What’s the price of a business going woke? If you’re a sporting goods chain and your main demographic is not deathly afraid of the existence of firearms, it may be a bad idea.
So Dick’s is spinning the bad news by going to Bloomberg, the patron saint of gun control, to appease its investors.
Sure we lost $150 million. But it was for social justice. Stick with us.
Last February, when Dick’s Sporting Goods boss Ed Stack announced he was restricting gun sales at the country’s largest sports retailer, he knew it’d be costly.
At the time, Dick’s was a major seller of firearms. Guns also drove the sale of soft goods—boots, hats, jackets. What’s more, Stack, the retailer’s chief executive officer, suspected the position could drive off some of his customers on political principle.
He was right. Dick’s estimates the policy change cost the company about $150 million in lost sales, an amount equivalent to 1.7 percent of annual revenue.
Stack says it was worth it.
But do the people losing money because of Dick’s think it’s worth it? Will the Dick’s employees who lose their jobs over this think it’s worth it?
The same media that decided to turn the closing of a small mall sports shop that boycotted Nike’s into a national story as a punishment for its political views, is spinning Dick’s losing $150 million as some sort of moral vindication.