September 22, 2014
Are advertisers ready to sack the NFL?
The NFL remains by far the country’s most popular sports league but a series of domestic abuse incidents involving its players this year has led to an outcry by scores of sponsors whose products fill retail shelves.
In nearly all cases, the league is facing criticism for its soft and/or delayed response to the incidents.
In one case, the NFL gave a two-game suspension to Ray Rice of the Baltimore Ravens after seeing video of him dragging his knocked-out fiancé out of an elevator. Only after a video surfaced showing him visually punching her did the NFL decide to suspend him indefinitely.
In the second incident, Adrian Peterson, a star running back with the Minnesota Vikings, was indicted for child abuse in Texas. He was initially going to be allowed to play for his team yesterday but was seemingly deactivated only after the gruesome details of the beating took place and news arrived that he had been accused of beating another son last year.
Three other players are also currently facing domestic violence charges and the incidents build on a string of criminal incidents involving players in recent years.
Violence on the playing field is also keeping many parents from letting their kids play football. The NFL admitted in court documents earlier this month that it expects almost a third of players to suffer health problems, such as dementia, from concussions.
With calls from women’s groups and others for the resignation of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell as well as involvement by Congress, many sponsors took the unusual step of criticizing the league.
Anheuser-Busch said it is "disappointed and increasingly concerned by the recent incidents that have overshadowed this NFL season."
"We are not yet satisfied with the league’s handling of behaviors that so clearly go against our own company culture and moral code," the maker of Budwesier said.
Budweiser was also the subject of an embarrassing tweet pointing to the connection between domestic violence and alcohol.
Pepsico, another major sponsor of the league, issued a statement, "Domestic violence is completely unacceptable. We are encouraged to see the NFL is now treating this with the seriousness it deserves."
McDonald’s said: "As McDonald’s is a family brand, we’ve communicated our concerns to the league, and we expect it to take strong and necessary actions to address these issues."
Castrol, Campbell’s Soup, Procter & Gamble’s Cover Girl and Visa also joined the chorus of advertisers criticizing the NFL. (An activist retouched a Cover Girl ad to depict a battered woman.)
So far, only one company, the Radisson hotel chain, decided enough was enough, suspending its sponsorship of the Vikings.
Despite the scandals, ticket sales to games have remained strong.
- The politics of outrage – The Economist
- Anheuser-Busch, Pepsico, McDonald’s, Campbell’s Soup, Visa among sponsors criticizing NFL over Rice, Peterson scandals – New York Daily News
- Brands Sound Off on the NFL’s Brutal Episodes [Updated] Budweiser, Radisson send pro football a message – Adweek
- Concussions, domestic violence, child abuse … how much can NFL take? – CBS Sports
- Outrage Over Violence Ends at the Stadium Gates – The New York Times (tiered sub.)
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Should brands seriously think of reducing or ending their sponsorship agreements with the NFL? How are these incidents influencing consumer purchases, particularly those made by women?
Poll
The NFL has just become a guilty pleasure for me. I love football. I hate the fact that its players face lifetime injuries and inflict violence on others.
If I could, I’d stop watching, but I don’t. And neither will anyone else. And next week is the NFL’s annual game in London because people like it there to.
So I see sponsorship interest staying as it is. Which makes me feel bad.
My wife calls the NFL a bunch of thugs, and I am having a hard time defending the NFL anymore. Yes, most of the players are good guys and have done lots of good work in their communities, but the actions of some of them is impossible to ignore and should be dealt with in a serious way. I think the loss of major sponsors hitting the mighty NFL where it will feel it—in the pocketbook—is a step in the right direction. This is the only pressure that will matter to the league and the owners.
For those companies that do nothing, women should absolutely show their displeasure by switching to brands that do not support the NFL until they get their act together. The NFL has become too big and powerful, and needs to be humbled before more of these disgusting acts of violence take place.
Brands will speak out about domestic violence, but things will have to get much worse before they seriously consider pulling their NFL sponsorships. What they are doing is sending a clear signal to the commissioner that the league must undergo some fundamental changes: Domestic violence cannot be tolerated and safety must be a larger concern.
