BTW why is the NFL allowed to chose who's commercials run on the network. Talk about power...
Gun control advocates and politicians are renown for creating a lot of noise against issues and organizations that do anything that contradicts their opinion. Look at anyone who says anything remotely negative against gay marriage as but one example. The way the NFL are dealing with anything that could cause an injury, the concussions etc highlights their current mindset. They want to stay away from anything and everything that even whiffs of negative. Therefore you can understand why the NFL wants to stay away from that commercial. If it airs, you won't be able to hear the crowd in the stadium for the screech that will resonate across the airways. The backlash afterwards would be horrendous. Cowardly and lacking balls, but as I say, understandable. Edit: Think back to the Tebow add. How much stink did that cause and how harmless did it turn out to be?
All the DUI's the NFL players gets every year , yet they are prefectly fine with non-stop Beer commercials , LOL.
Beer commercials aren't controversial.And didn't they allow a Tim Tebow anti-abortion commercial a few years back?
Who made gun commercials controversial?No, Tim Tebow's mom was in a commercial that discussed the importance of family.Many years ago, they "allowed" pro-life commercials and their was one that was done by a current player at the time.
Never said they were. I don't watch commercials anyways. Just saying beer commercials aren't controversial. They're generally accepted by the public. Again, the NFL is a PRIVATE company. Networks pay BILLIONS of dollars to show their product. And the NFL realizes that plenty of anti-gun people would most likely take offense to the ad in question here. So they've chosen not to allow it.Why? Because successful companies realize they make the most money when they appeal to the broadest range of people. Pretty simple stuff here. A corporation making a business decision. No 1st amendment issues. No 2nd amendment issues.
Are they within their rights...yes clearly. They can reject anything for any reason really as far as I'm concern. Did they do the "right" thing...no. Product is legal, advertisement is within the guidelines as they are written. An ad for guns is no more going to get me to buy a gun I don't want than a beer commercial can convince me to drink that crap.
Well , at least we know why hitting is illegal now. The league is run by candy-ass liberals....
BTW why is the NFL allowed to chose who's commercials run on the network. Talk about power...
Huh? Yeah, its all about power. Corporations have power. Is this news to you?When you're the NFL, networks throw money at you to show your product on TV. And with that comes the right for the NFL to pick and choose what ads it wants or doesn't want.Seems pretty anti-American to tell a corporation what it can or cannot do....
Are they within their rights...yes clearly. They can reject anything for any reason really as far as I'm concern. Did they do the "right" thing...no. Product is legal, advertisement is within the guidelines as they are written. An ad for guns is no more going to get me to buy a gun I don't want than a beer commercial can convince me to drink that crap.
Companies don't have to do the "right" thing. They do what they believe is right to be profitable within a generic set of moral standards. Period.I have no problem with that gun ad. But I totally see why the NFL doesn't want it run during the Super Bowl.
SnookAU is pretty much OBLITERATING this thread, posters and the article.Destroy on, sir. Destroy on.
With the popularity of the NFL, they can pretty much do what they want.Who's going to stop watching? I surely won't.
At least there will be an awesome display of powerful weapons at the Super Bowl... weather permitting.
Are they within their rights...yes clearly. They can reject anything for any reason really as far as I'm concern. Did they do the "right" thing...no. Product is legal, advertisement is within the guidelines as they are written. An ad for guns is no more going to get me to buy a gun I don't want than a beer commercial can convince me to drink that crap.
Companies don't have to do the "right" thing. They do what they believe is right to be profitable within a generic set of moral standards. Period.I have no problem with that gun ad. But I totally see why the NFL doesn't want it run during the Super Bowl.
No one asked if they have to do the right thing. They asked if they did the right thing. That is two different measures. The funny thing here is you want to be some hyper-realist but what the NFL did is the opposite to that sort of hard boiled realism. They turned down cash for advertising a legal product within their guidelines for nothing more than moral reasoning. There is no way you can tell me that you think running that ad would cost the NFL one dollar of marginal income. It might result in some spilled bottled water in editorial rooms at the NYT but that isn't their core demographic anyways.
