First, I would like to apologize for all the upset Front Sight’s Restructuring Announcement caused with our members.
An apology without a concomitant change in your behavior or actions is not sincere.
There was no easy way to bring to your attention the immediate need to make changes in Front Sight’s policies, procedures and fees […]
Could that be because you are attempting to deflect the blame from yourself to others?
I sincerely believed that the changes made, through all the refunds I authorized of specific past purchases that we converted into F$ Bucks for you to use for purchases you have never had the opportunity to make with credits or points in the past, I was compensating you with more than enough benefits to offset any changes we wanted to make in our policies, procedures and fees.
I hoped to be able to dazzle members with promises of future benefits so they would stand still while I stripped them of the benefits for which they have already paid.
In the opinion of many, the membership deals you offered represent a contract of sorts, and you do not have the right unilaterally to abrogate those contracts.
To THANK these members, who during a very challenging time, stepped up and made the decision to support Front Sight for the greater good, I have already designating them as GOLD STAR MEMBERS.
This seems to be another meaningless designation. It’s not even a separate membership level. That’s how cynical this whole ordeal has made me.
The number of members who acted immediately in support of our restructuring exceeded BY A FACTOR OF 2, the number of emails we received from members who were concerned or upset with the restructuring. Meaning, within 5 days, we had twice as many GOLD STAR Members to the number of emails of concern or upset. Our range staff, reported a similar finding with GOLD STAR Members walking up to them, shaking their hand and saying essentially,I LOVE Front Sight! I understand you need to make some changes and I support them. I just paid my $500 Membership Maintenance Fee.
Good for you, but this does not square with my experience in the field. I have spoken with close to a dozen Front Sight members and not one of them expressed anything but disappointment and anger. The 100% disapproval about your actions expressed on online chat rooms also belies this story.
I also question how representative your sample is. When you first announced the
restructuring, you wrote
What if you choose not to participate with Front Sight any longer? There is nothing you need to do. How many members did you so alienate that they immediately decided to have nothing more to do with you? You did present the
restructuring as a fait accompli, after all, something necessary and inevitable, and therefore the new Front Sight reality.
But let’s say you are telling the truth about this. The Facebook group opposing your
restructuring numbers around 2,800 (that is, three percent of your active members), and I know there are others out there. For the sake of argument, if twice that number ponied up $500 you would have grossed around $2.8 million from the
restructuring stunt. Is that really all it took to
save Front Sight?
I must make my decisions based on what I am consistently seeing in the answers to the specific survey questions that address the issues of immediate changes in our policies, procedures and fees […]
And yet, you have done the exact opposite. According to you, the results of your survey show overwhelming support for your betrayal and theft, but even so you have paused
restructuring Front Sight.
PATH 1: For those members, who for whatever reason, cannot or will not accept my request to support Front Sight with needed changes in our policies, procedures and fees, so we may defeat the unscrupulous people attempting to steal Front Sight through a fraudulent foreclosure, and ensure Front Sight successfully operates for generations to come, Nothing Changes in Your Membership.
First problem: You imply that those who fail to send you (a lot) more money are unconcerned about the
unscrupulous people attempting to steal Front Sight. This is extremely misleading. Other than your untrustworthy claims and statements, most (all?) of us members have no evidence that this is what is happening. Furthermore, your focus on this pretext for your theft of membership benefits leaves you free to ignore other issues that may be just as pressing in terms of Front Sight’s long-term viability.
Second problem: Since your January 22 announcement, you have strongly implied that a) unless everyone contributed, Front Sight was lost, and b) once members contributed, Front Sight would be safe. You now seem satisfied with the level of additional contributions you have received from Gold members, so where are the assurances that Front Sight is safe? For that matter, how could any amount of money allow you to make that promise? If you / Front Sight are involved in litigation upon which hinges the future of Front Sight, how can you guarantee victory? In my experience, trial decisions can be surprising, so I am curious as to how you can foresee a favorable outcome accurately?
For your information and education, here are the results of the three surveys we conducted …
My response to Survey #1 is here. My response to Survey #2 is here. As for Survey #3, I never received it, although I did receive a second copy of Survey #2, so here is my response to the results of Survey #3.
Question #1: Would you support Front Sight making immediate changes in Front Sight’s policies, procedures, and fees for ANY and ALL NEW MEMBERS to ensure Front Sight operates successfully for generations to come?
Answer: Provisionally yes. However, I would first like to know how you propose to handle those who transfer memberships, as such transfers typically would create a new member. I am not interested in any more bait-and-switch either from you or Front Sight.
Question #2: Would you support Front Sight giving CURRENT members a CHOICE to accept immediate changes in Front Sight’s policies, procedures, and fees IN EXCHANGE FOR significant extra benefits, perks and status, so we can defeat the enemies attempting to destroy Front Sight, and ensure Front Sight operates successfully for generations to come?
Answer: Yes, but I don’t understand how this is any different from your current operating practices. You have been doing this for decades.
Some closing points:
surveyswere utterly defective as they consisted only of loaded questions from one point of view.
- It is mystifying why you did not solicit ideas from members on how to improve Front Sight’s bottom line, especially given the fact that there must be plenty of Front Sight members with extensive business and/or marketing experience.
- The overall sense that comes from your recent messages, proposals, and surveys is that you do not care about Front Sight or its members, but instead have some unsavory ulterior motive.
Greg Raven, Apple Valley, CA