Uhmmmmm.... So what's going on? Why can't they play?
Is this seriously supposed to garner support for the NFLPA? How?
Who did the NFLPA pay to make this add, or who did the NFL owners pay to have this be the NFLPA's add? That add may prove to be the most anemic attempt to garner public support for anything.
Why not try to explain, just a little bit, about what the disagreement is about. Have two big piles of money labeled "players and owners" and "owners" and say the owners would like 1 billion more dollars from the players/owners pile. Wouldn't that get the fans behind you, by highlighting the owner's greed?
Put a picture Al Davis and Henry Clay Ford Sr. on the screen and say these guys want more fucking money, then put a picture of Tom McHale, who died at age 45 from brain damage - guys like him deserve less money.
Put something in there, anything - you can't gain support by only using a catch phrase.
12:01 PM
Andrew Wice said...
I think MuMan's analysis is right on here.
That catch phrase is as snappy as a two-year old string bean. And it doesn't convince.
It shouldn't be so difficult to point out the very simple issue, as MuMan explains.
2 comments:
Uhmmmmm.... So what's going on? Why can't they play?
Is this seriously supposed to garner support for the NFLPA? How?
Who did the NFLPA pay to make this add, or who did the NFL owners pay to have this be the NFLPA's add? That add may prove to be the most anemic attempt to garner public support for anything.
Why not try to explain, just a little bit, about what the disagreement is about. Have two big piles of money labeled "players and owners" and "owners" and say the owners would like 1 billion more dollars from the players/owners pile. Wouldn't that get the fans behind you, by highlighting the owner's greed?
Put a picture Al Davis and Henry Clay Ford Sr. on the screen and say these guys want more fucking money, then put a picture of Tom McHale, who died at age 45 from brain damage - guys like him deserve less money.
Put something in there, anything - you can't gain support by only using a catch phrase.
I think MuMan's analysis is right on here.
That catch phrase is as snappy as a two-year old string bean. And it doesn't convince.
It shouldn't be so difficult to point out the very simple issue, as MuMan explains.
I'm getting worried.
Post a Comment