jimlongley wrote:Did anyone else see a clarification? I sure didn't: I saw an explanation about co-branding, which is not the topic;
Not only did I not see a clarification, I saw an explanation that did not make sense. They will no longer license their name to weapons because, as a business decision, it was not a good return on investment.
Uhh, just what kind of investment do they make to license their name/trademark/design to a company? I will say it might be an investment of some time from some staff person to review the agreement, but that should not be too much of an investment. If a company approached with a way to get some donations by selling a WWP pistol, how could they really lose money? For example, say Springfield said they would make a WWP 1911 and give them $10 for each one sold. Springfield must think they will sell enough to cover the cost of the dies, so anything WWP gets would be pure profit.
Now, I could be missing something in this, but from their initial explanation, I think they are lying.