Consumers have placed star athletes on pedestals. Advertisers followed the consumers. This gave the leagues in all professional sports license to ignore most offensive behavior. As a result of the recent actions by some NFL players, all leagues will be forced to look inward and better police the players. The public is demanding it and sponsors will enforce it through their dollars.
Contrary to impassioned beliefs, advertisers do what is best for advertisers, much more so than for any cause by itself. Advertisers don’t want to stop advertising because the NFL reaches a mass audience like no other, and, contrary to popular opinion this week, the NFL is more popular than ever with more eyes watching the games. However, advertisers need to also be cognizant of public relations, so many are flexing some muscle right now to protect their image of being concerned public citizens about present issues. I apologize if this response seems brash, however it’s the truth.
Very few brands will pull out, although they’ll publicly wring their hands. It’d be refreshing if NFL sponsors announced significant, ongoing donations to groups aimed at ending violence against women, but I’m not holding my breath.
Let’s start with the basics: Domestic abuse is unacceptable. It doesn’t make any difference if the perpetrator is a well-known star athlete or the person down the block.
The NFL did what any business tries to do and that is protect its assets. In these cases the asset is a recognizable football star. What it did was wrong and handled poorly.
Brands should definitely make their displeasure known, either by reducing or ending sponsorship. The NFL gets most of it tremendous income from TV rights and those are driven by the willingness of sponsors to pay for the expensive commercials. Unhappy or fewer sponsors can mean less income for the league and its teams.
The sad fact is, I doubt that the viewing and buying habits of the public are going to change. The good news is that I expect the league will finally take notice of domestic abuse and handle the cases with more severity.
Separating personal and emotional attitudes (which is nearly impossible of course) I’d say “not yet” from a business perspective. Wait and see how this plays out. These things almost always get resolved to the public’s satisfaction, because the league has to do that to protect the value of the brand for everyone—owners and sponsors alike.
As for those who try to gain advantage by stepping out in front of the issue (a la Anheuser-Busch InBev and PepsiCo) their experience so far should be instruction enough. We all live in glass houses of some sort and most (if not all) attempts at insulating one’s brand via condemnation will be turned on you—just as it was turned on Anheuser-Busch and PepsiCo.
I can’t stress enough that this is business advice and not necessarily reflective of personal opinion. And there is no viable defense against those who would assert that “you should live your values.” They are right—for individuals. If you own the company, do what you like. It’s your red wagon. BUT, if you are the hired steward of stockholder’s equity, I submit that’s a different story all together.
Hypocrisy is the byword here. Beer is probably the number one cause of domestic violence by no one seems to be castigating Budweiser. Unfortunately this is a condition that exists within our population, it is definitely not an issue caused by the NFL. The fact is this is a legal issue and should be handled by our legal system. I personally believe the courts will rule against the NFL as an enforcer of any laws regarding domestic violence.
Lets face facts, we want these guys to be brutal, we cheer them and ENCOURAGE brutality. Maybe the NFL would be better served by providing education and counseling to players and staff. Teach them how to turn off the brutality when they leave the field. As for influencing consumers I don’t think it is making any difference. Sure you have the one one hundredth of 1 percent trying to make a name for themselves or trying to create a paycheck for themselves by jumping on this bandwagon, but for most of the fans it’s a yawn. Don’t believe me? Ask some fans: Not reporters, not officials, not players, not the pundits. Anyone who is really interested in this should realize that in most communities the number one reason police are dispatched is a domestic violence/dispute complaint. This isn’t new!
Brands will do what is best for the brand. I can see dropping sponsorship of an individual. However, dropping the entire sponsorship from the NFL because of several individuals? I don’t think so. The key is for the NFL to take a stand. The Ray Rice incident brought the NFL’s issues to the forefront. Now we’ll watch the NFL handle it. They know what’s at stake. If not handled well, yes, the brands will react and impact NFL sponsorships. However, I predict the NFL will do what is necessary to preserve those relationships and regain a better reputation.
