And you are almost incapable of just arguing the point without personal digs.
Boycott the NFL
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Like I said, you apparently don't understand how wide of an audience they are trying to reach.
Actually, the only place I'm seeing anything approaching hysteria is here ... by two TBN members ... who have a past history of being prone to a little "drama" ...
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
I wasn't aware your sensitivities were so tender ...
"Like I said, you apparently don't understand how wide of an audience they are trying to reach."
Yeah, I can see where they might chose to ignore 30-40% of the population, or more. Makes sense from a marketing stand point. It seems to me that they are working hard to reach a much smaller audience than they might be able too. Their loss, not mine.
Makes little difference to me, I ignore most of the commercials anyway. They can do as they please.
Yeah, I can see where they might chose to ignore 30-40% of the population, or more. Makes sense from a marketing stand point. It seems to me that they are working hard to reach a much smaller audience than they might be able too. Their loss, not mine.
Makes little difference to me, I ignore most of the commercials anyway. They can do as they please.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
As opposed to ignoring 60% to 70% ?
It may well make sense.
What form of arithmetic or mathematics do you use to draw support for that conclusion ?
Very well could be, in one form or another. Firearm ownership is that high, or higher. It is hard to say either way. Far more people, of all ages, participate in some for of shooting sport than play football.
Don't know what the commotion is all about...a choice was made in a FREE country to do so....and any repercussions of said choice will be dealt with....pretty darned simple....so what..they don't support guns....Blah humbug.....
As opposed to ignoring 60% to 70% ?
I never said they were, or were trying too, ignore 60% to 70% of the population. All I said is that it makes little sense not to try to reach as many people as possible, from a marketing standpoint. The larger the potential market the greater potential for revenue.
I never said they were, or were trying too, ignore 60% to 70% of the population. All I said is that it makes little sense not to try to reach as many people as possible, from a marketing standpoint. The larger the potential market the greater potential for revenue.
Yeah, but the advertisement isn't targeted at participants of shooting sports. The number of people who participate in shooting sports versus football is wholly irrelevant, especially to a commercial airing on Super Bowl Sunday. In sheer numbers, more people participate in condom use and sports betting than participate in football, but they ain't gonna allow advertisements for those, either. From a marketing standpoint, the only rules that make sense are how many people will view the commercial during the football game.
The rest may very well indeed be a fact, but it is still, nevertheless, a red herring argument that is utterly out of place. Gymnastics, bull riding, horseback riding, and cheerleading are all more dangerous than football. Why not make your argument using gymnastics?
Or they can be as level-headed and sensical as they like. The policies contained in the PDF are neither nonsensical nor hysterical. They are laid out simply, in plain language, and make perfect sense.
Good grief. The same can be said for every single social cause or political issue we can think of. But none of those have anything to do with the commercial and whether it violated the NFL's policy, eeeeether.
Last edited:
Tim Horton's do more health damage than guns do!
Bad coffee too! There are PLENTY of gun shops and the number is growing. Gun sales are booming, although they have leveled off a bit for now, till Obama mouths off again.
"They are laid out simply, in plain language, and make perfect sense."
They are clearly written and make sense in that respect. I was ONLY speaking from marketing standpoint.
As I said, I don't really give a flip. It's their choice, they can do as they please.
As to condom use, IF people were as safe with their sexual habits as they are with the shooting sports we would ALL be better off!
They are clearly written and make sense in that respect. I was ONLY speaking from marketing standpoint.
As I said, I don't really give a flip. It's their choice, they can do as they please.
As to condom use, IF people were as safe with their sexual habits as they are with the shooting sports we would ALL be better off!
Yes, I did! For the "The Pennsylvania Gazette"
Hey now, Them's fighting words!Tim Horton's do more health damage than guns do!
WanderngFool
Active Expediter
Hey now, Them's fighting words!
I hear ya. Ya catch that stuff when it's fresh and it's some of the best around. Oops, ot and these guys are packing. <slinks back to his under couch safe zone>
Hey now, Them's fighting words!
Their coffee tastes like it was made from ground hockey pucks.
Looks to me that the ONLY one packing in this forum is Ragman. A FINE example of a negative use for a firearm if I ever saw one!
What happened to your taste buds? Lose them as a kid?
