One man’s opinion for what it’s worth…
NRA has lost the support of most of it’s former membership, and is not attracting new membership. The organization seems to be doing some soul searching and I applaud those efforts (such as the content/thinking represented in the OP’s letter). But, the efforts all seem to be broad, general (unfocused), and non-specific. This leads those rooting for NRA’s success with the response of “Great, but…?”, or in business terms, “So what?”. What’s missing is the core marketing concept of the potential customer’s “What’s in it for me?”
Every effort of NRA seems to be couched in terms of ‘Getting BACK to greatness’. "We USED to be”, we’ve defined standards for a hundred years, etc. NRA competition rules limit innovation (I understand the benefits of conforming standards). NRA rule books bear images of “competitors” using 100 year old firearms. I’m sure we can all come up with dozens more examples of “looking back”. I submit that “looking back” is fine for a very limited group of potential members, but this ISN’T a nostalgia organization!
Which shooting sports are currently growing and attracting large numbers of participants who are truly enthusiastic? What are the interests/motivations of THOSE people? What is NRA’s thinking on the latest cartridges, chassis-based rifles, action shooting, unknown distance targets, ultra-long range, ultra-precision, etc.? Yes, there is clearly a “headwind” limiting entry to pursuits where the equipment is ever more costly, but that rationale ignores the reality of what we are actually observing! Moreover, why would that limitation prevent inclusion of classifications permitting “entry-level” equipment? Which organizations are outcompeting NRA in shooting sports? It seems NRA’s answer is to carve those sports out to those other organizations with ‘We’re not going to go head-to-head in PRS, or IDPA, or NBRSA, etc.). I’m not singling those out for any particular reason. In comparison we associate NRA with Garand rifles, iron-sight service rifle, single-shot .22LR pistols, and the like. NRA is slow to evolve and officials seem to take offense when rules are questioned. An example recently discussed here is electronic anti-cant devices on rifles. These are banned because they are electronc, but provide no advantage to competitors over bubble levels. Responses that include ‘we didn’t make the rule to exclude just anti-cant devices, but rather the range of electronics is so broad we couldn’t tease these out’ just goes to bolster the perception that NRA isn’t adaptable. Rather than tell us this can be considered by the committee next year, perhaps NRA could establish a process to actually deal with such advancements and update rules on-line in an ongoing manner? Similar considerations for muzzle devices and suppressors. Is it “fair” to compete rifles with muzzle brakes against those with bare muzzles? Perhaps not, but why isn’t it then the AUTOMATIC response of the organization to simply create a new category to accommodate where the shooters WANT to go anyway? Instead, NRA rules simply prohibit such technologies, excluding potential competitors.
On a totally mercenary topic, what does NRA offer to reward competition performance? It offers organizers and clubs the privilege of paying fees. It offers winners “prestige”, but that prestige is contextualized within the above concepts of the organization for hundred-year-old firearms, vs winners within organizations where the latest technology/tools are the norm. Prizes offered in NRA (and frankly most state affiliated tournaments) are usually inexpensive medals - and those are often limited to the top three competitors overall. If you want to motivate newer shooters, NOT presenting $3 medals to winners in EVERY category is just foolish. By comparison, the shooting organizations that are growing have prize tables and awards often worth hundreds of dollars.
One last thought, IF NRA is actually “efforting" the return of their influence in competition (rather than just stating aspirations), perhaps FOCUSING on one area and actually "putting up” a demonstration of that commitment is advisable? Win back ONE type of competition, and make it a MODERN competition where your customer base has actual broad interest. Invest in it with high profile competition, advertizing, awards and prestige for competitors, training, and support for innovation. Deliver that as a platform and build on it’s success for your other aspirations. Going BACK is NOT the answer, and is a fool's errand.
