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.
LMFAO!!!!!My god...I...I just...I got nothin man...
There's a reason that the NFL had to turn to corporations to sell out their playoff games.
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.
Wow. Where do I start with this one?Where did I say I was ok with Walmart burning books? Are you implying the NFL is taking away our freedoms? That's a huge stretch and I feel sorry for you. If anything, the NFL is taking advantage of the freedom in this country. They can pick and choose who shows their product and can even pick and choose what advertisements are shown during the broadcast of their product. Sounds pretty free to me.... Afterall, no one in this country seemed to care when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people. And please explain... how are you suffering "ridicule"? Hilarious. If you want to watch that gun ad over and over, I'm pretty sure you can do it all you want. Its on YouTube. Seems like conservatives would actually the back the NFL on this one. Its a corporation that's well within its rights doing something. They all got behind Chick-fil-A. Why not the NFL? Just a corporation making a choice well within its rights. Its capitalism, right?
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.
Last I checked throwing people into ovens was a crime, burning books isn't. See that fruit bat Pastor from Florida who burns the Koran for example. Snook is 100% correct this has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
Just one more step to that London Super Bowl they crave so much... even though they'd have to change the rules or put a team there.
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.
I agree 100% with your take, but I think what has most people rolling their eyes is that once again the NFL is showing they don't have a pair. The core demographic for football is men yes? Men who want to see men be men and play with controlled violence? Just how long before the lustre begins to wane when it becomes apparent the game is being controlled by a bunch of candy assed p*ssies?From a business perspective the NFL needs to learn there is something to gain by demonstrating you actually have a set of core principles and are willing to stand up for them.
We need a new league...
I agree 100% with your take, but I think what has most people rolling their eyes is that once again the NFL is showing they don't have a pair. The core demographic for football is men yes? Men who want to see men be men and play with controlled violence? Just how long before the lustre begins to wane when it becomes apparent the game is being controlled by a bunch of candy assed p*ssies?From a business perspective the NFL needs to learn there is something to gain by demonstrating you actually have a set of core principles and are willing to stand up for them.
The NFL's popularity is widespread across gender, race and political views. There's a group of hardcore fans but the majority of NFL fans are fairly casual. And that's the group they're after. They know the hardcores aren't going anywhere. And I don't see the luster waning anytime soon. The new rules are horrible. I curse the refs and the NFL every time there's a questionable helmet to helmet call. Its horrible. But am I going to quit watching the NFL? Nope. Not anytime soon. Because there's nothing even close to being a replacement product. Unfair, yes. But that's the way it is for me at least. If I was a huge corporation like the NFL, I'd be as neutral as possible so I'm marketable to the largest group of people. That's why they have Military Appreciation month, Breast cancer awareness month, Hispanic Heritage month, etc.
"We believe in the 1st Amendment, which is really the issue here. We're trying to exercise our 1st Amendment rights to give our opinion on the 2nd Amendment and not being allowed to do so."My God, people are so stupid. How is this 1st amendment related?The NFL is a private company, not the US Government.To review, the 1st amendment states: "prohibits the making of any law...abridging the freedom of speech..."No law has been made by the US Government here. Why can't someone ask the idiot here what exactly he thinks the 1st amendment means?
Private companies can pick and choose what they want to allow or not allow.Same thing as Chick-fil-A. They put up a pretty strong anti-gay stance. Totally within their rights. And look at how many people came out to support them.Only thing that's hypocritical is how people react to each situation.
+1000000000000000
Just because it's not a first amendment issue (I agree, it's not) doesn't mean it's right.
This isn't a right or wrong situation. They did what they felt was best for them. They didn't want to show the ad, that's their prerogative.
"We believe the average, that the majority of the Super Bowl fans have the same values that we have at Daniel Defense," Daniel said on the Fox show. "That is, we believe in protecting our families, we believe in our 2nd Amendment, which is our right to protect ourselves. We believe in the 1st Amendment, which is really the issue here. We're trying to exercise our 1st Amendment rights to give our opinion on the 2nd Amendment and not being allowed to do so."
funny quote, carefully prepared . . . if you do not agree with the speaker you are against protecting families and against the Constitution . . . in two different ways. The best part though is the way a business person characterizes the purpose behind the advertisement (marked in bold), as if it is a Public Service Announcement. lolNo matter what your view on the subject, no matter what your view on guns or the Constitution . . . . .you should be offended . . . .not at the subject (guns, the Constitution etc.) but rather, offended that the company representative thinks so little of your intelligence. Simply put, he/she thinks you are dumb. His/her company is not spending a fortune trying to advertise on the Super Bowl for the common good of all Americans (i.e., a Public Service Announcement). The company is trying to spend a fortune on Super Bowl advertising to sell its goods. Period. End of Story.
I don't see the big deal TBH. I would guess a lot of people that viewed the commercial, if it aired, wouldn't even know what the commercial was for. But like others have mentioned, the NFL has a right to air what they want to. Amendments have zip to do with it IMO.Beautiful baby, the kid is not even 1 year old yet, and now it has an acting resume.
Fucking offseason.
Anyone watch the commercial? It was boring, completely unengaging, there was no attempt to ingrain the product into the consumer's memory. Super Bowl viewers are better off for it being sent home.
Anyone watch the commercial? It was boring, completely unengaging, there was no attempt to ingrain the product into the consumer's memory. Super Bowl viewers are better off for it being sent home.
There was that machine gun shot at he end. But the makers of the ad, said they were open to removing that if the league wanted them too.
