Is DLX Technology Group really just Smart Parts?

[BigEvil]

If Smart Parts wants to even pretend to be in the process of 'repairing' their image, then crap like this debacle needs to be avoided at all cost. This just goes to show that not only are they still basically a mom and pop company, but they are not the maniacal geniuses that they think they are.

It would also seem, well to me anyhow, that they lower themselves to their audience. At some point they have to realize that there is an entire segment of the paintball market that despises them and would never purchase their products. (if they havent already)

All of this makes me wonder where Smart Parts would be right now if they had not obtained the electro patent.

[ThePixelGuru]

Let me ask you this.

Someone comes to me with an idea for a business that I can provide parts for. They are short on capital but make a great pitch and I have faith in them.

I lend them $$ to start the business of it and provide all parts at a profit to them.

I have a vested interest in them succeeding, even if I do not directly own them.

I am going to "lend" them expertise, and even staffing if need be for the short term to make certain there is return on my investment.

Doesn't happen in business right? Wrong... I can tell you for certain it does.

SP is not a giant (at least in the scheme of a business model), and a lot of what they do is likely based on some odd small scale business models.

None of that's a problem - I think what people had a problem with is the fact that they stated in no uncertain terms that this wasn't the case. There never would have been a problem if they didn't lie about it. DLX wanted to distance themselves from Smart Parts, so they lied. Guess the apple doesn't fall far from the tree after all.

[Lohman446]

DLX / SP needs to figure out how to control information better. They need to either decide they control the flow of information by stating "these are executive concerns and decisions that are only discussed on a management basis" or just state how it is. I will agree that trying to muddy the waters is simply not working for them.

[wyn1370]

here's another little tid bit of drama to add to the pot
Anybody else notice that she posted that the owner of the picture should have contacted them directly about the miss use of the image? Who's to say they didn't, SP is just trying to make it look like they where unfairly put in front of the firing squad. Now the fact that the owner of the image made the issue public is one reason that there was a public apology. But I also think there was some pressure other than the photographer and forum members that caused them to issue the statement, and they would not have done so otherwise. They act as if they felt obligated to do so, that's a load of cow poo.
They go on and on about how it was the actions of an individual. It took them the entire day to work up the public statement and come to the conclusion that they could pin it on a single employee and act as if the powers that control SP had nothing to do with it. This is also a load of crap. It was all a marketing ploy, it was intended to be they just where too stupid to execute it intelligently. But the "Truth" that they have issued is as fabricated as "Audrey". Who wouldn't throw a sacrificial lamb to the wolves to try and save face. I actually feel sorry for Rebecca for being that scapegoat, she does get my sympathy for that. But again who says it her that is actually posting up the responses in the apology thread. It could be any SP employee or even one of the brothers trying to make a good sob story.

anyway I'm done with this mess now. I'm happy they got called on it. I also know they(SP/DLX) did not apologize because they felt obligated to. They where forced to by more than one party.

[Hexis]

I like how She is trying to insert doubt about the photographer's post. I personally got email from him and I'm quite confident that he's the real guy.

True, the formal process is a DMCA takedown notice. I liked his approach way way better.

[pmstc]

I don't know if this helps with your investigation, but some Dynasty players (Dynasty has a pretty big contract with SP to shoot shockers) have been shooting Luxes recently. I don't see how they could get away with that if DLX was not owned by SP.

[manike]

I like how She is trying to insert doubt about the photographer's post. I personally got email from him and I'm quite confident that he's the real guy.

True, the formal process is a DMCA takedown notice. I liked his approach way way better.

He is the real guy. I verified the account details and information to check it wasn't a hoax.

[snoopay700]

I don't know if this helps with your investigation, but some Dynasty players (Dynasty has a pretty big contract with SP to shoot shockers) have been shooting Luxes recently. I don't see how they could get away with that if DLX was not owned by SP.

That seems like some concrete evidence right there.

And yeah, the guy is legit, i'm one of the people that alerted him and he linked me to his thread on PBN.

[wyn1370]

I don't know if this helps with your investigation, but some Dynasty players (Dynasty has a pretty big contract with SP to shoot shockers) have been shooting Luxes recently. I don't see how they could get away with that if DLX was not owned by SP.

DLX may not be owned by SP, but it is controlled by a common interest (probably Gardners). The only seperation of DLX and SP is the one they tell the public about. They share everything manufacturing, employees, offices, fake CS screen names. If they are going to go and lie about something as stupid as a fake CS rep, there is no reason to believe anything else they say.

[teufelhunden]

Sure I agree with you...all that could be....but the question is WHY cont. to LIE about it all...Same building, address and employees....why not just be honest and tell the consumer the real deal...come clean...why continue to LIE....we all know SP and DLX are the same company...the issue is that they LIE about it and want us to believe other wise....

Because you have no right to know, no reason to care past the point that you understand there is some level of affiliation, whatever it is. Buy the gun or don't, SP isn't going to care about your non-sale or all of AO's non-sale. The margin on the Luxe is likely huge because everything on it seems to be a tweak of something that's been used for years, so they're certainly not losing money by you not buying one.

[punkncat]

Posted this on the nation

I am going to wade in a bit here.

In the world of advertizing people get PAID to be representative of a company. If their voice is used they are compensated, if their picture/image/likeness is used they get paid for it.

You went on and STOLE this identity without permission. Used her as a false front for a personna that does not truly exist to lead on a bunch of (generally male) customers, topping it off with the I am single and flirty comments, etc. ALL in a purposeful effort " to try to fool...members of PBNation ".

