September 10, 2007
NFL Accentuates the Positive
By Tom Ryan
Stealing from the playbook of Big Oil and big drug companies, the National Football League last week launched an advertising campaign touting the positive aspects of many of its player’s on- and off-field lives in a bid to counter the outcry over the criminal behavior of a few.
In one ad, according to The New York Times, a player is seen reading to his daughter. In another, a player tells his mom, “I love you,” over the phone, and then tells the camera that she encouraged him to play football as a child to keep him out of trouble. In a third, a player describes his goal of going to law school and talks about how hard he worked as a student at Notre Dame.
News of the NFL has recently been dominated by media coverage of the Atlanta Falcon’s Michael Vick, who pleaded guilty to harboring a dog-fighting kennel. But the NFL faced many other incidents during its off-season, including Chicago Bears Lance Briggs being recently charged with leaving the scene of an accident after crashing his Lamborghini.
In promoting its more clean-cut stars, the NFL avoided directly confronting its image problems.
“When you’re directly addressing a particular issue, you run the risk of reminding people of that issue,” said Abe Novick, business development director at the Baltimore office of Euro RSCG Worldwide told The Times. By contrast, “if you keep the focus on the good the players do, people will realize there’s this whole other side to their behavior. This humanizes them, and that’s a good thing.”
In developing the campaign, Lisa Baird, the NFL’s senior vice president for marketing, said league executives were worried that “the misdeeds of a few” were starting to “represent the image of all 2,000.” NFL research also found that younger fans, in particular teenagers to age 24, were following news of misbehaving players closely over the internet.
While the NFL “did give some thought” to a more direct discussion of player misbehavior, the final decision was to have team members “talk about their families and themselves” as an alternate way to make the point about “the character of our players.”
“I don’t want to be in a defensive mode with my brand,” Ms. Baird said. “We want to be proactive.”
Many giant marketers use N.F.L. players to represent their brands, among them Anheuser-Busch and Pepsico, and seem more aware of the risks around building an expensive campaign around a young athlete.
“Our consumers are passionate about their players and their teams,” said Ken Stickevers, vice president for marketing at the hearty soup group at Campbell Soup, which increased the number of NFL players it’s using as part of its Chunky campaign this year. “Of course we’re a bit concerned” about player misconduct, “but it’s pretty isolated in the N.F.L. community.”
Discussion Questions: Is “accentuating the positive” enough to help improve on the NFL’s tarnished image? Do you agree with the sentiment that it is a mistake to be in a defensive mode when it comes to the NFL brand? Are there lessons in this for other consumer brands and retail businesses?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
The NFL–like the NBA–has it’s share of bad actors. It is not the league that is at fault, it’s the athletes. They are the ones breaking the rules and the law. The sad part is that their behavior did not begin when they signed an NFL contract. Problems emerge in college and before. NFL and NBA owners seem to think that they have some magic formula that will turn a thug into a Sunday school teacher. They don’t.
The NFL is a great football league that needs to have a stronger ethical and personnel clause written into their contracts. Their personnel need to recognize, via their pay, that they are examples, whether they realize it or not. Since the NFL also reflects on the player’s endorsements, this could be much stricter as well. Having players who act with the responsibility and rigor that their positions require should be a standard, not a hoped-for achievement. The NFL needs to make this the standard in all of their contracts.
Maybe I woke up on the Pollyanna side of the bed this morning, but I think a sustained marketing emphasis on sincere good deeds may be quite beneficial–for fans, the leagues, communities, AND players. So often the bad actors seem to come from a mental place where they crave attention (any attention) and look to call attention to themselves both on, and off the Field. Over a period of time, as athletes notice the scorn and penalties heaped on Mike Vick and his ilk of thug/player, and see the negative career and financial impacts play out–they may start to view “good publicity” and “good works” and “community involvement” also to be cool ways to achieve appreciation and press attention. They may come to see competition among themselves for recognition of good works even more rewarding than having the fastest car or biggest gun on the street. Hopefully, their agents will understand the benefits of helping them with this, too, in terms of possible future endorsements, getting on the Oprah show, more lucrative contracts, etc.
Much of the noblest charity work is done anonymously and quietly, but publicity for good works can be quite useful, too, and is equally as beneficial to the recipients.