Much of the corporate response reeks of a PR campaign. “We’ve communicated our concerns to the league, and we expect it to take strong and necessary actions to address these issues.” That is neither all that substantive nor punitive, is it?
The NFL audience demographic and the enormous amount of revenue it represents will likely keep corporations from walking away from their support and advertising.
I did not watch the NFL yesterday. I don’t know if I will ever watch it again. It is not because I think these issues are the NFL’s fault. I do not blame Roger Goodell. I do not blame the owners, I do not blame the media, nor the coaches or the advertisers. I blame the fans.
The brutality of the NFL is what this culture wants. We would rather see WebGems of crushing hits than realize we are watching a sport that one of three players will leave with cognitive brain damage. We adore the great stars who carry on domestic abuse, are arrested for various criminal infractions and cheer when they come back to the playing field.
There is something terribly wrong with our values as a nation if this is our number one sport.
That being said, if the people are watching, the advertisers will advertise. This is business, after all. The advertisers will only cut back when the people say, “No more!”
If no other revelations, instances or tragedies occurs, I doubt that sponsors will defect wholesale from the NFL. I believe there will be players that may lose sponsorship support, but overall, I think brand marketers will continue to support the NFL.
That said, it would not require too many more missteps on the part of the NFL for brands to have second thoughts about participation next year.
Brands need to think long term and not in the press frame of mind. The shopper will forget all the Rice issues when the press starts pushing the next round of disasters. What about the Olympics and the runner that shot his girlfriend? You heard a blurb on it. Did the brands drop running sponsorships?
This abuse things has always been an issue that has needed more focus. It is wrong and I’m glad that it is getting the attention that it needs. Sad that it took this Rice issue to get the press and others to focus on how mean some people can get.
Brands that drop the NFL will regret it. NFL players will change—or they will not make the top tier of sports, the NFL.
I may leave retail and go to the NFL. Wife says I am dreamin’ …
NFL players are professional hit men. Always have been. They are this culture’s gladiators. Those who watch are entertained by the controlled violence. There are plenty of people who won’t be fans for the same reason. I’m pretty sure advertising dollars are chasing the fans and will continue to do so as long as the market remains attractive.
Domestic violence is unfortunately not limited to professional sports. The NFL (and the others) should take some lessons from franchise-based businesses in other sectors. I don’t know what that is, but expect that there is some generally accepted practice that involves law enforcement, the judicial system and therapy.
Personally, I would like to call the media out on their gross exploitation of the people involved, especially the victims. Cripes! Don’t they have enough to deal with?
For me the idea of heavy focused advertising to those fans who specifically watch and attend the games is a completely different issue than some advertisers’ more broad “sponsoring” agreements with NFL that often include outside events as well. I think we may see more changes along these lines. My own tolerance for professional football ended with the emerging undeniable concussion issue and the suicide of one of my favorite former players who suffered brain trauma. I no longer choose to watch football beyond the college level. Others in my work and social circle believe on-field violence is part of the game and remain NFL and team fans. Advertisers have to navigate this minefield and it will not be easy. Brands will do well to try to avoid the appearance of “cause” or social engineering aspects and play to the fans.
Should brands seriously THINK of reducing or ending sponsorship agreements—YES. After consideration, some may choose to sever it, others may not—however, EVERY ONE of them should consider or think of it.
I am also troubled a little by the second question—”particularly those made by women.” As a male, am I expected to be impervious to the social and legal/moral issues impacting domestic violence? Because I do not have ovaries I am “excused” from caring and going about my purchasing just the same?
I have an equal interest in protecting sisters, mothers, daughters, colleagues as my female counterparts and am every bit the shopper for products that are advertised (from autos to foods to website creation sites, etc., and including every other advertised product).
Of course with the NFL being so big, you don’t want to stop sponsorship. The NFL is not abusing anyone, it’s the individual players. What I would do is not use these specific players in advertising.
At first, I was thinking who cares what the NFL does, this is a personal issue between the players and law enforcement. Then someone told me there are conduct clauses in their contracts. Overall most people don’t associate an employee’s personal conduct with their employer. I’m not going to stop going to a business because one of their employees goes off. Every business employees disturbed violent people who need help. Instead of criticizing the NFL perhaps we should advocate to get players help in dealing with their violent tendencies.
