2018 Free Agency - Prospects for GB

[AlexGreen#20]

46 minutes ago, Gopher Trace said:

It's not just people on the Right protesting the NFL for the demonstrations. I know for a fact that a lot of people on the Left boycotting it for their continued unemployment.

On that note, five-thirty-eight did a study showing that the NFL fanbase is very evenly split, politically. It's not NASCAR where the vast majority are right-wing, or NBA where the majority are left-wing.

So the NFL owners' position is not a good business decision. It's actually kind of the worst one they could take. They should go in one direction and commit to it. Shut the protesting down completely or totally accept players that do it. None of this middle-ground "Ehh, we're too afraid to stand up for them but also too afraid to employ them so I dunno let's just do neither ~hyuck!"

Look at the advertisements during an NFL game (Insurance, light beer, food you don't have to cook, vehicles, and Viagra) and tell me that the demographics the NFL caters to isn't middle aged men.

[gbwins80]

Do you think the Packers will sign any free agents this week?  I believe a safety and at least one other player.  There are still several players available that will help this team.

[th87]

15 hours ago, vikingsrule said:

Except that MLK promoted love, peace and equality. Whereas Kaep wears Fidel Castro garb and ironically speaks out against oppression and promotes what has become a very hateful rhetoric. History will forget Kaepernick, he should never be compared to MLK.

The 60s version of the "I stand" people absolutely despised MLK. 

[th87]

9 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Look at it from the perspective of an employer/owner:

I have a group of employees who are making my customers unhappy. I believe that the employees hearts are in the right place but that they're misguided on the facts of the issue.

I'm already losing customers due to outside market forces and this group of employees is driving away the one base that is going to be most resistant to those changing outside market forces. 

This customer base I'm catering to is a bunch of stubborn *******s who think I should've fired all of my employees making them upset immediately. I'm going to have a very hard time bringing members of this customer group back without universal compliance from my employees. 

I reached out to the leaders of the group of employees and offered to donate $2,781,250 to the cause that they're wishing to raise awareness of in exchange for them not upsetting my customer base any further.

The leader of this group of employees agrees to the terms on behalf of this group of employees.

A few of the members of this group don't like the terms and bail on the group and will continue to upset my customer base.

Now, in this universe we're imagining all of my employee contracts expire after three years and we have to renegotiate employment terms.

Conveniently, one of the troublesome employees who refused to comply is no longer employed. He's a good but not great employee and certainly not irreplaceable. 

After a few months of being unemployed, this employee begins to sweat. He promises that he will stop upsetting my customer base but refuses to apologize.

Now, once I hire this employee, it becomes financially painful for me to fire him. He knows this and understands that I will have to pay fines if I fire him for continuing his behavior. 

+++

As a business owner, are you hiring this guy?

As I understand, TV contract money has already been committed to, and nothing is happening to gate revenue. Merchandise sales might be down though. 

The owners taking a stand against CK et al. seem more about their own political leanings, as most lean a certain way and donate to certain campaigns regularly. 

I "soft" boycotted the NFL last year for this reason. Watched games in unconventional ways.

[blankman0021]

2 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Look at the advertisements during an NFL game (Insurance, light beer, food you don't have to cook, vehicles, and Viagra) and tell me that the demographics the NFL caters to isn't middle aged men.

Advertisements aren’t always a good indicator of the market. It’s a good indicator of who is susceptible to buy, has money, and ultimately who advertisers think will convert. Middle Aged men have been advertised to for years during football games effectively. Advertisers aren’t scared that the demographic will let them down. But we are seeing more “traditional women” ads* infiltrating the lineup of “traditional male” ads*. Tide is a great example. 

 

*I’m not saying one ad can’t be effective for either gender, or that certain tasks belong to certain genders. Advertising reps definitely fill the stereotypes traditionally when they advertise though*

[AlexGreen#20]

12 minutes ago, th87 said:

As I understand, TV contract money has already been committed to, and nothing is happening to gate revenue. Merchandise sales might be down though. 

The owners taking a stand against CK et al. seem more about their own political leanings, as most lean a certain way and donate to certain campaigns regularly. 

I "soft" boycotted the NFL last year for this reason. Watched games in unconventional ways.

TV contract money has been committed, but they also expire in 2022 and will need to be reworked. 

Networks are pissed as hell about the crap ratings the NFL has had the last two years. 

