Author Topic: RUSTY=anti-sup?  (Read 128902 times)

val

  • Rincon Status
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Re: RUSTY=anti-sup?
« Reply #30 on: January 08, 2011, 11:45:47 PM »
I don't see what the big deal is.  It's a CARTOON.  I laughed when I saw it.  Nothing to get offended over.

I SUP.  I shortboard.  Guess what -- they don't like us!   A stupid cartoon isn't going to change that.  Let them have their laugh.  BFD,  I'll get my waves, and have the last laugh.

PonoBill

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 25864
    • View Profile
Re: RUSTY=anti-sup?
« Reply #31 on: January 08, 2011, 11:46:30 PM »
Every SUP surfer intentionally injured by a surfer from here on will have some deep pockets to go after. Remarkably stupid. Could cost them millions.
Foote 10'4X34", SIC 17.5 V1 hollow and an EPS one in Hood River. Foote 9'0" x 31", L41 8'8", 18' Speedboard, etc. etc.

val

  • Rincon Status
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Re: RUSTY=anti-sup?
« Reply #32 on: January 08, 2011, 11:50:16 PM »
Every SUP surfer intentionally injured by a surfer from here on will have some deep pockets to go after. Remarkably stupid. Could cost them millions.

Because there's so much intentional injuring of SUPs by "surfers"?

 ::)

pdxmike

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 6186
    • View Profile
Re: RUSTY=anti-sup?
« Reply #33 on: January 09, 2011, 12:17:44 AM »
Every SUP surfer intentionally injured by a surfer from here on will have some deep pockets to go after. Remarkably stupid. Could cost them millions.

Because there's so much intentional injuring of SUPs by "surfers"?

 ::)
It almost doesn't matter if it's intentional or not.

Rusty created for itself the possibility that any SUP surfer who gets injured by a surfer, whether intentionally or not, can point to the Rusty ad as proof that surfers intentionally hurt SUP surfers, making it more credible that the injury was intentional.  The SUP surfer then will also sue Rusty for inciting the surfer.  Even if the lawsuit is thrown out, Rusty loses tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars defending itself.

And Rusty did no favor to surfers, either.  Besides giving the injured SUP surfer evidence that surfers are out to get them--which makes the surfer look bad in a lawsuit--Rusty also brings their deep pockets into the picture, which gives the injured SUP surfer incentive to bother going after the surfer in the first place.

Additionally, it only takes one case of a SUP surfer winning a judgement against a surfer--and getting a big settlement due to Rusty being involved--to encourage every other SUP surfer injured by a surfer to bring suit in hopes of getting a similarly big settlement for themselves, again regardless of whether the injury was intentional or not.  Once more, Rusty is doing no favor to surfers. 

And I don't know if there have been intentional injuries, but there's no disputing there's been tire slashing and other forms of vandalism, intimidation, and conflict.  Rusty has positioned itself for all the world to see as a supporter of all that. 

The best thing is that even if the ads do spur Rusty's customers to buy boardshorts, they'll lose a lot of sales if their customers' moms see the ads before they pull out their credit cards. 



Lobes

  • Sunset Status
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
    • View Profile
Re: RUSTY=anti-sup?
« Reply #34 on: January 09, 2011, 01:44:12 AM »
If a sup rider was injured by a short boarder on a rusty board or wearing rusty gear this could well contribute to a legal decision.

TerryS

  • Rincon Status
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: RUSTY=anti-sup?
« Reply #35 on: January 09, 2011, 03:08:11 AM »
LOL, I quit reading that Surfer rag 20 years ago!  :o

madmax

  • Sunset Status
  • ****
  • Posts: 324
    • View Profile
Re: RUSTY=anti-sup?
« Reply #36 on: January 09, 2011, 05:30:50 AM »
Hey Rusty.  Fire yer ad men.  Dumb dumb dumb idea.  I'm in on the boycott AND the phone calls and e-mails. >:(

Tom

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 2993
    • View Profile
Re: RUSTY=anti-sup?
« Reply #37 on: January 09, 2011, 08:11:56 AM »
I don't think Rusty owns the clothing line, but don't know for sure.  I recall reading awhile back that an Aus company owns the clothing line. 

There was an article a while back about Rusty selling the software line so he can concentrate on the shaping and surfing aspect of his company.

 My entire laydown surf quiver is all Rusty boards that have been custom shaped for me by a close friend who has shaped for rusty for 20 or 30 years. They will be hearing from me.

Puamana4me

  • Sunset Status
  • ****
  • Posts: 298
    • View Profile
Re: RUSTY=anti-sup?
« Reply #38 on: January 09, 2011, 09:37:55 AM »
too bad, from the guy who made gazillions on his R. logo, and lives in a 15-20 million dollar ocean front home on La Jolla shores and SUPs all the time.


dumb  move , dumb ad  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


dumb !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

PonoBill

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 25864
    • View Profile
Re: RUSTY=anti-sup?
« Reply #39 on: January 09, 2011, 10:40:17 AM »
Actually, reading the posts on Surfermag was kind of pleasant. Apparently some adults with a modicum of surfing experience decided to respond. Most of the talk was about the lack of style in SUP riding, which is something that a lot of us recognize and understand. As I paddle out with my SUP to a moderately crowded break I always think "wow, a lot of those folks look really horrible when they surf". And I realize that I do too. It's going to take some time to change that, so that perhaps a majority surf with some kind of grace. It's less noticeable with surfers, though there is just a big a gap between "good" and "not a kook".

