Super Bowl madness.

The Spin Meister said:
I think he knows his audience. Mostly older folks that will be a lot smaller audience in ten years.

He also knows that people under thirty are far less likely to watch, go to games, buy merchandise.

He is trying to get a younger audience and an international audience.
Click to expand...
His audience is already captured. Few will be turning away. He’s going after youth and Spanish speaking (and always, Girls)
 
I was at a party with mixed liberals and conservatives. Here are my observations. The Superbowl was on in the one room and a few people that don't play poker were there the whole time. Those that play cards did so until the start of the game. Most then went to watch the game. I did not.

Before the game, a not very vocal liberal stated that he had never even heard of Bad Bunny before this and a more outspoken liberal jumped down this guy's throat and his wife actually had to tell him to cut it out. Also, prior to the kickoff during a card game, two of the most liberal in the group got into a really off-putting argument literally about a ten-cent bet and whether checking to open the betting with the high hand was considered a bet therefore allowing 3 bumps or if the check was not a bet and the first bump of ten cents was the bet and then 3 bumps should be permitted. It went back and forth several times over ten cents and the rest of us looked at them like WTH are you arguing this for? Several of us said to just let it go, it doesn't matter. One of the two actually left the game to end the argument and the other $hit talked THEIR OWN BROTHER the rest of the day after they had left.

During halftime, I'd say less than half of those who just watched the first half, stayed in there watching the Bad Bunny performance. Several of the people who left the TV room at halftime didn't watch the 2nd half of the game either.

One of my really good buddies didn't go to any Superbowl parties and didn't watch the game at all. He and his family watched movies. They are pretty active in their church so it didn't surprise me.

I bring this up because it is consistent with the ratings. People mostly watched during the 1st half. I did not. Probably half of the people didn't watch halftime (but the ratings doesn't show that drop because the big screen stayed on and tuned into the channel). After halftime, maybe about half of those who didn't watch at halftime tuned back in, but the other half had no interest in the 2nd half. Apparently, it was a boring game according to mostly all that I had talked to while I kept playing cards.

Another interesting observation is some banter I saw on a FB post from the gated community where we have a 2nd home. They held their annual Superbowl party up at the lodge and apparently the majority were watching the turning point alternative halftime show on their phones so the bartender changed the channel to play that on the big screen when they saw this. Apparently the hardcore liberals that were there got pi$$ed and left. Then, they posted about it on the community page where people continued to argue about it.

I mention this observation because it is 100% obvious to me that the goal of choosing Bad Bunny was to divide Americans by politics and the observations, I was privy to give anecdotal proof to it having this effect. That's just sad IMO. The NFL had the opportunity to unite AND to win big with celebrating America in its 250th year. That promotional opportunity was once in a lifetime. They chose to divide instead. Just utterly sad.
 
LudicrousSpeedGO! said:
I was at a party with mixed liberals and conservatives. Here are my observations. The Superbowl was on in the one room and a few people that don't play poker were there the whole time. Those that play cards did so until the start of the game. Most then went to watch the game. I did not.

Before the game, a not very vocal liberal stated that he had never even heard of Bad Bunny before this and a more outspoken liberal jumped down this guy's throat and his wife actually had to tell him to cut it out. Also, prior to the kickoff during a card game, two of the most liberal in the group got into a really off-putting argument literally about a ten-cent bet and whether checking to open the betting with the high hand was considered a bet therefore allowing 3 bumps or if the check was not a bet and the first bump of ten cents was the bet and then 3 bumps should be permitted. It went back and forth several times over ten cents and the rest of us looked at them like WTH are you arguing this for? Several of us said to just let it go, it doesn't matter. One of the two actually left the game to end the argument and the other $hit talked THEIR OWN BROTHER the rest of the day after they had left.

During halftime, I'd say less than half of those who just watched the first half, stayed in there watching the Bad Bunny performance. Several of the people who left the TV room at halftime didn't watch the 2nd half of the game either.

One of my really good buddies didn't go to any Superbowl parties and didn't watch the game at all. He and his family watched movies. They are pretty active in their church so it didn't surprise me.

I bring this up because it is consistent with the ratings. People mostly watched during the 1st half. I did not. Probably half of the people didn't watch halftime (but the ratings doesn't show that drop because the big screen stayed on and tuned into the channel). After halftime, maybe about half of those who didn't watch at halftime tuned back in, but the other half had no interest in the 2nd half. Apparently, it was a boring game according to mostly all that I had talked to while I kept playing cards.

Another interesting observation is some banter I saw on a FB post from the gated community where we have a 2nd home. They held their annual Superbowl party up at the lodge and apparently the majority were watching the turning point alternative halftime show on their phones so the bartender changed the channel to play that on the big screen when they saw this. Apparently the hardcore liberals that were there got pi$$ed and left. Then, they posted about it on the community page where people continued to argue about it.