First, great headline. Second, I’ve tallied the comments and here’s the score:
- Advertisers – minus 20
- NFL – minus 20
- Individual players – minus 40
- Victims of abuse – Zero.
- Public – Plus 80.
Net score: 0 sum game.
Game Summary:
- Way too violent (and refs are also at fault), but I like to watch, not because of prurient interest, but because I’m a cheesehead and I like to see my team play.
- Players are coddled and idolized (they answer to a higher authority—themselves and the almighty dollar); are held to a different standards (our fault), and believe they can get away with anything (they don’t care, they don’t have to);
- Consumers are the target of the ads, and they won’t look away for a minute from the violence and misdirection; thus condone it and get off on it (who knows if many aren’t “violators” themselves)?
- Brands will continue to advertise while making public tsk tsks and not more, until they are also held to a higher standard.
But how?
The NFL is in a tunnel. Today’s scandal should not provoke sponsorship cancellations. Consumers seek out tunnels that show the most light at the end. Sports seem to have more lasting support than female or male wrath.
Perhaps society should focus on why unusual physical skills are worth kingly ransoms, which in turn can inject the feeling that they are more worthy than others and allow them to carry expectancies on the field into domestic lives.
I was actually having this conversation with two people Friday—while our attention was split between baseball and soccer games being televised—and we all agreed football has long term viability issues. They felt it was because of the violence associated with the game—both the “legitimate” violence on field and the illegal type off the field—while I felt it was because of the lessened interest from what is increasingly a Hispanic market. And then there are the ever more expensive stadia and unsustainable broadcasting deals…but whatever the cause, we saw the second half being rough going.
It is not my job to police the NFL, and yes I love watching football. These thugs should be thrown out of the league, and I won’t miss them at all. This is entertainment, and if it makes corporate sponsors think twice about spending their money with the NFL, then things will change quickly.
All sports have jerks, but the NFL leads all sports in this domestic violence stuff, as the nature of the game is violence. Just saying.
The sponsors need to use their financial influence more to send a stronger message to the league. But the league then has to hear what it is being told and heed the warning. Enough is enough. I am a big fan of the NFL. But to see the leadership waffling on these issues is very concerning.
They can show their displeasure today but they will jump right back in when things cool down. I agree with David Biernbaum, they are doing what’s right for them.
The consumers and the demographics the advertisers are targeting will dictate their strategy. Of course brands don’t want to be associated with wife or child beaters and of course, they needed to make public statements of displeasure.
Although they seemingly failed their initial attempts at public relations, the NFL will survive and more proactively weed out its elements that negatively impact the brand. Being proactive must mean that the NFL, in conjunction with the players, players union, ownership and other leaders have internal controls and programs to protect its brand.
Social media has given the NFL a wake-up call they must heed. The NFL brand is still one of the most powerful and resiliant brands in the world that should adapt as the public and as their advertisers demand.
Most major brands will just ignore, as they should, all the media hype because the folks doing the complaining are not the true fans of the game. Their focus audience is still watching the game as they have and will continue to do. We all know that as soon as the next focused story comes along this will be forgot by the press. True fans, be they women or men, are going to continue to be true fans.
That is not to mean media hype is bad. It can and does serve a valuable purpose. The NFL has gotten a strong message and has learned a lesson. They will no longer try to support the rotten apples in the basket and they will take the proper action to prevent it from causing further problems.
The last line of this article is probably the most important with respect to “What will the sponsors do?”
What they should do is different. The major brands should have threatened to pull out pending some conditions, i.e. someone held responsible and resign, etc. and some policies put into place to handle this better in the future.
However, what is important is that the fans are not showing that they care. If ticket sales dropped, that would have made a much bigger difference here.
More Discussions
How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…Should Costco Be Opening Members-Only Gas Stations?
Is this the right move for the warehouse club?As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…
The NFL has just become a guilty pleasure for me. I love football. I hate the fact that its players face lifetime injuries and inflict violence on others.