Hmmm…NFL new marketing effort resembles the big oil and pharmaceutical corporations’ brand campaigns. Wow!
If we have misgivings with the above corporations’ truthfulness and sincerity, why should we change our minds about the NFL? Hmmmmmmmmm
Like many big businesses, the NFL is making great money while sowing the seeds of its destruction. The physical health issues (heavy players twice as likely to die before age 50, dementia, brain damage) and the ethics/mental health issues (Michael Vick, suicide, substance abuse) are taking a larger and larger toll. No business could ignore escalating difficulties like these indefinitely, although they’ll certainly be ignored as long as possible. The NFL depends on the fans’ interest (which will be sustained) and the never ending flow of eager young athletes. Unfortunately, its principal economic base is advertising, and blue-chip advertising revenue might eventually suffer from negative associations.
It takes a long time to build a brand and only a few mistakes to bring the brand image down. Rebuilding it will take a long and needs to be addressed on many issues: players’ lives and characters, their commitment to the game versus money, the image of the league after recent strikes, etc. It will take a long, concerted effort to show results. Keep it up and expand the efforts.
I have to agree with the others above; the NFL’s brand is not tarnished. I also have to take issue with Ryan’s comment. Football may reward “size, a heightened sense of competition, and physical aggression” but it is also, perhaps more than any other major pro sport, a TEAM sport. Football players learn at an early age that hard work, discipline, and above all, teamwork lead to success. Yes, there are some prima donnas and yes, there are those whose behavior and attitudes have been overlooked in favor of their talent, but those really are the exceptions.
The NFL has done a pretty good job in recent years of keeping itself clean. Compare the drug testing the NFL does–everyone is tested, regularly, and off season as well–to Major League Baseball, where the hand-wringing over steroids is about the most visible part of their anti-drug program.
The NFL has had real community outreach programs for years; NFL players being visible and active in their communities. They’ve got a lot to be proud of, and the ads hardly ring false.
I don’t see the NFL’s image as being nearly as tarnished as the NBA’s and pro basketball in general. They’ve done a lot more than just mount a PR campaign–they’ve tightened up the rules about on- AND off-field behavior, and stiffened penalties too. I remember reading articles in the summer about athletes coming out of college that were first rate athletes with real shots at the pros that pro teams wouldn’t touch because of criminal records and the NFL’s new rules.
From a PR perspective, I think the NFL and the NBA make an interesting study in contrasts. The NFL on its own has a bigger brand, in addition to the team brands, and the brands of individual players. They do a lot more to reinforce the inter-related nature of all of these brands – and thus make each one stronger. With that kind of value at stake, I would expect them to defend it vigorously.
By the way, Lisa Baird–no relation that I know of.
Are you kidding me? Is one posed “I love you” supposed to get you to forget a stack of dead dogs? Does anyone believe that a group of men selected for size, a heightened sense of competition, and physical aggression who are paid outrageous amounts of money to manifest that aggression are really just a bunch of guys in touch with their nurturing and loving natures? Rosie Greer used to knit in public and was involved in prison ministry but he was still a scary guy on (and sometimes off) the field. Does this silliness help the brand? Nope. Is the NFL going to lose money because of dog fighting? Not in the long run. All this does is call more attention to the problem. In football, as in politics, the cover-up is always worse than the crime.
I agree that a defensive mode is not where a smart marketer wants to be, and I do think the NFL overall is a great brand and deserves to move forward from a positive note. Behind the ad blitz, however, if I am going to dig a little deeper, I do want to be able to find that the NFL is actually doing something to police its players. Athletes that make millions and think rules are for others disgust me as a parent, as they become huge role models for teens nationwide. If the NFL is actually addressing that problem behind the scenes, then I can honestly support a positive approach in media. If not, then it is marketing greenwashing.
Tarnished brand? The season just opened with a huge bang; it’s early, as the ratings haven’t been released, but look at how the NFL dominated headlines during MLB playoff hunts and you get an idea of brand strength. Look at how Rodney Harrison and a coach (Dolphins? I forget…) got bagged for HGH usage, and contrast that with the reports that Rich Ankiel and others got HGH back in ’04 (BEFORE MLB banned it). Automatic suspensions for the NFL; MLB gets castigated because a) it waited so long to address performance enhancing drugs, and b) because the Mitchell commission wanted to talk to over 40 players, but the players wouldn’t cooperate.
