Commentary
The Downside Of The Upside
- by Joe Mandese @mp_joemandese, May 28, 2021
It's been a while since I've
written something truly upside down. So today, as we head into the first unofficial weekend of a summer that looks to be decidedly more normal than the one we had last year, I'd like to write about
something downside up. Also, because we won't …
Joe Mandese is the Editor in Chief of MediaPost. You can reach Joe at joe@mediapost.com.
RE: Bring back the lockdown - I commented on this article as it's an example of good intentions, but bad execution. School shootings were down, yet suicides and anxiety and mental disorders increased amongst kids and teens due to their inability to interact with peers. Add to that many educators believe that most kids are now about a year behind in learning. This message ignores major problems the lockdown created to push a political agenda.
"the willingness of brands to take highly public stands on politically risky, but socially worthy positions and causes, and especially, the shift toward "empathy," compassion and ethics -- will be sustainable."
That's a lot to put into one sentence - but it's debatable whehter or not brands taking political stands is sustainable. Only time will tell. Research shows that a considerable number of fans are tuning out of pro sports due to politcal and social messaging, so it's hard to believe that any brands that continue to promote political and social agendas will not suffer some kind of drawbacks.
Hopefully as a society we have become more empathetic, but as everyone now has a cause and an agenda and demands to be heard, the volume has been turned up and it's wearing on consumers to tune out in order to keep some level of sanity.
A counterpoint to Dan's comment on the article. Dan assumes that lockdowns were "created to push a political agenda." As opposed to a public health plan? Which is how MOST people of minimal intelligence (and believe in science) saw it.
I know I appreciated the lockdowns even more as a New York City resident during the height of the pandemic here when we knew little about how the virus spread, how to prevent infection, or how to treat it. I appreciated it more when a former colleague died and even more so still when a good friend is even now struggling to recover from a double lung transplant resulting from covid.
Dan states, "Research shows that a considerable number of fans are tuning out of pro sports due to political and social messaging, so it's hard to believe that any brands that continue to promote political and social agendas will not suffer some kind of drawbacks."
Does Dan, by chance, have the research to back that up? If so, why not cite it?
In this polarizing climate, there will indeed be consequences and gains to brands taking political stands. But what is missing from Dan's "Fox News Channelish" editorial pundit style perspective is that while brands may lose some loyalty in one camp, they gain more loyalty in another. I know this from personal experience with my brand. I get the added benefit of being able to look at myself in the mirror and like what I see.
Most stands that brands took will stand the test of time because they are social justice issues long overdue and affecting a significant portion of the buying public (apparently not Dan).
Versus say, the "My Pillow Guy" spouting conspiracy theories to try to overturn democracy - Not a good look now and certainly won't be good in a few years.
Taking a stand for what is right is usually not a zero-sum game. To stand for what one believes in, especially IF, and this is a big IF, one is on the right side of history will pay dividends for decades to come, if authentic and sincere. Those that stayed silent, time will tell. But those took the opposite tack, like Dan in his commentary, then not only will time tell, but it's also probably not going to be kind.
Robert, while I, too, don't think that the lockdown was a political ploy, there is some evidence concerning the reasons for sports viewing being down. According to a YouGov/Yahoo News poll conducted with about 1600 adults in March ( as reported by Jay Busbee of Yahoo Sports ) 35% of the respondents gave the increase in social and political activism in sports as a reason why they reduced their sports viewing while 56% said there was no change and 11% said that it increased. Among Republicans the decreased viewing claim percentage was much higher ( 53% ) while only 19% of the Democrats fell into this category. I don't find this very surprising and, obviously, there are other factors which we are all aware of---shortened schedules, empty stands or stands with cardboard "fans" , etc.etc. But it seems reasonable to believe that some Republicans were---or are---- punishing sports---at least for a time----by abstaining. Whether this will continue is unlikely---but we shall see.
Thanks for the stats Ed. As I said in my response, would not be surprising given these polarizing times. But I must qualify to say - I am a long time sports watcher but I don't watch nearly as much because of the incredible amount of advertising load creep, seeing the same creative over and over and over, longer and longer games, stoppage of content with replays ad nauseum, annoying announcers (certainly not all), and the silliness of the whole enterprise given the state of the world (which ironically, had me tuning back in at the same time others were supposedly "tuning out"). Or maybe, and this is a real possibility, I'm just getting old and grumpy. But alas, I wasn't in the poll. I don't think people answer polls honestly either. Not these days and especially among those who are prone to wild conspiracy theories like QANON and who generally don't trust anyone. Many say one thing, but do another, as we've seen in political polling. Nonethelss, thanks again for citing actual research.