Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Corporation

captain_renault The mega-marketing platform known as the National Football League is taking some heat for its employment (Captain Renault is shocked!) of violent people.

The NFL’s hypocrisy, meanwhile, is a mere grain of sand compared to that of its sponsors. To wit:

“The behaviors are disgusting, absolutely unacceptable, and completely fly in the face of the values we at PepsiCo believe in and cherish.”

Thank you, sugar-water pusher!

“We are not yet satisfied with the league’s handling of behaviors that so clearly go against our own company culture and moral code.”

That’s Budweiser talking.

“As a brand that has always supported women and stood for female empowerment, COVERGIRL believes domestic violence is completely unacceptable.”

Yes, make-up is all about empowerment and equality.

“McDonald’s is a family brand.”

The only howler bigger than these shameless lies about corporate values is the suggestion that any of these capitalist behemoths might ever refrain from availing themselves of the NFL’s services as an eyeballs-and-eardrums rancher.


nfl_pink As it recovers from locking out its employees and tries to stave off its players’ claims about its obvious extreme health dangers, the National Football League continues to exploit breast cancer to soften its image and increase the emotional habits and brand loyalties on which it trades.

Idoubtit, an excellent “skeptic” blogger and activist, has started a helpful thread on the topic.

The numbers involved are fascinating. The NFL has annual revenues of $9.5 billion, and yearly profits of $979 million. Business Insider reports:

According to the website, by purchasing pink items in the NFL Shop, fans can “support the fight against breast cancer with pink NFL breast cancer awareness gear.” Of course, there is a huge difference between supporting “awareness” and donating money to research. In the case of the former, most of the money ends up in the pockets of billionaire NFL owners.

When we contacted the NFL’s online shop for clarification, we were told 5% of the sales are being donated to the American Cancer Society. If the pink products have a typical 100% mark-up at retail, that means the NFL is keeping 90% of the profit from the sale of Breast Cancer Awareness gear.

And then consider that only 70.8% of money the ACS receives goes towards research and cancer programs. So, for every $100 in sales of pink gear, only $3.54 is going towards research while the NFL is keeping approximately $45 (based on 100% mark-up).

When the NFL wrote back to Business Insider to “clarify” the facts, it defended itself by saying it donates “approximately $1 million per year” to this cause it wants its fans to believe it seriously cares about.

“Approximately one million dollars,” however, is a mere one tenth of one percent of the NFL’s annual profits, and roughly one one-hundredth of one percent of its revenues.

Gosh, I wonder why they don’t brag about those numbers…

Sports and Corporate Capitalism

moneyball A reader asks what the TCT take on sports might be.

I tend to like what Chomsky says on this subject, on which he also says he gets the most hate mail.  Basically, he argues that sports provide men with a way to exercise their minds and their senses of passion and commitment, but all in a completely irrational, diversionary form.  This function is both attractive and crucial in a society where the chances for most of us to do those two things in productive, meaningful ways are small and dwindling, and also anathema to the overclass.

Of course, we also know spectator sports is a huge marketing vehicle, a way of attracting eyeballs and eardrums to involuntary shopping and brand consciousness/mind-conditioning activities.

Advertising Age, for example, has recently been fretting about the serious blow to corporate marketing that will result if there is a lockout that cancels or postpones the National Football League schedule next season.  In such insider discussions, one often sees the truth all too clearly.  Here, for example, are the words of one Dave Morgan, “CEO and founder of New York-based Simulmedia, a TV ad targeting company…[that] uses data-driven technology to help improve the relevance and results of TV advertising”:

Losing the NFL will put a number of TV networks and advertisers on the hot seat.

NFL games drive tens of millions of weekly viewers to game broadcasts and related coverage on CBS, Fox, NBC and ESPN and their local affiliates. Dozens of consumer marketers, with names like Budweiser, AT&T, Ford, Geico, McDonald’s and Southwest Airlines, build billions of dollars in national media plans around NFL games and their massive reach. To make matters worse, the networks themselves depend on NFL games to promote their weekday prime-time programming, upcoming specials and season premieres. In fact, program promotion is big factor in the networks’ willingness to pay premiums in their NFL broadcast deals. No NFL means a tough fall and winter for teams, fans, marketers and broadcasters.

Won’t be easy. Finding cost-effective replacements for those millions of viewers NFL games provide and the $3 billion-plus in attendant ad spending will not be easy. No matter how hard the TV networks work to create replacement programming, whether it is movies, secondary sports, minor league football or Sunday afternoon reality shows, it won’t be the NFL and it won’t deliver the enormous crossover audiences that the NFL has. If fragmentation of TV audiences was bad before, it will get a lot worse with no NFL. [Source: Advertising Age, March 15, 2011]

Such talk — “driving” people like so many steer to the slaughterhouse — is absolutely the standard language and attitude of big business marketing, which, as documented in the TCT book, is neither more nor less than application of scientific management principles to people’s off-the-job behaviors.

Preserving the reign of television-watching, which has the very great marketing advantage of being a mildly addictive habit, is always of great concern to marketers, as you can see from Mr. Morgan’s analysis.  And, of course, spectator sports are a perfect fit for commercial TV, as they draw attention and passion, but not in too intense or too political a way.  On this, I would suggest that the Manufacturing Consent model is useful for predicting not just which stories and perspectives make the news, but also what types of entertainment programming will and will not make it onto the air.

Finally, what about playing sports?  I have mixed feelings here.  Obviously, people will always play games and sports for fun, and I’m all for freedom and public facilitation of this demotic option.  But, as a parent, I would suggest that, even in this somewhat better sphere, our culture is still quite crazy.  People now stick kids into carefully organized and intensely competitive soccer and basketball leagues at the tenderest ages, and, if the truth be told, much of the way we run our high schools (i.e. very early starts to school for a population at the height of its need for sleep, all to make after-school sports practices more convenient) is also dictated by sports considerations.

Finally, I suppose I think the mania for sports is also a logical by-product of corporate capitalism’s comprehensive, progressive destruction of meaningful physical work.  At home, we watch “American Idol” (this show ranks #1 among all programs in what marketers call “viewer engagement”) or “The Office,” and throw frozen pizzas into the oven.  As we do, things like gardening and cooking and carpentry skills fade into history.  In the realm of the economy, downsizing, automation, commodification, commercialism, and globalization are all making industrial labor not only more deskilled than ever, but almost as small a part of the overall opportunity structure as farming.  The Fortune 500 sells the lion’s share of products, but employs a small and always shrinking share of the world’s workforce.

In a world that desperately needs to find ways to move away from capitalists’ heedless, sociocidal priorities, the prevailing life of button-pushing and screen-staring leaves people desperate for ways of at least seeing somebody else perform highly skilled tasks with passionately learned and maintained physical movements.  I think sports allow us to imagine that we somehow value such things, even as we all turn to discombobulated mush, a.k.a. ideal “consumers.”

If we are lucky and smart, we might get the chance to build a new world that genuinely unlocks and rebalances life.  If that happens, we’ll get a lot saner about sports.