Look at MLB’s schedule last Thursday; yes, Thursday is get away day, but the league was smart enough to only schedule a handful of games, as they knew they were going up against Indy – NO in the NFL opener.
As is so often the case, the NYT gets it wrong.
The NFL has a long tradition of showing their players doing charity work in the community. They basically invented the idea of player reaching out into the community. With that strong base of good public image, I don’t think the NFL has really been tarnished. I think the general public realizes that these players are individual adults that have there own agendas off of the playing field. If the player were to commit atrocities on the football field, then it would tarnish the NFL’s image.
Here is another classic example of how advertising is being used to save a brand when the focus should be on PR. The greatest case study still to this day is the Tylenol tampering case and the company’s simple yet ingenious strategy of (1) admitting the problem, (2) educating the public about how the problem is being solved and (3) demonstrating by actions–not words–the means being used to reach a successful end. Dear NFL: don’t tell us your cleaning up your act, show us.
More Discussions
Has Same-Day Delivery Become an Expectation Across Retail?
Are expectations around retail delivery speed in flux?OpenAI Names the Infrastructure Standard for Agentic Commerce
Will OpenAI or Google (or another entity) set the gold standard for agentic commerce?Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?
The NFL–like the NBA–has it’s share of bad actors. It is not the league that is at fault, it’s the athletes. They are the ones breaking the rules and the law. The sad part is that their behavior did not begin when they signed an NFL contract. Problems emerge in college and before. NFL and NBA owners seem to think that they have some magic formula that will turn a thug into a Sunday school teacher. They don’t.
The NFL is a great football league that needs to have a stronger ethical and personnel clause written into their contracts. Their personnel need to recognize, via their pay, that they are examples, whether they realize it or not. Since the NFL also reflects on the player’s endorsements, this could be much stricter as well. Having players who act with the responsibility and rigor that their positions require should be a standard, not a hoped-for achievement. The NFL needs to make this the standard in all of their contracts.
Maybe I woke up on the Pollyanna side of the bed this morning, but I think a sustained marketing emphasis on sincere good deeds may be quite beneficial–for fans, the leagues, communities, AND players. So often the bad actors seem to come from a mental place where they crave attention (any attention) and look to call attention to themselves both on, and off the Field. Over a period of time, as athletes notice the scorn and penalties heaped on Mike Vick and his ilk of thug/player, and see the negative career and financial impacts play out–they may start to view “good publicity” and “good works” and “community involvement” also to be cool ways to achieve appreciation and press attention. They may come to see competition among themselves for recognition of good works even more rewarding than having the fastest car or biggest gun on the street. Hopefully, their agents will understand the benefits of helping them with this, too, in terms of possible future endorsements, getting on the Oprah show, more lucrative contracts, etc.
Much of the noblest charity work is done anonymously and quietly, but publicity for good works can be quite useful, too, and is equally as beneficial to the recipients.
Hmmm…NFL new marketing effort resembles the big oil and pharmaceutical corporations’ brand campaigns. Wow!
If we have misgivings with the above corporations’ truthfulness and sincerity, why should we change our minds about the NFL? Hmmmmmmmmm
Like many big businesses, the NFL is making great money while sowing the seeds of its destruction. The physical health issues (heavy players twice as likely to die before age 50, dementia, brain damage) and the ethics/mental health issues (Michael Vick, suicide, substance abuse) are taking a larger and larger toll. No business could ignore escalating difficulties like these indefinitely, although they’ll certainly be ignored as long as possible. The NFL depends on the fans’ interest (which will be sustained) and the never ending flow of eager young athletes. Unfortunately, its principal economic base is advertising, and blue-chip advertising revenue might eventually suffer from negative associations.
It takes a long time to build a brand and only a few mistakes to bring the brand image down. Rebuilding it will take a long and needs to be addressed on many issues: players’ lives and characters, their commitment to the game versus money, the image of the league after recent strikes, etc. It will take a long, concerted effort to show results. Keep it up and expand the efforts.