Are they within their rights...yes clearly. They can reject anything for any reason really as far as I'm concern. Did they do the "right" thing...no. Product is legal, advertisement is within the guidelines as they are written. An ad for guns is no more going to get me to buy a gun I don't want than a beer commercial can convince me to drink that crap.
Companies don't have to do the "right" thing. They do what they believe is right to be profitable within a generic set of moral standards. Period.I have no problem with that gun ad. But I totally see why the NFL doesn't want it run during the Super Bowl.
No one asked if they have to do the right thing. They asked if they did the right thing. That is two different measures. The funny thing here is you want to be some hyper-realist but what the NFL did is the opposite to that sort of hard boiled realism. They turned down cash for advertising a legal product within their guidelines for nothing more than moral reasoning. There is no way you can tell me that you think running that ad would cost the NFL one dollar of marginal income. It might result in some spilled bottled water in editorial rooms at the NYT but that isn't their core demographic anyways.
They did the right thing for the NFL. Which is what they always do.I wouldn't say they "turned down cash". And I don't think there was any "moral reasoning" involved. They just don't want to hear liberals whine. And another commercial from another paying advertising customer will take its place. So no harm done to the bottom line. So basically, they'll make the same amount of money and not have to deal with anyone whining about a pro-gun ad - because you know someone would. Sounds like a win-win to me.Not trying to be a "hyper realist". Just don't understand why people care when corporations make choices that they perceive to be in their best interest.
The NFL needs to move their HQ to someplace not so liberal... OMAHA
Are they within their rights...yes clearly. They can reject anything for any reason really as far as I'm concern. Did they do the "right" thing...no. Product is legal, advertisement is within the guidelines as they are written. An ad for guns is no more going to get me to buy a gun I don't want than a beer commercial can convince me to drink that crap.
Companies don't have to do the "right" thing. They do what they believe is right to be profitable within a generic set of moral standards. Period.I have no problem with that gun ad. But I totally see why the NFL doesn't want it run during the Super Bowl.
No one asked if they have to do the right thing. They asked if they did the right thing. That is two different measures. The funny thing here is you want to be some hyper-realist but what the NFL did is the opposite to that sort of hard boiled realism. They turned down cash for advertising a legal product within their guidelines for nothing more than moral reasoning. There is no way you can tell me that you think running that ad would cost the NFL one dollar of marginal income. It might result in some spilled bottled water in editorial rooms at the NYT but that isn't their core demographic anyways.
They did the right thing for the NFL. Which is what they always do.I wouldn't say they "turned down cash". And I don't think there was any "moral reasoning" involved. They just don't want to hear liberals whine. And another commercial from another paying advertising customer will take its place. So no harm done to the bottom line. So basically, they'll make the same amount of money and not have to deal with anyone whining about a pro-gun ad - because you know someone would. Sounds like a win-win to me.Not trying to be a "hyper realist". Just don't understand why people care when corporations make choices that they perceive to be in their best interest.
so , let me see if I got this straight , you're ok with burning books and throwing people in ovens as long as it's WALMART and not the government. you might want to consider that losing your freedoms , all of them , is like a snowball. it starts small and eventually crushes you. before you know it , you can't do or say anything and that's not FREEDOM. it's mind blowing that we the people have to suffer ridicule to protect your freedoms , but i'll always be there to do it. you're welcome.
BTW why is the NFL allowed to chose who's commercials run on the network. Talk about power...
Huh? Yeah, its all about power. Corporations have power. Is this news to you?When you're the NFL, networks throw money at you to show your product on TV. And with that comes the right for the NFL to pick and choose what ads it wants or doesn't want.Seems pretty anti-American to tell a corporation what it can or cannot do....
Of course it's not news, but it's noteworthy that the NFL has more power than the network that distributes it. That's not the usual setup for networks and the show they air and it demonstrates that corporation's ability to influence outside of the typical reach of most companies. Kudos to them, and they seem to be concerned with using that power responsibly whether you'd agree or not with the decision they made. At least they don't seem to be advocating any social agenda like the Grammys and such.