[AlexGreen#20]

15 minutes ago, blankman0021 said:

Advertisements aren’t always a good indicator of the market. It’s a good indicator of who is susceptible to buy, has money, and ultimately who advertisers think will convert. Middle Aged men have been advertised to for years during football games effectively. Advertisers aren’t scared that the demographic will let them down. But we are seeing more “traditional women” ads* infiltrating the lineup of “traditional male” ads*. Tide is a great example. 

 

*I’m not saying one ad can’t be effective for either gender, or that certain tasks belong to certain genders. Advertising reps definitely fill the stereotypes traditionally when they advertise though*

Weren't the Tide Ads just for the superbowl, which is an entirely different targeted demographic?

 

[SpeightTheVillain]

1 minute ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

TV contract money has been committed, but they also expire in 2022 and will need to be reworked. 

Networks are pissed as hell about the crap ratings the NFL has had the last two years. 

Honestly this probably has more to do with the death of cable as an institution then it does with people not watching the games.
 

I don't pay for cable but still watch every game. Many younger fans do the same. They haven't found a way to track actual viewers vs. those who can they track with Nielsen data. I get they are pretty upset about that, but I don't think it has anything to do with politics or interest in the sport. Just people are tired of sucking up to big daddy cable.  

 

[AlexGreen#20]

Just now, SpeightTheVillain said:

Honestly this probably has more to do with the death of cable as an institution then it does with people not watching the games.
 

I don't pay for cable but still watch every game. Many younger fans do the same. They haven't found a way to track actual viewers vs. those who can they track with Nielsen data. I get they are pretty upset about that, but I don't think it has anything to do with politics or interest in the sport. Just people are tired of sucking up to big daddy cable.  

 

This is very true, but the concern with the protests is that they're irritating the people who are least likely to cut cords.

[SpeightTheVillain]

Just now, AlexGreen#20 said:

This is very true, but the concern with the protests is that they're irritating the people who are least likely to cut cords.

Yeah that's a fair point. 

[Gopher Trace]

3 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Look at the advertisements during an NFL game (Insurance, light beer, food you don't have to cook, vehicles, and Viagra) and tell me that the demographics the NFL caters to isn't middle aged men.

Well "middle aged men" (at least the ones you're referring to) still seem to think the NFL has been too lenient on the protests, so not a good job catering on their part.

Again, either accept the players' movement, or go all communist China on them. The league's half-assed stance on this matter has just made both sides miffed.

[AlexGreen#20]

Just now, Gopher Trace said:

Well "middle aged men" (at least the ones you're referring to) still seem to think the NFL has been too lenient on the protests, so not a good job catering on their part.

Again, either accept the players' movement, or go all communist China on them. The league's half-assed stance on this matter has just made both sides miffed.

Nobody's saying the NFL is a PR maestro.

If they go too far in stifling the protests, they risk further action by the players. If they don't do anything, they get bashed by their base. Their plan of negotiating a settlement with the players was an ideal compromise in theory. In practice it didn't really work because much of the resentment towards the players by the NFL's target demographic doesn't have anything to do with the anthem and has everything to do with the base's notion (right or wrong) that players are dumb, violent, overpaid, lazy, drug addicted, entitled, thugs. 

[th87]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

This is very true, but the concern with the protests is that they're irritating the people who are least likely to cut cords.

Their numbers will continue to dwindle. The NFL needs to focus more on developing new revenue streams, rather than trying to keep a dodo alive. 

[th87]

1 hour ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Nobody's saying the NFL is a PR maestro.

If they go too far in stifling the protests, they risk further action by the players. If they don't do anything, they get bashed by their base. Their plan of negotiating a settlement with the players was an ideal compromise in theory. In practice it didn't really work because much of the resentment towards the players by the NFL's target demographic doesn't have anything to do with the anthem and has everything to do with the base's notion (right or wrong) that players are dumb, violent, overpaid, lazy, drug addicted, entitled, thugs. 

Eh, I'd say it has everything to do with "outsider" people's perceived disrespect of the military. 

Media and politicians of a certain persuasion were able to skew the message and make it about that. 

Hush money for something that still goes on, something that transcends the NFL, is a slap in the face to people who believe in the cause. The goal is to make enough waves for legislators to notice, and no better place to do it than in the highest rated programming there is.

[blankman0021]

7 hours ago, AlexGreen#20 said:

Weren't the Tide Ads just for the superbowl, which is an entirely different targeted demographic?

 

Yes. But I wouldn’t be shocked to see them enter the market.