Marketing Project - S&W

[earlthegoat2]

I guess it was a different take on an old cartridge though since the 40 S&W is just a hacked off 10mm.

Sure it fits into the 9mm sized frames unlike the 10mm making the 40 a little more high capacity friendly. It is my opinion though the 40 should never have been developed. The FBI should have just realized they were outgunned with their handguns vs. the bad guys rifles. A 40 is not so much more powerful than the 9mm to even the score when you are shooting at crooks with 223s.

 

[M&PVolk]

Personally, I don't feel that there is really any company doing a whole lot of "innovating" in the firearms industry. For the most part, everyone is just trying to produce a good product that the market will be interested in. Innovation is really just a buzzword describing evolution. Any real innovation is centered on the military gun space, and even then, they are just re-hashing older design concepts.

In terms of producing fresh concepts and interesting designs, I would agree that Taurus is doing the most in that space. In terms of helping with the evolution of design, S&W is a great model. While gun buyer's are always longing for something new, the fact of the matter is, most are reluctant to actually embrace anything new. Sometimes even properly established and tested items are not accepted by the seasoned gun owner...look at the above comment on the .40 caliber for example. If gun owners are so reluctant to embrace substantive change, then being on top of evolving current technology isn't a bad place to be. You reduce risk while marketing to an audience more interested in reliability than bleeding edge design. S&W is a great example.

The M&P series really stands out as a great evolution of current gun designs. The M&P handguns aren't as "innovative" as Glock was when they were released, but Glock was more than happy resting on it's laurels until the M&P & XD came along. The M&P took a poly design and made it ergonomic with backstraps designed to help fit individual users. The serrations and attention to details on the M&P made it what the Glock should have become, but Glock couldn't bother with. Not "innovative", but certainly a beautiful evolution.

The M&P revolver series is another great example of evolution. In this case, using lighter materials with better tensile strength. In this segment, S&W really owned the market to begin with, essentially competing with itself. If you are already the segment leader, evolution not revolution actually makes the most sense. The revolvers aren't standing still like Glock did with its semi-auto's because they already lead the segment. Reducing weight, adding night sights, and packing more power (.357) in the same size packages may not be flashy, but it certainly is solid. Just ask anyone who pocket carries a J-Frame how much nicer it is to carry an M&P 340 over a 642.

In AR's, well, there's only so much you can do, but S&W offers tremendous value in this area. They offer tactical railed models from the factory along with several other nicely configured setups. Additionally, they are all over the piston market with a very solid and nicely machined piece.

Those are just the M&P series, but S&W is always doing similar things across their product lines. New barrel lengths, custom shop, porting, and a variety of other design tweaks and refinements. Evolution.

 

[Full Metal Jacket]

Didn't Smith & Wesson originate the original .38 Special cartridge and .40 Smith & Wesson?

yes.

it was originally called the .38 s&w special & the 40cal was a collaboration between s&w and winchester (that was originally called the 40 s&w, many pistols & ammo boxes still have this title on them).

 

[Hangingrock]

The M&P took a poly design and made it ergonomic with backstraps designed to help fit individual users.

That is incorrect. Walther in their P99 series did that. Smith&Wesson copied the design principle.. Smith&Wesson is on their 3rd polymer frame design Sigma, SW99, and MP. Its about time they got it right.

 

[Fishslayer]

1. Do you consider Smith & Wesson an innovator? Please explain.

Not any more. Really. What is really new anymore? The big advances recently have been in materials and most S&W fanatics HATE plastic.

2. When you think of product innovation in handguns what companies/products come to mind first and why?

Colt 1911. Browning High Power. They changed everything. AND they are still popular and effective.

3. How could Smith & Wesson be more effective in marketing handguns?

Lose the lock. Nobody likes it. It isn't really an eyesore but to a lot of S&W fans it represents EXACTLY what has gone so effen WRONG with our country.

Work on the Classic series. Beautiful guns.

Offer a DA .22 revolver that doesn't cost $800.

 

[Danus ex]

1. Do you consider Smith & Wesson an innovator? Please explain.
Only to a small degree. Their recent use of lightweight materials for the concealed carry market was somewhat innovative and probably brought in a fair number of sales. Some models seemed like solutions in search of a problem, though (ultra-lightweight .44 Magnum). See Stringfellow's discussion.

2. When you think of product innovation in handguns what companies/products come to mind first and why?
The Steyr M-series comes to mind first. I know a fair amount about ergonomics and that piece nails it like few others. That's not to say other guns aren't 99% of the way there in that department, though. Most of us can hit a target several times with any handgun.

3. How could Smith & Wesson be more effective in marketing handguns?
I don't think all the marketing in the world would make S&W more effective. If they want to innovate on something that would capture my attention, it should be product quality. There's no reason a 2010 Model 10 revolver should be more poorly-built than a 1961 Model 10 (see Thaddeus Jones's post) but that's the way it is. Their 3rd generation all-metal pistols were nicely built, though, as are the 1911s and M&P series. Currently, though, I'm not interested in pistols chambered for overly-expensive calibers (.45ACP).