If I could, I’d stop watching, but I don’t. And neither will anyone else. And next week is the NFL’s annual game in London because people like it there to.
So I see sponsorship interest staying as it is. Which makes me feel bad.
My wife calls the NFL a bunch of thugs, and I am having a hard time defending the NFL anymore. Yes, most of the players are good guys and have done lots of good work in their communities, but the actions of some of them is impossible to ignore and should be dealt with in a serious way. I think the loss of major sponsors hitting the mighty NFL where it will feel it—in the pocketbook—is a step in the right direction. This is the only pressure that will matter to the league and the owners.
For those companies that do nothing, women should absolutely show their displeasure by switching to brands that do not support the NFL until they get their act together. The NFL has become too big and powerful, and needs to be humbled before more of these disgusting acts of violence take place.
Brands will speak out about domestic violence, but things will have to get much worse before they seriously consider pulling their NFL sponsorships. What they are doing is sending a clear signal to the commissioner that the league must undergo some fundamental changes: Domestic violence cannot be tolerated and safety must be a larger concern.
Consumers have placed star athletes on pedestals. Advertisers followed the consumers. This gave the leagues in all professional sports license to ignore most offensive behavior. As a result of the recent actions by some NFL players, all leagues will be forced to look inward and better police the players. The public is demanding it and sponsors will enforce it through their dollars.
Contrary to impassioned beliefs, advertisers do what is best for advertisers, much more so than for any cause by itself. Advertisers don’t want to stop advertising because the NFL reaches a mass audience like no other, and, contrary to popular opinion this week, the NFL is more popular than ever with more eyes watching the games. However, advertisers need to also be cognizant of public relations, so many are flexing some muscle right now to protect their image of being concerned public citizens about present issues. I apologize if this response seems brash, however it’s the truth.
Very few brands will pull out, although they’ll publicly wring their hands. It’d be refreshing if NFL sponsors announced significant, ongoing donations to groups aimed at ending violence against women, but I’m not holding my breath.
Let’s start with the basics: Domestic abuse is unacceptable. It doesn’t make any difference if the perpetrator is a well-known star athlete or the person down the block.
The NFL did what any business tries to do and that is protect its assets. In these cases the asset is a recognizable football star. What it did was wrong and handled poorly.
Brands should definitely make their displeasure known, either by reducing or ending sponsorship. The NFL gets most of it tremendous income from TV rights and those are driven by the willingness of sponsors to pay for the expensive commercials. Unhappy or fewer sponsors can mean less income for the league and its teams.
The sad fact is, I doubt that the viewing and buying habits of the public are going to change. The good news is that I expect the league will finally take notice of domestic abuse and handle the cases with more severity.
Separating personal and emotional attitudes (which is nearly impossible of course) I’d say “not yet” from a business perspective. Wait and see how this plays out. These things almost always get resolved to the public’s satisfaction, because the league has to do that to protect the value of the brand for everyone—owners and sponsors alike.
As for those who try to gain advantage by stepping out in front of the issue (a la Anheuser-Busch InBev and PepsiCo) their experience so far should be instruction enough. We all live in glass houses of some sort and most (if not all) attempts at insulating one’s brand via condemnation will be turned on you—just as it was turned on Anheuser-Busch and PepsiCo.
I can’t stress enough that this is business advice and not necessarily reflective of personal opinion. And there is no viable defense against those who would assert that “you should live your values.” They are right—for individuals. If you own the company, do what you like. It’s your red wagon. BUT, if you are the hired steward of stockholder’s equity, I submit that’s a different story all together.
Hypocrisy is the byword here. Beer is probably the number one cause of domestic violence by no one seems to be castigating Budweiser. Unfortunately this is a condition that exists within our population, it is definitely not an issue caused by the NFL. The fact is this is a legal issue and should be handled by our legal system. I personally believe the courts will rule against the NFL as an enforcer of any laws regarding domestic violence.