I have to agree with the others above; the NFL’s brand is not tarnished. I also have to take issue with Ryan’s comment. Football may reward “size, a heightened sense of competition, and physical aggression” but it is also, perhaps more than any other major pro sport, a TEAM sport. Football players learn at an early age that hard work, discipline, and above all, teamwork lead to success. Yes, there are some prima donnas and yes, there are those whose behavior and attitudes have been overlooked in favor of their talent, but those really are the exceptions.
The NFL has done a pretty good job in recent years of keeping itself clean. Compare the drug testing the NFL does–everyone is tested, regularly, and off season as well–to Major League Baseball, where the hand-wringing over steroids is about the most visible part of their anti-drug program.
The NFL has had real community outreach programs for years; NFL players being visible and active in their communities. They’ve got a lot to be proud of, and the ads hardly ring false.
I don’t see the NFL’s image as being nearly as tarnished as the NBA’s and pro basketball in general. They’ve done a lot more than just mount a PR campaign–they’ve tightened up the rules about on- AND off-field behavior, and stiffened penalties too. I remember reading articles in the summer about athletes coming out of college that were first rate athletes with real shots at the pros that pro teams wouldn’t touch because of criminal records and the NFL’s new rules.
From a PR perspective, I think the NFL and the NBA make an interesting study in contrasts. The NFL on its own has a bigger brand, in addition to the team brands, and the brands of individual players. They do a lot more to reinforce the inter-related nature of all of these brands – and thus make each one stronger. With that kind of value at stake, I would expect them to defend it vigorously.
By the way, Lisa Baird–no relation that I know of.
Are you kidding me? Is one posed “I love you” supposed to get you to forget a stack of dead dogs? Does anyone believe that a group of men selected for size, a heightened sense of competition, and physical aggression who are paid outrageous amounts of money to manifest that aggression are really just a bunch of guys in touch with their nurturing and loving natures? Rosie Greer used to knit in public and was involved in prison ministry but he was still a scary guy on (and sometimes off) the field. Does this silliness help the brand? Nope. Is the NFL going to lose money because of dog fighting? Not in the long run. All this does is call more attention to the problem. In football, as in politics, the cover-up is always worse than the crime.
I agree that a defensive mode is not where a smart marketer wants to be, and I do think the NFL overall is a great brand and deserves to move forward from a positive note. Behind the ad blitz, however, if I am going to dig a little deeper, I do want to be able to find that the NFL is actually doing something to police its players. Athletes that make millions and think rules are for others disgust me as a parent, as they become huge role models for teens nationwide. If the NFL is actually addressing that problem behind the scenes, then I can honestly support a positive approach in media. If not, then it is marketing greenwashing.
Tarnished brand? The season just opened with a huge bang; it’s early, as the ratings haven’t been released, but look at how the NFL dominated headlines during MLB playoff hunts and you get an idea of brand strength. Look at how Rodney Harrison and a coach (Dolphins? I forget…) got bagged for HGH usage, and contrast that with the reports that Rich Ankiel and others got HGH back in ’04 (BEFORE MLB banned it). Automatic suspensions for the NFL; MLB gets castigated because a) it waited so long to address performance enhancing drugs, and b) because the Mitchell commission wanted to talk to over 40 players, but the players wouldn’t cooperate.
Look at MLB’s schedule last Thursday; yes, Thursday is get away day, but the league was smart enough to only schedule a handful of games, as they knew they were going up against Indy – NO in the NFL opener.
As is so often the case, the NYT gets it wrong.
The NFL has a long tradition of showing their players doing charity work in the community. They basically invented the idea of player reaching out into the community. With that strong base of good public image, I don’t think the NFL has really been tarnished. I think the general public realizes that these players are individual adults that have there own agendas off of the playing field. If the player were to commit atrocities on the football field, then it would tarnish the NFL’s image.
Here is another classic example of how advertising is being used to save a brand when the focus should be on PR. The greatest case study still to this day is the Tylenol tampering case and the company’s simple yet ingenious strategy of (1) admitting the problem, (2) educating the public about how the problem is being solved and (3) demonstrating by actions–not words–the means being used to reach a successful end. Dear NFL: don’t tell us your cleaning up your act, show us.