What's the NFL?

quote:

The anthem protests, started last season by former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, came about at the same time that NFL ratings were declining. Though the league at first discounted any relationship between the ratings and the controversy, subsequent studies have confirmed that the protests have in fact in driven away viewers who find the posturing tasteless.

Let's not forget what Colin Kaepernick, the man who started it all, said at the time:



"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color," Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game.
"To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."

He was talking about Michael Brown. It was all based on the lies circulating about Michael Brown.... as has been pointed out above.
"Hands, up... Don't shoot!" was never said. Darren Wilson did not get away with murder.

Pure BS.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
... But I don't see how a boycott like this can have any actual affect on behavior.

In order for a boycott of an NFL corporate sponsor to work you need to combine it with a social media aspect buyers who opt out of products and are going to stop watching NFL games simply need to tell advertisers that they are not going to watch NFL and therefore the money they are spending on NFL advertising is a waste, if they want to reach them, find another marketing platform.

Facebook, Twitter, SnapChat, web page comments, emails, combined with not purchasing will tie the two actions together, other wise unless the boycott of products is pretty large it's hard to measure why sales are down.

Heck explain to the advertiser that while they may still buy an F150 or case of bud light it's not because of NFL advertising, or tell them you are going to stop buying their products because of the NFLs un-American position and they should disassociate themselves from the NFL

Clearly the actual buying or not buying is impossible to track on an individual basis, however, if overall sales start dropping say 10%, 20% for those folks, and it is combined with a plethora of negative social media responses to these advertisers on NFL programs then it can be effective.

I do agree, stop watching, the numbers of eyeballs is what the NFL sells, if that number drops by a significant amount, the NFL will change it's position, money talks....

Local ticket sales mean nothing, however MNF with a half empty stadium and a 20% down share of the market gets attention at Tuesdays Board Meeting.

If it makes one feel better to not buy a Ford or Bud Light, some doritos or salsa, then they should absolutely do so.

If a "boycott" is even done half-assed, that means sales go down. Isn't that the point? Do what you can in my view...buy less from those who support the NFL, simple as that.

Reports are that the Sunday night game, the most watched game week-to-week, was down 10% from the same time last year, and down 10% from last week.

Just need those numbers to keep climbing.

The NFL and the owners have been used to die hard fans who can't get enough of the product.

The owners could be susceptible to massive emails / letters with references to Kaepernick's quote above.

I think this will be a long haul.

The activists have been pumped up because of the NFL and owner support. The activists are going to up the ante.

As the activists push harder, there will be splits on each team.

The owners may discover they have set the crazies loose.

The big money is in fantasy football and it's legions of people who play. Football loyalty has changed since fantasy football came into being.
People are no longer team loyal. They don't love their local sports teams like they once did.
There are still some whose lives are so shallow that they rely on the success of a local sports team to give them identity.

But the new fan is of a different sort. They only care about a individuals statistics for that game so he can win in his league that week.
They cheer for individuals not teams any longer.
The emotional attachment to a team of individuals representing your state is not near what it used to be. So they have no emotional attachment to the sport so it is easy for them to ignore the antics of the players.

These people will still watch they have money invested. Same with all the people who play numbers on the game.
Just win baby needs new shoes! is what's driving them to watch.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

If even 10% fewer people watch football on TV, that might get through. Imagine that 20% stopped watching. I guarantee that would get Goodell's attention. Revenue would plunge.

While I agree... I don't know how these things are measured. I don't have a nielson box hooked up to my TV. If I turn it off... I'm still paying for it as long as I pay my cable bill.

That is what Nielson is for. To measure actual eyeballs seeing the ads, not just paying a cable fee for access. Chevy isn't paying $600K for a 30 seconds because I have access to the game on my cable box. (Which I don't watch - I find NFL games to be boring as hell.) They are paying for the eyeballs actually seeing the ad. Stopping watching the games will have an effect. Even a 5% decrease in viewers will matter.

quote:

Originally posted by Georgeair:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

What I am saying is: how do you pick? I don't think there is anyone with the willpower to jettison every NFL advertiser from their lives. There are too many, in too many segments of the market that are nearly ubiquitous.

Simple - by not letting perfection be the enemy of progress. Pick one. Pick 5 or 10. You don't HAVE to make sure you can stand in front of the Pearly Gates and attest to not having missed a single on in your outrage to be be able to have a meaningful impact if others are doing the same.