Of course it was sparked by someone claiming TC looks bad on a SUP. That's simply not true. It might be that TC or Dave K, or any great surfer would be kicking back and relaxing instead of shredding, but claiming it's a limitation inherent to SUP is just silly and flies in the face of piles of photo and video evidence to the contrary.

Back to the thread, I hope everyone is really going to do all the stuff they said they would. The difference between complaining on a forum and actually taking action is substantial, both in the effort required and the result. Everyone is green until it comes time to do something.
Foote 10'4X34", SIC 17.5 V1 hollow and an EPS one in Hood River. Foote 9'0" x 31", L41 8'8", 18' Speedboard, etc. etc.

PonoBill

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 25864
    • View Profile
Re: RUSTY=anti-sup?
« Reply #40 on: January 09, 2011, 11:21:14 AM »
I am sure this ad did not just slip by and was discussed at great lengths as to where it would lead. Sad commercial statement that rivals politics.

You're right, Ads never "just slip by". Especially ones with controversial elements. It's not the ad agency, it's the mindset of the company. Playing off the fake radical nature of the "surfing lifestyle" as practiced by millions of teenagers getting their mommies to buy them boardshorts.
Foote 10'4X34", SIC 17.5 V1 hollow and an EPS one in Hood River. Foote 9'0" x 31", L41 8'8", 18' Speedboard, etc. etc.

pdxmike

  • Cortez Bank Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 6186
    • View Profile
Re: RUSTY=anti-sup?
« Reply #41 on: January 09, 2011, 12:12:53 PM »
Actually, reading the posts on Surfermag was kind of pleasant. Apparently some adults with a modicum of surfing experience decided to respond.
I agree.   It only makes Rusty look worse.  The surfing world may be moving beyond the hate, so Rusty steps in and tries to pull it back--and if Rusty can't reach the adults anymore, at least they'll try to pull the new generation back into the hate zone.

I'm not the type to be offended or outraged, or to take things personally, and I don't even surf.  But when I see that ad, I see a company trying to profit by stirring up hate and inciting violence towards my friends.  I don't see a substantial difference between Rusty putting that message in a magazine ad, or selling t-shirts at the parking lot with it, or hiring people with bullhorns to stir up SUP hate at the breaks. 

In fact, it would bother me less to see a misguided guy on the beach out there stirring up things himself.  At least that's honest.  Rusty is sitting on the sidelines, inciting teenagers while pocketing their money.   If anything did happen, they'd hide behind all the standard excuses, and express their concern for the victim, maybe even in a full-page ad with their logo on it--not that they'd feel any guilt or necessity to help him out, or help the 16-year-old who got arrested for assault, or slashing someone's tires after seeing their ad. 

It's like teenage girl cliques who wreck the lives of other girls through backstabbing and gossip, then hide behind the "we didn't do anything" excuse. 

In fact, that's probably why Rusty's ad includes the "take it EASY" line--so if anything happens, the company can say, "Don't blame us--we were taking a stand AGAINST violence".  As Iceman and PonoBill point out, these ads are carefully thought out by the time they get to print. 

That's why I don't shrug this off. 

joeag

  • Waikiki Status
  • *
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
Re: RUSTY=anti-sup?
« Reply #42 on: January 09, 2011, 12:54:38 PM »
Let's all settle down for a minute and remember the following:

1.  There's no law against bad taste (or stupidity);
2.  Rusty is not going to automatically become a defendant (or liable) "next time a SUP'er is attacked by a prone surfer" (has that ever happened) - remember the outcry against "violent video games" etc.?
3.  Because something offends you or me (this time), doesn't necessarily mean it should be forced out of existence because the next time it might be something YOU like that someone else doesn't like - that's the basis of FREEDOM of SPEECH.

I saw the ad when I received my copy and thought it was a stupid move and in bad taste, but mostly I was looking forward to this thread on the Zone - I knew it would be a great read!

Before Rusty can be found liable, causation (a link between the ad and the action) has to be proved.  Good luck with that since there is a whole bunch of precedent in cases involving music (lyrics), video games, etc. that holds the content creator (nor broadcaster) is NOT liable for the actions of someone who hears or sees the content and later undertakes violent or criminal activity.  It's still up to the individual to govern his own actions in this country folks.

Last thought - there are a lot of people who feel the Reef ads in surfer mag are in bad taste as well - should those be banned or should shops that sell Reef be boycotted until Reef pulls the ad?  Freedom of speech, even in commercial advertising (and even for things you don't agree with) is a wonderful thing - that's why it's (mostly) protected by the US Constitution! God bless America  :)

Chan

  • Peahi Status
  • *****
  • Posts: 943
    • View Profile
Re: RUSTY=anti-sup?
« Reply #43 on: January 09, 2011, 01:20:56 PM »
Speech which incites violence is limited in every state.  With the growth of social media there has been a notable increase in litigation over incidents where speech has incited violence, or was intended to.   It wouldn’t be necessary if more people just showed some common sense.

 I'm sure Rusty will see an increase in shorts and tee's sales which will generate revenues that exceed any legal costs.  Doesn't make it right though.

H2Oman

  • Teahupoo Status
  • ******
  • Posts: 1227
  • supcontender
    • View Profile
    • Californiastandup.com
Re: RUSTY=anti-sup?
« Reply #44 on: January 09, 2011, 01:24:08 PM »
I don't care about the ad other than it fuels the fire.   Just yesterday, paddlers had their tires punctured at the cove in Palos Verdes.   

 


SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal