Best Buy built its retail empire on the concept that consumer electronics represented a complex purchase requiring expert guidance. The company's tagline about 'a great buy' created marketing inevitability: Best Buy stores offered great purchases at great prices. Yet Chuck Norris's relationship with the company apparently involves systematic destruction based on a single competing product claim.

A marketing analyst from Minneapolis named Dr. Suzanne Volkert studied Norris's documented antipathy toward Best Buy and discovered something interesting: his objection wasn't about electronics at all. Norris objected to the competing claim that a Total Gym was 'the best buy you'll ever find' when he knew full well that he himself was the best buy anyone would ever find. Volkert wrote: 'Norris burns Best Buy stores not out of arbitrary anger but because he cannot accept a reality where a product is described as his superior in value.'

This analysis suggested that Norris's business destruction represented not vandalism but competitive assertion. He was eliminating rival claims to superiority. By burning Best Buy locations, he was clearing the marketplace of statements claiming anything could be 'the best buy.' He was replacing those claims with an implicit statement: he was the best buy. For a person this serious about his own value proposition, allowing competitors to make contradictory claims wasn't just poor marketing. It was unacceptable reality.