Anyone else fed up with the NFL?

[Gman]

The NFL is OK with letting Ray Lewis and Michael Vick back in, but hey guys - clean it up and follow the rules: pizza guy wants a clean image.

Pizza guy and every other advertiser wants eyes on the tube. The league wants to whistle past the graveyard like they're not losing their fan base, but when the advertisers are feeling the pinch, that's not the reality of the situation.

I miss the old days when a coach would send a bad apple packing no matter how well they played the game.

[MrPrena]

Pizza guy and every other advertiser wants eyes on the tube. The league wants to whistle past the graveyard like they're not losing their fan base, but when the advertisers are feeling the pinch, that's not the reality of the situation.

I miss the old days when a coach would send a bad apple packing no matter how well they played the game.

It is unfortunate. Modern foozball years, it is upto Coach+GM+President+and franchisee.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

Pizza guy and every other advertiser wants eyes on the tube. The league wants to whistle past the graveyard like they're not losing their fan base, but when the advertisers are feeling the pinch, that's not the reality of the situation.

I miss the old days when a coach would send a bad apple packing no matter how well they played the game.

This I all can agree with.

When you think of what it takes to be in the NFL, for the entire history of the league, football has always drawn some of the more or less maladjusted and colorful characters to say the least. But there are more bad apples now. Sharpie a tribute on your cleats? League goes nuts. Deal in cocaine or “purple drank” or whatever else - you can come back. While an Anti-American protest may or may not have been expected, what could be reasonably expected is how randomly the league deals with it (or not deals with it) - and “Papa” should have expected as much. I’m sure Payton Manning will still pretend to be his friend if he keeps paying him, though.

[GilpinGuy]

I’m sure Payton Manning will still pretend to be his friend if he keeps paying him, though.

Haha! Fact.

[00tec]

Haha! Fact.

Ironically, the cash is flowing the other way there. Manning owns several franchise stores, but pays fees and percentages to corporate.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

Ha! Quarterback and aspiring pizza mogul.

My subjectivity aside, I have to wonder if he wouldn’t do better with his own name.

[Martinjmpr]

I cannot agree even a little. “Papa” is getting exactly what he paid for: airtime during a game. There is no way his contract has some sort of negotiated “behavior of the NFL” clause in it. I’d also be surprised if there were some sort of “declining ratings” clause.

No, he's NOT getting what he paid for. That's why he's complaining.

If someone ordered a pizza from PJs and it tasted like shit, would you say "well, serves them right, they ordered from Papa Johns so they got what they deserved?"

Maybe you would but you'd be wrong: Whatever your subjective opinion of them, Papa John's promised that buyer a good pizza and if they don't deliver on that promise, buyer is entitled to be pissed off at PJs for failing.

In the same way, Papa John's paid the NFL X brazillian dollars to advertise with the expectation that they would get Y Brazilian eyeballs watching their commercials.

They got that expectation because the NFL told them "these are our ratings for 2016 and we project that in 2017 the ratings will go from Y Brazilian to Z Brazilian." That was the expectation that they SOLD to Papa John's.

Every advertiser has $$ to pay for advertising and every venue that sells advertising - whether it is the NFL or Dancing With the Stars, sells its advertising with the explicit promise to advertisers that "if you put this ad on our program you will have X number of people watching and that will result in sales." That's how advertising works.

If the ratings are now showing that instead of Y Brazilians or Z Brazilians of eyeballs watching PJ commercials, there are actually only Y minus 10% Brazilians watching, then PJ's is entitled to be pissed because just like the angry pizza customer, they didn't get what they paid for.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

IIRC, you are an attorney, correct? I’ll have to defer contracts to you, if so. I am not, but I sure read and review a lot of contracts for business purposes.

I still cannot agree on the point or the analogy, and although I agree that any “buyer is entitled to be pissed off” -I won’t agree that it is with merit. What is a “good” pizza, objectively and contractually? What is my expectation? That every ingredient is there? I might have an expectation around temperature range or microbiological quality, but not taste. I couldn’t get any contract so ill defined as “taste” past any attorneys I’ve worked with.

So – My question: this keeps pointing to the NFL, but did he sign a contract *for airtime* with the NFL?
His contract with the NFL is probably to put his logo on their banners or vice-versa with him putting their logo on his boxes or whatever, and is probably separate and independent from his contracts with TV.

