- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Paying for Patriotic Displays (on OTL right now)
Posted on 11/3/15 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 11/3/15 at 12:43 pm
Why is this a problem, what am I missing here? The basic situation is that the American military is paying professional sports franchises for patriotic moments before/during games. MLB commissioner is refuting that the payments in contracts are simply placeholders and that the teams are not effectively getting paid.
My question is, why is this something that would even need to be denied/refuted? Government programs advertise their services all the time. I think we all remember getting bombarded by a commercial for the ACA every 15 minutes during the first rollout cycle. It's ok to pay TV stations to promote government programs but not sports teams?
What am I missing?
My question is, why is this something that would even need to be denied/refuted? Government programs advertise their services all the time. I think we all remember getting bombarded by a commercial for the ACA every 15 minutes during the first rollout cycle. It's ok to pay TV stations to promote government programs but not sports teams?
What am I missing?
3
Posted on 11/3/15 at 12:45 pm to funnystuff
Because the MLB (as well as other major sports leagues) like to make it appear that they make all of the military displays on a goodwill incentive rather than a monetary one.
Posted on 11/3/15 at 12:51 pm to funnystuff
It's a combination of the perception that it's these organizations having these displays just because instead of to make money/advertise for the military. I also think you have a lot of people who are in favor of smaller government and frown upon paying the NFL a ton of money for something like that.
IMO it shouldn't be anymore above criticism then the NFL making a ton of money off their Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Awareness campaign.
IMO it shouldn't be anymore above criticism then the NFL making a ton of money off their Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Awareness campaign.
Posted on 11/3/15 at 12:55 pm to Rickety Cricket
quote:
Because the MLB (as well as other major sports leagues) like to make it appear that they make all of the military displays on a goodwill incentive rather than a monetary one.
That's probably at the request of those paying the bills.
The entire point is to raise awareness and gain moral support. I agree with the OP.
Posted on 11/3/15 at 1:01 pm to Rickety Cricket
So because professional organizations try to maximize their marketing value by promoting a goodwill narrative, Congress should be spending time reviewing all contracts between the DoD and professional sports teams?
I get why it makes sense for sports teams to want people to think that their displays of patriotism are organic and genuine. But when it's proven that it's not, it seems that the better course would be bite the bullet. MLB commissioner response was transparent.
But the bigger question for me is, why does this warrant any involvement from lawmakers at all? The DoD has their marketing budget; let them spend it in the most optimal way. Why in the world do we need to prohibit these interactions in a defense appropriations bill? Seems utterly unnecessary
I get why it makes sense for sports teams to want people to think that their displays of patriotism are organic and genuine. But when it's proven that it's not, it seems that the better course would be bite the bullet. MLB commissioner response was transparent.
But the bigger question for me is, why does this warrant any involvement from lawmakers at all? The DoD has their marketing budget; let them spend it in the most optimal way. Why in the world do we need to prohibit these interactions in a defense appropriations bill? Seems utterly unnecessary
This post was edited on 11/3/15 at 1:11 pm
Posted on 11/3/15 at 1:57 pm to funnystuff
Breast cancer awareness and military appreciation are going to get so much attention for hypocrisy though because of the nature of the issue. There's a lack of transparency that people who are in the know don't appreciate. I mean, if all of the sudden the NFL did a "salute to Pepsi," and Pepsi logos started appearing in the end zone and coaches and players started wearing Pepsi gear, there would be no mistaking why it is happening. However, when you are talking about issues like terminal disease and patriotism, the lines are blurred, and I don't think the average person is going to react well when they realize that both are being marketed for personal profit the same way that they would market a soft drink.
Take the National Anthem for example. For the last couple of years, ESPN has started showing them for MNF. Why did they start doing that all of the sudden? Because they're feeling patriotic? Because they're answering consumer demands that it be shown? No. It's because they sold the National Anthem to USAA, who is paying ESPN to "sponsor" it. And it's a win-win for ESPN. They're getting paid, AND they get to create the impression that they're patriotic!
Take the National Anthem for example. For the last couple of years, ESPN has started showing them for MNF. Why did they start doing that all of the sudden? Because they're feeling patriotic? Because they're answering consumer demands that it be shown? No. It's because they sold the National Anthem to USAA, who is paying ESPN to "sponsor" it. And it's a win-win for ESPN. They're getting paid, AND they get to create the impression that they're patriotic!
Posted on 11/3/15 at 2:26 pm to funnystuff
quote:
I get why it makes sense for sports teams to want people to think that their displays of patriotism are organic and genuine. But when it's proven that it's not, it seems that the better course would be bite the bullet. MLB commissioner response was transparent.
The sports commissioners believe they can lie and misinform and the majority of its public won't pay attention enough to realize or even care that they're full of shite because they love the sport too much to go away. And they're right. It's sad that people in power can be so blatantly and transparently corrupt and "the people" are so damn indifferent about it as long as they get their bread and circus.
I guess my biggest issue is that the military is not paying for commercial space like most advertisers do. Obamacare commercials don't affect me in any way because they are transparently and unapologetically paid advertisements. Even when advertisers pay for sponsorship within the program (like the Allstate nets in the end zone or the Slap Yo Momma Red Zone), it's also equally transparent.
With the military, however, the issue comes in where they are CREATING the content to be placed within the show, which allows you to bypass the regular commercial disclaimer. People react badly when the "content" is compromised because it is expected to a place relatively immune from commercial interference. Think about the infamous "Friends" episode that turned out to be a 30-minute commercial for Pottery Barn. It went past a character drinking a Coke during the episode. The advertiser WAS the content. That's how I see these military celebrations. Just label it the same way you have to label an infomercial and just be done with it.
Posted on 11/3/15 at 4:52 pm to Rickety Cricket
The National Guard wants it to appear as goodwill. That is how they advertise.
Posted on 11/3/15 at 7:57 pm to funnystuff
quote:Patriotism, maybe?
What am I missing?
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News