I get that, but I don't think it will work. How much Coke is sold? Hundreds of millions (maybe billions) of cans of the stuff. If even ten million cans are not drunk because anti-NFL boycotters are at work, I don't think Coke can tell that is what is going on. Maybe they think you are mad about something else like GMO corn sugar. Or are on a diet. Or prefer iced tea now.

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
The activists are going to up the ante.

As Para said when the monuments started to be removed, I hope they stand their ground and really push the issue.

Meanwhile

#StandForOurAnthem






2017 Sponsors of the NFL Players Association

https://www.nflpa.com/players/sponsors

Anheuser-Busch
Barclaycard US
Bose
Bridgestone
Campbell's Soup Company
Castrol
Courtyard Marriott
Dairy Management, Inc. (Fuel Up to Play 60)
Dannon
Extreme Networks
FedEx
Frito-Lay
Gatorade
Hyundai Motor America
Mars Snackfood
Microsoft
Nationwide
News America
Papa John's
Pepsi
Procter & Gamble
Quaker
Verizon
Visa
USAA

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
I also know this used to be your view, Parabellum. What factual information have you seen that changed your mind, as it clearly has changed?

I grew up a bit.

quote:

Originally posted by bozman:
Icabod...

https://news.grabien.com/story...book-letting-players

Here's the problem. The the hoax is specific in that the rule is in the rule book. Not game operations manual. It's also specific that the rule is found on certain pages. Check the rule book and it's not there. There are no pages "A62-A63." The pages 62-63 don't address this topic.

Now comes the "Game Operations Manual." It has the advantage of not being readily available. The hoax doesn't mention the Hame Operations Manual. As Snopes wrote:
"The NFL's game operations manual may contain a regulation stating that players must be present on the sidelines during the national anthem, but not that they must stand."

Another article mentioned "The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league’s game operations manual, according to "a league source."

Does anyone have access to pages A62 and A63 of the Operations Game Manual?

Crapernick started his BS last year. However, this hoax doesn't appear until a few days ago. I'd expect this rule would have come out as soon as his knee hit the ground.

My apologies Boz. Hoaxes are one of my pet peeves. Ft. Lewis in the 1990s had a rash of the "Collect pop tops for kidney machines" hoax break out. The IG SGM and I tracked it down. The story was first that Coke was running it. When I cornered the teacher that was running it, she claimed it was a Pepsi! We never determined why she was doing it but the school district was not happy with her.
Thanks.

http://www.snopes.com/business/redeem/pulltabs.asp

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

The anthem protests, started last season by former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, came about at the same time that NFL ratings were declining. Though the league at first discounted any relationship between the ratings and the controversy, subsequent studies have confirmed that the protests have in fact in driven away viewers who find the posturing tasteless.

Let's not forget what Colin Kaepernick, the man who started it all, said at the time:


"I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color," Kaepernick told NFL Media in an exclusive interview after the game.
"To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder."

He was talking about Michael Brown. It was all based on the lies circulating about Michael Brown.... as has been pointed out above.
"Hands, up... Don't shoot!" was never said. Darren Wilson did not get away with murder.

Pure BS.

Another thing. Kaepernick's protest didn't do a thing for the cause he purported to support. Now, all that is forgotten, and the "protest" has moved on. Nobody was paying much attention until Trump made the point he made about disrespect, so they are going to show him, First Amendment and all that.

Seems it's starting to get to some advertisers, albeit a local car dealer, but remember, every dollar counts and it has to start somewhere

http://denver.cbslocal.com/201...r-loses-sponsorship/

Actually saw the Kerrigan/Harding 30 for 30 this weekend. It's not funny, but that picture cracked me up for some reason!

It starts with the media, who needs to stop giving these overpaid pricks a platform for their agenda.
I know this would never get enough traction to make a difference, but if a couple of million people would call any station that covers this aspect of a sporting and tell them what they were doing during the National Anthem it would be fantastic.
I can picture this scene in my head where the station representative asks why they should care what I was doing, and I reply, "Why should I care what the players were doing?"
The conversation gets repeated with a few thousand different callers before their phone lines collapse from the traffic.

It's great if people can boycott every sponsor, but if people just focused on five or six of them it would probably do the job.

Papa John's
Quaker
McDonald’s
Pepsi
Frito-Lay
Anheuser-Busch

That's a pretty easy list to avoid with lots of alternatives. I agree this needs social media behind it.

USAA is taking the position that they disagree with the players that disrespect the anthem but that they can do more good as an NFL sponsor in bringing recognition to active-duty military members and veterans than they could accomplish by ending their partnership with the NFL.

There is a 17 page thread on their member forum with people urging the company to reconsider.

I hope this doesn't spread widely to college and high school football, but it might.