Anonymous

Inactive
Post count: 738

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.

Please wait…