My first gun was my concealed carry handgun, which I bought in 2005. After deciding on a small revolver, I looked at a number of new Smith & Wesson products, the Ruger SP101, and even a Charter. The 642 seemed like the one for me, but then I figured I should look back in time as well. When I held my first Colt Detective Special, it was all over for S&W. The machining, finish work, and trigger on an old Colt was a huge leap beyond that of a new 642. A DS is slightly larger, easier to shoot well, holds a sixth round, and weighs only 6oz more despite being all steel (and I'd be carrying IWB anyway). At the time, new in box Detective Specials were readily available for $500―not much more than a new 642. It was an extremely easy decision and I still haul my 3rd generation DS everywhere.

 

[colt1903]

I have to agree with much of what has been said. While I still like S&W they seem to be following the market rather than leading. I consider them an "in response to" company as most of their new products were produced "in response to" something a competitor has already been successful with.

The S&W 99 and M&P semi-automatic pistols were produced in response to the market share they were losing to Glock. Their new polymer "Bodyguard" series is in response to Ruger's LCP and LCR. Their M&P Rifles are in response to every manufacturer who is making an AR rifle. Their 1911 pistols are first rate, but came years after Kimber, Springfield, and others took that market away from Colt. Now they are even coming out with a double action 1911 in response to Para Ordnance who has had one for over 10 years.

S&W turns out new models every year but they are usually an existing product taken to the next level. Hardly anything as innovative as the Taurus "Tracker" series of revolvers or Taurus's extremely popular "Judge" series. S&W's is also bringing back long discontinued revolvers because the consumer has nostalgia for the S&W quality of the past.

In terms of innovative firearm companies I think Taurus, Ruger and SIG are ahead of the game.

To be more effective in their marketing I think S&W needs to expand their campaign outside of the gun magazines where they (as well as everybody else) reside heavily. This would require their marketing team, consultants, and advertising company to come up with a more subtle ad campaign that would be accepted for publication in traditional non-gun media outlets. It would need to be subtle and hit upon the reasons that more and more people are getting concealed weapon permit. I'm not exactly sure how you weave domestic terrorist attacks, violent crime, sexual predators, and the uncertainty of a failing economy into a subtle diverse media campaign but if I have to figure it out I want to be handsomely compensated for it.

 

[degunner]

sad to say true innovations are not what they used to be. has been a long time since there wsas a revolutionary new design not just an advancement of a current one. Exotic metal like Ti and scandium machining techniques have been worked out polymers are no longer exotic. lately it seems ergonomics has become more trendy although ergonomics was supported in the past by aftermarket companies. People talk about the Taurus judge models 45LC/.410 chambering is just new marketing an older 45LC is capable of .410.

S&W was innovative so was colt, glock, browning,HK, ruger, well when you think about it seems every company had a standout unique product.
Colt the SAA then the 1911
winchester 1892 and 1894 series carbine and rifles jump to mind
browning- buckmark
hk- expanded the delayed roller locked bolt from CETME, vz pistol, and the squeeze cock pistols
glock-polymer
walther- early adoption of autopistols and 9mm specifically P08 and p38
Mauser-k98 often copied but some custom builders still want an org. mauser action.
some people will see an innovation but others just seean improvement that was made. this is a frequent topic of my friends and it usually brings up the old products vs. the improved one.
Every firm had an innovation that helped establish them in the marketplace, but some continued to improve the product and some tried something new, not always an innovation, some were duds and some functional yet loathed. But they are remembered for that ONE BIG thing. I own, shoot and carry from most companies and each firearm has an advantage over another. I have no brand loyalty except to the what works column.
just my .02 if its worth anything

 

[Skylerbone]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Lady Smith line that broke new ground in offering pink pistols and svelt rosewood grips in an airframe package that got women (including an aunt of mine) into shooting. They made handguns feminine enough to be accepted by women whose husbands so desperately wanted wives willing to join them on the range.
Another omision, and this one is unforgivable, Dirty Harry anyone? If Clint Eastwood's 2hr infomercials on the amazing benefits of carrying a Smith & Wesson aren't the stuff of marketing gold well I've never seen it.
While other manufacturers have indeed led the incremental way in innovation of late, Smith busied itself with developing new calibers to drive collectors and textbook shooters crazy. Indeed the .40 S&W is swiftly surpassing many of the old standby calibers in popularity and you can count me on the bandwagon. Though all participating manufacturers reap the benefit of a gun hungry market Smith has aided itself in the process because evidently you can't buy a pre '64 .500 S&W
Keep in mind that in the world of firearms, as with many market segments, evolution is the norm and revolution is indeed rare. A Lexus is just a repackaged Toyota, a Toyota is just the Chevrolet of Japan. We have the cheeseburger, they have rice and sushi. While Beretta, Sig and Glock may fill our heads with wonderment I'm sure an M&P on the streets of Italy or Austria would raise some envious eyebrows (if the natives weren't such nationalists).

