Heisenberg wrote:
Interesting that you view the stock price as the sole barometer of this policy. The CEO specifically sited this policy when stating they may close these stores.
And if the stock price were falling, you'd be here using that as a reason the policy was bad.
They are
considering closing their hunting specific stores Field and Streams right? No actual Dick's Sporting Goods stores?
So, no Dick's stores closing, the stock price is up but they are considering closing 18 (wow...significant number) of hunting specific stores?
I saw this article on Breitbart that you obviously read and actually sent it some people as an example of fake/biased/slanted news. The headline would have you believe Dick's is closing a news-worthy amount of Dick's Sporting Goods stores.
In reality, they are
considering closing OR re-purposing a tiny amount (18 out of 800) of their hunting specific offshoot stores that relied largely on selling these weapons. So because they no longer sell this item, they may re-purpose some of the stores that relied on them.
So people who want to believe that the gun decision hurt them badly, jump all over this and start sharing it and quoting it...when in reality...no real news here.
I dont know if the decision will hurt them eventually. It might. But it's very annoying how "news" sites spin things because they know people are dying to reinforce what they already believe. This happens all over on both sides and it's a big reason you can barely trust any media anymore.
OH and here is the CEO's relevant quote on all this (basically saying it hasn't hurt their profitabliity yet, but it might....which is correct)
"Has it had an impact on the foot traffic and people who were upset with us on this? Yes," Stack said. "Has it impacted our profitability? No. We found ways to offset that. We're taking 10 stores this fall and taking firearms out of all of those 10 stores and reconceptualizing the footprint, the product mix, and we'll find out—we'll have a sense of what happens if we took that out.