I know some of you complain that I just ‘hate sports’, but this story is not about sports, it’s about how a giant corporation (one that sells ‘sport’ instead of snack food or cars) functions at this point in time in America. Diana Moskovitz, at Deadspin:
The brands have spoken, and they want you to know that domestic violence and sexual assault are bad. In fact, the brands not only think they’re bad, but have a theory as to why they persist: the issues of domestic violence and sexual assault don’t have a strong enough brand. So, to help get America talking about these issues, the brands created a brand, and partnered with other brands to promote this brand. And this is how No More—a more or less imaginary brand made by brands to help domestic violence and sexual assault with their brand problem—came to be.
It’s no wonder Roger Goodell and NFL owners ran to No More with open arms when their $10 billion sports enterprise was faced with a serious public relations crisis, the culmination of years of paying little thought to players accused of domestic violence. No More was the perfect fit for a brand with a problem. So it came to pass that the NFL, as part of its anti-domestic violence initiative, partnered with a branding campaign co-founded by one of its crisis-management consultants and, this past weekend, ran an advertisement for it before the biggest audience in American television history.
Before going further, let’s acknowledge a difficult part of this discussion: domestic violence and sexual assault are horrific and almost unbelievably widespread, and any help in the fight against them is welcome. What No More sets out to do is good. Still, this is the beginning of a story we’ve all seen before with Pinktober, LIVESTRONG, and even the incredibly important but eventually coopted AIDS ribbon. What begins as a push for change becomes an invisible force telling us that we must buy specific items and wear certain logos so we can feel better about ourselves, and if we go along, we do so not because we care but because we don’t want to feel left out. What good this does for people in need of help isn’t always clear, but it’s great for the brands, because all they have to do is slap logos on a few products and/or advertisements and throw a few pennies to charity to make themselves seem socially conscious. These logos are an embodiment of magical thinking, promising that you can do good without having to actually do anything. They’re shams, basically. Now, we’ve got another one…
From the same author, earlier this month, “Do The NFL’s Anti-Domestic Violence Initiatives Actually Even Exist?“:
… Theatrics aside, what has the NFL really done about domestic violence? I looked into some of the league’s most well-publicized initiatives, many announced back in September, to see how they hold up under scrutiny now that time has passed. What I found was a league that has, yes, done some good, but with underwhelming final results. The NFL has spent next to nothing by the standards of a league bringing in an estimated $10 billion every year, made some advertisements with a domestic-violence organization that seems mainly to serve as an image-making front for Madison Avenue brands, and turned critics into “consultants.” The main emphasis has seemingly been on a power grab giving the league more control over players. The NFL has changed, but mainly in ways that promote its image, allow it to work with brands, and don’t really do much to help anyone on the front lines of working with domestic-violence victims…
And I wish I’d seen this last fall, because it’s excellent: “The Only Thing Unusual About Ray And Janay Rice Is That Anyone Noticed“.
Schlemazel
These guys read just like the pink ribbon folks. They might have been a genuine good thing to start with but they appear to exist just to make money now. Worse they allow shitty organizations to pretend to care without doing anything. Have you read about how much money the NFL makes off their “Pinktober” crap? Don’t be surprised if we don’t see “Bluetember” and you can buy all your favorite team shit in blue with 0.0001% of the profit going to anti-violence work
Corner Stone
Personally, IMO, I fucking hated those ads.
Corner Stone
And Woodstock and Burning Man and etc. Every damn thing that can be monetized, is monetized.
It’s all for the eternal Creflo Dollar.
eemom
What’s wrong with that?
raven
@eemom: The complaining part or the hating part? Personally I don’t give shit one way or the other.
srv
Nothing is really important until we can monetize the fuck out of it.
Tree With Water
The NFL has a problem even with lifelong fans like me- maybe especially with long toothed, lifelong fans like me. I’m the type of fan the NFL would build in a laboratory- I’ve paid attention and cared about it all these years. But I also remember Warren Welles, and would be hard pressed to guess the number of times I’ve heard of NFL players beating up women. Welles own hayday was in the late 1960’s. Between then and now? the number would definitely be in the dozens. It’s about time that stays quo is overturned, it’s long overdue.
Bobby Thomson
The only thing unusual about Clarence Thomas was that someone noticed. Noticing turned out to be a big fucking deal.
Belafon
We all notice that some people, namely conservatives, cannot empathize with an issue until it affects them personally. This branding thing takes care of another issue with people: The have the inability to act on an issue unless presented it fairly regularly.
The thing is, we’ve been doing this for a long, long time. The March of Dimes was, to use the term above, branding polio so we would fight for a cure. Every speech given by a leader to get his people to go to war is a branding effort. I don’t consider this a bad thing, it’s a human thing.
SiubhanDuinne
@srv:
New England friend was bitching about all the snow and what was he going to do with it? I sent him meme photo of the snow-covered lawn and the sign saying “Free! Unassembled snowmen! Free!” with a cover note saying “Monetize it.”
Joel
The problem with “No more” is that it is s transparent ass covering maneuver in light of the NFL’s disastrous handling of the Ray Rice domestic abuse case. if the league was serious about curtailing domestic abuse, they would censure teams for employing police officers to “fix” off field criminal activity, among other things.
RSA
@Joel:
Some other things seem pretty obvious. I think a public, non-negotiable morals clause in player contracts might make a difference. Monetary “whistleblower” protection for victims, so girlfriends and wives may be more willing to come forward even if a player loses money. Team-level incentives or penalties for good or bad moral behavior.
All this is pretty complicated, and I wouldn’t expect everything to work out, but it would be more than just talk.
Tripod
Ultimately, the league’s biggest problem will be liability insurance at the high school, then college level. I’m not sure how Godell’s goons fix that.
Tenar Darell
@SiubhanDuinne: Thanks! I definitely needed that too.
Jay C
@Tripod:
Simple: just buy some legislation limiting/eliminating the school’s/League’s liability on the grounds of “freedom” or whatever, and wait for the courts to OK it (shouldn’t take long). Not only will it only cost the price of a few season passes for the right Congressmen; there will probably be a sizable contingent who’ll do it for free….
billb
UM WTF, why is it the problem of any sport or company to fix OUR social problems.
CRIME HAPPENS, DUH.
Even if you are a movie star or a plumber. Down the street from you RIGHT NOW some dirtbag is hitting ‘his’ woman.
That is horrific.
BUT why do you think the whole National Tiddlywink League is somehow supposed to pay to fix that with the billions they bring in.
Does the NFL have some dirtbags working for them YES, but so does every company in our country. SO quit dumping on them and go out and volunteer in your community to bloody help your neighbors.