Lets face facts, we want these guys to be brutal, we cheer them and ENCOURAGE brutality. Maybe the NFL would be better served by providing education and counseling to players and staff. Teach them how to turn off the brutality when they leave the field. As for influencing consumers I don’t think it is making any difference. Sure you have the one one hundredth of 1 percent trying to make a name for themselves or trying to create a paycheck for themselves by jumping on this bandwagon, but for most of the fans it’s a yawn. Don’t believe me? Ask some fans: Not reporters, not officials, not players, not the pundits. Anyone who is really interested in this should realize that in most communities the number one reason police are dispatched is a domestic violence/dispute complaint. This isn’t new!
Brands will do what is best for the brand. I can see dropping sponsorship of an individual. However, dropping the entire sponsorship from the NFL because of several individuals? I don’t think so. The key is for the NFL to take a stand. The Ray Rice incident brought the NFL’s issues to the forefront. Now we’ll watch the NFL handle it. They know what’s at stake. If not handled well, yes, the brands will react and impact NFL sponsorships. However, I predict the NFL will do what is necessary to preserve those relationships and regain a better reputation.
Much of the corporate response reeks of a PR campaign. “We’ve communicated our concerns to the league, and we expect it to take strong and necessary actions to address these issues.” That is neither all that substantive nor punitive, is it?
The NFL audience demographic and the enormous amount of revenue it represents will likely keep corporations from walking away from their support and advertising.
I did not watch the NFL yesterday. I don’t know if I will ever watch it again. It is not because I think these issues are the NFL’s fault. I do not blame Roger Goodell. I do not blame the owners, I do not blame the media, nor the coaches or the advertisers. I blame the fans.
The brutality of the NFL is what this culture wants. We would rather see WebGems of crushing hits than realize we are watching a sport that one of three players will leave with cognitive brain damage. We adore the great stars who carry on domestic abuse, are arrested for various criminal infractions and cheer when they come back to the playing field.
There is something terribly wrong with our values as a nation if this is our number one sport.
That being said, if the people are watching, the advertisers will advertise. This is business, after all. The advertisers will only cut back when the people say, “No more!”
If no other revelations, instances or tragedies occurs, I doubt that sponsors will defect wholesale from the NFL. I believe there will be players that may lose sponsorship support, but overall, I think brand marketers will continue to support the NFL.
That said, it would not require too many more missteps on the part of the NFL for brands to have second thoughts about participation next year.
Brands need to think long term and not in the press frame of mind. The shopper will forget all the Rice issues when the press starts pushing the next round of disasters. What about the Olympics and the runner that shot his girlfriend? You heard a blurb on it. Did the brands drop running sponsorships?
This abuse things has always been an issue that has needed more focus. It is wrong and I’m glad that it is getting the attention that it needs. Sad that it took this Rice issue to get the press and others to focus on how mean some people can get.
Brands that drop the NFL will regret it. NFL players will change—or they will not make the top tier of sports, the NFL.
I may leave retail and go to the NFL. Wife says I am dreamin’ …
NFL players are professional hit men. Always have been. They are this culture’s gladiators. Those who watch are entertained by the controlled violence. There are plenty of people who won’t be fans for the same reason. I’m pretty sure advertising dollars are chasing the fans and will continue to do so as long as the market remains attractive.
Domestic violence is unfortunately not limited to professional sports. The NFL (and the others) should take some lessons from franchise-based businesses in other sectors. I don’t know what that is, but expect that there is some generally accepted practice that involves law enforcement, the judicial system and therapy.
Personally, I would like to call the media out on their gross exploitation of the people involved, especially the victims. Cripes! Don’t they have enough to deal with?
For me the idea of heavy focused advertising to those fans who specifically watch and attend the games is a completely different issue than some advertisers’ more broad “sponsoring” agreements with NFL that often include outside events as well. I think we may see more changes along these lines. My own tolerance for professional football ended with the emerging undeniable concussion issue and the suicide of one of my favorite former players who suffered brain trauma. I no longer choose to watch football beyond the college level. Others in my work and social circle believe on-field violence is part of the game and remain NFL and team fans. Advertisers have to navigate this minefield and it will not be easy. Brands will do well to try to avoid the appearance of “cause” or social engineering aspects and play to the fans.