His airtime contract (expectation of Y Brazilian eyeballs) is with the networks, right? Again, I don’t do advertising, but my impression of those sales is such that they do make a prediction (Y Brazilian eyeballs) and sell him a contract based on that, but when it becomes Y -10%, he gets makegoods (the airtime he is due), which he may or may not be pissed about but the guy is on TV constantly. In fact, my other impression is that networks tend to attempt to oversell slightly since Y+10% is seen as far more problematic economically. I still say he paid for airtime, he is getting airtime. His axe to grind is as subjective as my opinion on his pizza.

Even still, there are any number of reasons tastes can change viewership of the NFL. Is he pissed about the concussion movie? The kneeling down is lame, but expecting some sort of consistent code of conduct with the NFL is absurd.

[Martinjmpr]

His airtime contract (expectation of Y Brazilian eyeballs) is with the networks, right? Again, I don’t do advertising, but my impression of those sales is such that they do make a prediction (Y Brazilian eyeballs) and sell him a contract based on that, but when it becomes Y -10%, he gets makegoods (the airtime he is due), which he may or may not be pissed about but the guy is on TV constantly. In fact, my other impression is that networks tend to attempt to oversell slightly since Y+10% is seen as far more problematic economically. I still say he paid for airtime, he is getting airtime.

Yes but that sale was based on an expectation, and if the NFL is either acting or failing to act in such a way that it undermines PJ's reasonable expectation, then the buyer is entitled to be angry because he's not getting what he paid for.

I think you're getting confused about the legal issues. This is not a legal issue - AFAIK, PJs is not trying to sue NFL for breach of contract.

Instead, he's an angry customer who was sold something that he thought would be valuable and PJ's contends is now LESS valuable because of the actions (or inactions) of the NFL.

So it's not a legal issue - nobody is questioning that he paid for airtime and got airtime, and again, AFAIK he's not trying to get out of paying the NFL (my assumption is he's already paid.) He's angry because he paid this money and didn't get the value he'd expected.

His axe to grind is as subjective as my opinion on his pizza.

So what? He's entitled to his subjective opinion, just as you are entitled to yours.

Even still, there are any number of reasons tastes can change viewership of the NFL. Is he pissed about the concussion movie? The kneeling down is lame, but expecting some sort of consistent code of conduct with the NFL is absurd.

If they sell him something, is he not entitled to expect that they, the NFL, won't deliberately do something that diminishes the value of what PJs bought?

Here's an analogy: Lets say you need a place to live, so you look around and find a decent apartment. You go look at the apartment in the daytime, everything's fine. You sign a 1 year lease.

Two days after moving in, the people in the apartment below you start cooking meth. The smell is awful. You call the police, they arrest the perpetrators but the landlord does nothing to clean up the mess and it makes your place unlivable.

Are you entitled to be pissed off? Hey, you paid for an apartment and you got an apartment, right? So what are you complaining about, you got what you paid for didn't you?

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

I think we are disagreeing on the basic underlying assumptions. Is the issue what he paid for or expectations?

Yes but that sale was based on an expectation, and if the NFL is either acting or failing to act in such a way that it undermines PJ's reasonable expectation, then the buyer is entitled to be angry because he's not getting what he paid for.

We both agree he paid for airtime and got airtime.
You think PJ has a reasonable expectation, and I disagree. -That’s cool.

PJ wants a clean NFL, he wants eyeballs on it, and he wants NFL fans to order pizza. I don’t think any of those are reasonable to guarantee, personally, and I don’t think any are fair to hang on a tiger that’ll never change his stripes.

Here's an analogy: Lets say you need a place to live, so you look around and find a decent apartment. You go look at the apartment in the daytime, everything's fine. You sign a 1 year lease.

I might put forth that a better analogy would be PJ (or me) watching that apartment for 30 years, doing off and on business with the landlord, and watching the types of clientele, perhaps meth buyers and sellers, going in and out of the door for years, with various levels of “clean up.” Then PJ (or me) decides to jump in and later complain that the place is full of smelly criminals. I don’t think I have much right to be pissed off. And that’s why I laugh that PJ spoke up.

I don’t think we’ll agree on it, which is fine. If you think he has a legit beef, I guess buy some pizza.