You can claim otherwise all you want, but there is no question what your intent was. Otherwise why would you have done it?

Personally I would sue the crap out of your for doing what you did to an image of my wife without permission or compensation for such use as the face of your representative.
How do you think this lady would have felt walking down the street and having some kid that recognizes "her" from the avatar and statements you have been making and walks up and makes some offhanded comment. You could only imagine the possible outcomes for all involved.

The ONLY reason that you come out with this apology at all was simply because someone was smart enough to question and catch you in your lie. Otherwise it would still be going on, just like before.
I don't know if the whole responsibility falls on you, as you state, but whoever came up with this half baked idea lacks a great deal of judgement, ethics and I darn sure would not have them working for or representing me.....oh wait, it is the Gardners...nvrmnd

Have to say that after reading through this bothers me a bit more than I first thought.

[insixdays777]

Because you have no right to know, no reason to care past the point that you understand there is some level of affiliation, whatever it is. Buy the gun or don't, SP isn't going to care about your non-sale or all of AO's non-sale. The margin on the Luxe is likely huge because everything on it seems to be a tweak of something that's been used for years, so they're certainly not losing money by you not buying one.

Still not seeing the point...I agree I dont have the right to know...I would be OK with that answer from SP, BUT they chose to LIE and purposeful state SP and DLX is NOT the same company. This would not be an issue AT all if from the start SP simply said:

"Guys, DLX is our high end gun line. " or even "Guys, we arnt going to comment one way or the other about SP and DLX's releationship Please come to your own conclusions."

Not one those things did smartparts do or say. Instead They CHOSE to LIE to everyone about DLX and SP releationship...the stated DLX is a seperate and different company....

IT IS NOT ABOUT AUDREY OR REBECCA IS NOT ABOUT DLX = SmartParts....ITS A HONESTY ISSUE!

[teufelhunden]

Still not seeing the point...I agree I dont have the right to know...I would be OK with that answer from SP, BUT they chose to LIE and purposeful state SP and DLX is NOT the same company. This would not be an issue AT all if from the start SP simply said:

"Guys, DLX is our high end gun line. " or even "Guys, we arnt going to comment one way or the other about SP and DLX's releationship Please come to your own conclusions."

Not one those things did smartparts do or say. Instead They CHOSE to LIE to everyone about DLX and SP releationship...the stated DLX is a seperate and different company....

IT IS NOT ABOUT AUDREY OR REBECCA IS NOT ABOUT DLX = SmartParts....ITS A HONESTY ISSUE!

It likely is a different company; if it was me, it'd be an LLC, and if the ownership structure was to be the same as SP, I'd consider disregarding it for tax purposes. Depends on if SP is a C or S corp. Should be an S corp, but then again, it probably shouldn't be a corp at all. Regardless -- DLX most likely is, in official, technical, and real senses, a different company. Different legal agreements, EINs, etc. So they're not lying when they say that it is a different company. Separate, you really can't figure out unless you take a close look at everything (internet close looks aren't that close and don't count), and the meaning of the word could be taken as so many different things you can't really claim SP lied about it. You may define separate as sharing zero resources, SP may define separate as having separate financials and monetary structure (different bank accounts, for instance).

Hell, in my line of work you could run DLX and SP out of the same building and I'd never know unless you told me (and if I never put any thought towards it aside from what was _required_ for the job) -- that satisfies my definition of separate.

[robnix]

It likely is a different company; if it was me, it'd be an LLC, and if the ownership structure was to be the same as SP, I'd consider disregarding it for tax purposes. Depends on if SP is a C or S corp. Should be an S corp, but then again, it probably shouldn't be a corp at all. Regardless -- DLX most likely is, in official, technical, and real senses, a different company. Different legal agreements, EINs, etc. So they're not lying when they say that it is a different company. Separate, you really can't figure out unless you take a close look at everything (internet close looks aren't that close and don't count), and the meaning of the word could be taken as so many different things you can't really claim SP lied about it. You may define separate as sharing zero resources, SP may define separate as having separate financials and monetary structure (different bank accounts, for instance).

Hell, in my line of work you could run DLX and SP out of the same building and I'd never know unless you told me (and if I never put any thought towards it aside from what was _required_ for the job) -- that satisfies my definition of separate.

A company that I used to work for did real estate development, different projects were setup as their own LLC. Everything involved with each LLC was registered in the name of that LLC including domain names, trademarks, etc... specifically so any possible lawsuits didn't have an effect on other projects. We did run everything out of the same office though.

Now, IANAL, and I may have no clue what I'm talking about, but those were there the reasons I was given by ownership.

This doesn't seem to be the case with DLX, there's no DBA in the State of PA for them, and all the IP that I've seen like trademarks, domain names, even the webhosting etc... is owned and paid for by SP with their name on it. With no DBA in PA, they're not allowed to enter into any contracts using that name either.

[insixdays777]

What is the meaning of "is" is the question?....

semantics...NO excuse. SP comminicutates in a non-business law relm of paintball players. lay-man terms, normal adverage joe terms.

When you say:

"DLX Technologies is NOT a subsidiary of Smart Parts - it's a completely separate company."

That is what you mean.

What does "a completely separate company" mean to us adverage joes?

1) Not the same building/mailing address ect...
2) Not the same IP
3) Not the same servers
4) Not the same employees.
5) Not the same professional sponsered team.

I could go on but you get my point....