Should brands seriously THINK of reducing or ending sponsorship agreements—YES. After consideration, some may choose to sever it, others may not—however, EVERY ONE of them should consider or think of it.
I am also troubled a little by the second question—”particularly those made by women.” As a male, am I expected to be impervious to the social and legal/moral issues impacting domestic violence? Because I do not have ovaries I am “excused” from caring and going about my purchasing just the same?
I have an equal interest in protecting sisters, mothers, daughters, colleagues as my female counterparts and am every bit the shopper for products that are advertised (from autos to foods to website creation sites, etc., and including every other advertised product).
Of course with the NFL being so big, you don’t want to stop sponsorship. The NFL is not abusing anyone, it’s the individual players. What I would do is not use these specific players in advertising.
At first, I was thinking who cares what the NFL does, this is a personal issue between the players and law enforcement. Then someone told me there are conduct clauses in their contracts. Overall most people don’t associate an employee’s personal conduct with their employer. I’m not going to stop going to a business because one of their employees goes off. Every business employees disturbed violent people who need help. Instead of criticizing the NFL perhaps we should advocate to get players help in dealing with their violent tendencies.
First, great headline. Second, I’ve tallied the comments and here’s the score:
Net score: 0 sum game.
Game Summary:
But how?
The NFL is in a tunnel. Today’s scandal should not provoke sponsorship cancellations. Consumers seek out tunnels that show the most light at the end. Sports seem to have more lasting support than female or male wrath.
Perhaps society should focus on why unusual physical skills are worth kingly ransoms, which in turn can inject the feeling that they are more worthy than others and allow them to carry expectancies on the field into domestic lives.
I was actually having this conversation with two people Friday—while our attention was split between baseball and soccer games being televised—and we all agreed football has long term viability issues. They felt it was because of the violence associated with the game—both the “legitimate” violence on field and the illegal type off the field—while I felt it was because of the lessened interest from what is increasingly a Hispanic market. And then there are the ever more expensive stadia and unsustainable broadcasting deals…but whatever the cause, we saw the second half being rough going.
It is not my job to police the NFL, and yes I love watching football. These thugs should be thrown out of the league, and I won’t miss them at all. This is entertainment, and if it makes corporate sponsors think twice about spending their money with the NFL, then things will change quickly.
All sports have jerks, but the NFL leads all sports in this domestic violence stuff, as the nature of the game is violence. Just saying.
The sponsors need to use their financial influence more to send a stronger message to the league. But the league then has to hear what it is being told and heed the warning. Enough is enough. I am a big fan of the NFL. But to see the leadership waffling on these issues is very concerning.
They can show their displeasure today but they will jump right back in when things cool down. I agree with David Biernbaum, they are doing what’s right for them.
The consumers and the demographics the advertisers are targeting will dictate their strategy. Of course brands don’t want to be associated with wife or child beaters and of course, they needed to make public statements of displeasure.
Although they seemingly failed their initial attempts at public relations, the NFL will survive and more proactively weed out its elements that negatively impact the brand. Being proactive must mean that the NFL, in conjunction with the players, players union, ownership and other leaders have internal controls and programs to protect its brand.
Social media has given the NFL a wake-up call they must heed. The NFL brand is still one of the most powerful and resiliant brands in the world that should adapt as the public and as their advertisers demand.
Most major brands will just ignore, as they should, all the media hype because the folks doing the complaining are not the true fans of the game. Their focus audience is still watching the game as they have and will continue to do. We all know that as soon as the next focused story comes along this will be forgot by the press. True fans, be they women or men, are going to continue to be true fans.
That is not to mean media hype is bad. It can and does serve a valuable purpose. The NFL has gotten a strong message and has learned a lesson. They will no longer try to support the rotten apples in the basket and they will take the proper action to prevent it from causing further problems.
The last line of this article is probably the most important with respect to “What will the sponsors do?”
What they should do is different. The major brands should have threatened to pull out pending some conditions, i.e. someone held responsible and resign, etc. and some policies put into place to handle this better in the future.
However, what is important is that the fans are not showing that they care. If ticket sales dropped, that would have made a much bigger difference here.