As
@Covertnoob5 indicated ZCO and TT don't really sponsor anyone. Plus there's different tiers of sponsorship from mild to wild, so that in itself is a whole complex topic.
Oh, I get it. I don’t have a dog in this thing…I’m not even a competitor. I’m just a stickler for accuracy.
As my link above shows, he previously said ZCO has some vague agreements with shooters, but the deals aren’t at the level of a pure sponsorship.
However, I haven’t read anywhere that someone has said TT has
any sponsorship with
anyone–free scopes for life, nebulous, one free cleaning, $5 off coupon, or not. Do let me know if you know otherwise.
The point being that, apparently, people using TT scopes in PRS are entirely funding the units by themselves. Whereas some folks seem to be getting some deals on ZCO. Not free scopes, I guess, but something off the purchase price or ?
And I wholeheartedly agree that for
some competitors, they’d choose a scope regardless of a deal. That’s not really relevant, I guess, because perceptions matter. The consumer asks, “Did they choose X because Y, or not?”
Counterexample: a lot of people just want a deal, regardless. If they don’t get a deal, they don’t buy. Doesn’t matter how rich they are (I personally know a dude like this lol).
So, the (apparent) fact that some people are choosing a more expensive scope (TT) and buying it out of pocket speaks louder about the quality of that scope than someone getting a minor deal on a different scope and using it.
There’s no shame in cutting some small deals for competitors. None at all. Honesty is the best policy.
I think if you browse through my posts, you’ll see I’m not someone who flies off the handle or argues out of ego.
Not trying to make waves, but as a disinterested observer, I like to lay out the facts for people like me, the lowly consumer.
Edit: I do realize that TT could be cutting back room deals but just hides them well. I can only deal with what I know.