! Carrying a knife with the intent of using it as a weapon is for action movie stars and Rambo-want-to-bes who don't carry a firearm.

I can't imagine why a thinking, rational person would buy a knife because it's being hawked as a military weapon.
 
After reading another thread regarding a particular company's failure, I was interested in the costs of the knives in question. The following is one of many hysterical sales points in the product descriptions of this company.

"Designed for the 21st century, these knives are becoming popular with military personnel around the world because, unlike a revolver or automatic pistol, *they never break*, malfunction, or run out of ammunition."

These people can't help but lie, even inside of a hysterical and illogical statement. I might have to stop reading, or I'll run out of companies which I'm willing to purchase from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top