 

[Skylerbone]

Actually degunner Heckler and Koch's VP70 polymer pistol beat Glock to the market by 12 years. Glock was still making curtain rods (no joke) at the time and had yet to produce a firearm of any form. While Glock got all the hype from movie myth about a "new" plastic pistol that could get past metal detectors, both "facts" were indeed founded in fodder.
For Browning I think of the High Power and Walther (now a Smith & Wesson company)of course omission #3: James Bond.

 

[Arthur2001]

If we are limiting the scope of work with autoıloaders and revolvers;

In order to be able to speak about an innovation, we have to observe a technical improvement or existence of new design..

S&W is not an innovatif company. Their aim is to provide a large scale of autoloaders and revolvers. But they are not innovatif at all.

A good sample to an innovative company is Glock. A group of designer which is not specialized on handguns designs, made an attempt to design the Glock. Thus, they were able to make brave and radical changes on their design. Further more, they were not limited with old rules of pistol design that they were able to make substential changes on the modern pistol design.

We may argue that the innovation of S&W is not focused to their products but to their consumer reletionship. They targeted to keep the market on their side by way of improving their customer relationship.

But if we are talking about the product innovation, S&W is quite far to be called "innovatif"..

Cheers,

 

[EagleNineZero]

Damn. I did my MBA Marketing project on Tide detergent.

Yeah, I did my MBA marketing project on the VW Bug rollout. A little more interesting than a P&G product for sure.

I briefly considered a project on a gun manufaturer - it would have been interesting. However, as an active duty military officer in New York, I didn't want to stir up the liberals in the audience (including most of the faculty).

 

[tinygnat219]

Gun companies in general are poor candidates for innovation. Essentially you have variations of the same design for a revolver, and you have variations of the Browning handgun action (Browning Hi-power). I wouldn't have chosen Smith and Wesson as they really aren't innovating. If you want innovative, look at either Taurus (as previously mentioned) or Kel-Tec. Taurus has some of the quickest turn around times of product from inception to production. Something like 9 months, where at S&W it's 2 years or so. Also, seriously take a look at Kel-Tec. They single-handedly brought the Pocket Gun back into the fore. They have some of the smallest handguns on the market for a good price. They have some of the strangest, yet practical rifle designs out there: SUB 2000 foldable pistol caliber carbine that can take other manufacturer's magazines, the SU-16 series of .223 rifles, the RFB .308 bullpup, and now the PMR high-cap .22 Magnum pistol.

Another potential one to look at is Glock. Their modularity, simplicity, and polymer frame set the industry on its toes WAY back when.

Just some thoughts.

 

[earlthegoat2]

Then there is a discrepency to be made between innovation and pioneering. Kel-Tec brought the pocket gun back to consumers and chambered it in a larger than traditional cartridge, the 380. This was first done by Seecamp though. KelTec MARKETED it and offered it at a smaller price point than Seecamp. Same with Glock. This did not invent the poly framed pistol but rather MARKETED it better. HK and others had poly pistols out before Glock.

 

[basicblur]

Taurus has some of the quickest turn around times of product from inception to production.

Which (in the long run?) may be the death of the company.
Taurus better slow down and get a handle on QC instead of continuing their rush to market.
As it stands now, somebody down the road is going to have to clean up the mess they're currently making.

 

[Stringfellow]

Keep in mind there is nothing wrong with NOT being an innovator. Perfectly matching your target market segment is all that matters. If that requires innovation, then you better be up to the task (there are a lot of fundamental reasons why that is harder than it sounds). Historically it is better to be a fast follower, and that is exactly what S&W seems to be these days. And if they are indeed fast, can execute, and perhaps even slightly improve on the innovation, they will be successful.

My MBA marketing projects seemed to be about Apple over and over again--and rightfully so. Apple has typically failed when it tried to be an innovator (Lisa/Newton/etc.), but they outright dominate when they quickly follow up on a product--and execute to perfection. Now I am reliving that nightmare over and over again as I try to compete with them in the marketplace.

 

[conhntr]

I think your abstract is aimless. A better idea (still dealng with guns!) would be to compare marketing strategies of colt vs s&w

both companies are VERY historically similar. However they have polar opposite marketing strategies

smith is very conventional. Buys advertisements in gun rags in exchange for favorable reviews. Sponsers pro-shooters. Etc etc.

Colt barely has a working website and you never see a review in a magazine because they won't buy add space


There are some variables you would need to control for but you could make a great project out of a comparision between these two strategies


Btw a great trick is to buddy up with someone in a different department and combine projects (with proffesors approval). I.e get a statistics major to crunch numbers while you do whatever an MBA major is good for
in grad school (sociology) I had a couple projects I combined with astudents from the math department and it makes both persons work look better

 

[GQ]

Lets not forget the law suit that Glock filed in relation to the Sigma line.

 

[degunner]

Thank you for adding that info on the HK VP70, I think they were offered with a shoulder stock / holster that would make it select fire as well. But any way I think Glock made polymer guns famous and that is why I have it listed there, HK deseved points for doin it first but glock gets points for doing the whole product line in polymer. Heck I've been asked if they still make glocks out of porcelain due to a certain movie.