I mention this observation because it is 100% obvious to me that the goal of choosing Bad Bunny was to divide Americans by politics and the observations, I was privy to give anecdotal proof to it having this effect. That's just sad IMO. The NFL had the opportunity to unite AND to win big with celebrating America in its 250th year. That promotional opportunity was once in a lifetime. They chose to divide instead. Just utterly sad.
Click to expand...
I’ll first say that I did not watch the halftime show, and I don’t think I ever have seen a full one. But I would disagree that he did it for political reasons, I think the main reason for having that show at the halftime was strictly to try and increase the amount of viewership in central and South America. He’s trying to grab some of the soccer population, just like with having games in central and South America coming up.
With regard to all of the complaining that you’ve spoken about I echo that 100%. When I went into work Monday, the school that I was at that day has a heavy Hispanic population. I don’t know a lot of the kids individually other than in one teacher‘s classroom that I help out in sometimes, but most of the Hispanic kids said that it was just kind of average. It wasn’t anything that made them decide that they wanted to continue watching the second half of the game. As a matter of fact, I think some of those viewership numbers are not accounting for those who only tuned in to watch halftime.
The craziest thing I heard on Monday was the two extremely liberal white women, one has green hair, and the other one has her septum pierced, they were actually arguing over Weather that was the greatest halftime show ever or not. The one lady actually said that she thought it was Black Eyed Peas and the other one couldn’t believe that she would say that it wasn’t this show. They actually started yelling at each other in the hallway.
 
Bison13 said:
I’ll first say that I did not watch the halftime show, and I don’t think I ever have seen a full one. But I would disagree that he did it for political reasons, I think the main reason for having that show at the halftime was strictly to try and increase the amount of viewership in central and South America. He’s trying to grab some of the soccer population, just like with having games in central and South America coming up.
With regard to all of the complaining that you’ve spoken about I echo that 100%. When I went into work Monday, the school that I was at that day has a heavy Hispanic population. I don’t know a lot of the kids individually other than in one teacher‘s classroom that I help out in sometimes, but most of the Hispanic kids said that it was just kind of average. It wasn’t anything that made them decide that they wanted to continue watching the second half of the game. As a matter of fact, I think some of those viewership numbers are not accounting for those who only tuned in to watch halftime.
The craziest thing I heard on Monday was the two extremely liberal white women, one has green hair, and the other one has her septum pierced, they were actually arguing over Weather that was the greatest halftime show ever or not. The one lady actually said that she thought it was Black Eyed Peas and the other one couldn’t believe that she would say that it wasn’t this show. They actually started yelling at each other in the hallway.
Click to expand...
I had gotten the sense from the outspoken lib at our party who had jumped down the throat of the less outspoken lib who openly admitted he had never heard of Bad Bunny, that liberals were on edge about supporting Bad Bunny no matter the performance. It wasn't about the performance at all for that guy. The performance hadn't even happened yet. I'm convinced that he was defending the politic statements of Bad Bunny in his mind. And just like liberals on other issues, they'll go after their own if they dare try to think for themselves or speak candidly and off script of the issued talking points.
 
The Spin Meister said:
I think he knows his audience. Mostly older folks that will be a lot smaller audience in ten years.

He also knows that people under thirty are far less likely to watch, go to games, buy merchandise.

He is trying to get a younger audience and an international audience.
Click to expand...
He’s never going to get w de we xŵxe cd s cd s cd cd sxssis c we
The Spin Meister said:
I think he knows his audience. Mostly older folks that will be a lot smaller audience in ten years.

He also knows that people under thirty are far less likely to watch, go to games, buy merchandise.

He is trying to get a younger audience and an international audience.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I doubt he ever gets a substantial international audience. Soccer is king. If Bad Bunny is all that appealing to the young people, it doesn’t say a whole lot about their character and the country’s future.
 
LudicrousSpeedGO! said:
I was at a party with mixed liberals and conservatives. Here are my observations. The Superbowl was on in the one room and a few people that don't play poker were there the whole time. Those that play cards did so until the start of the game. Most then went to watch the game. I did not.

Before the game, a not very vocal liberal stated that he had never even heard of Bad Bunny before this and a more outspoken liberal jumped down this guy's throat and his wife actually had to tell him to cut it out. Also, prior to the kickoff during a card game, two of the most liberal in the group got into a really off-putting argument literally about a ten-cent bet and whether checking to open the betting with the high hand was considered a bet therefore allowing 3 bumps or if the check was not a bet and the first bump of ten cents was the bet and then 3 bumps should be permitted. It went back and forth several times over ten cents and the rest of us looked at them like WTH are you arguing this for? Several of us said to just let it go, it doesn't matter. One of the two actually left the game to end the argument and the other $hit talked THEIR OWN BROTHER the rest of the day after they had left.

During halftime, I'd say less than half of those who just watched the first half, stayed in there watching the Bad Bunny performance. Several of the people who left the TV room at halftime didn't watch the 2nd half of the game either.

One of my really good buddies didn't go to any Superbowl parties and didn't watch the game at all. He and his family watched movies. They are pretty active in their church so it didn't surprise me.

I bring this up because it is consistent with the ratings. People mostly watched during the 1st half. I did not. Probably half of the people didn't watch halftime (but the ratings doesn't show that drop because the big screen stayed on and tuned into the channel). After halftime, maybe about half of those who didn't watch at halftime tuned back in, but the other half had no interest in the 2nd half. Apparently, it was a boring game according to mostly all that I had talked to while I kept playing cards.

Another interesting observation is some banter I saw on a FB post from the gated community where we have a 2nd home. They held their annual Superbowl party up at the lodge and apparently the majority were watching the turning point alternative halftime show on their phones so the bartender changed the channel to play that on the big screen when they saw this. Apparently the hardcore liberals that were there got pi$$ed and left. Then, they posted about it on the community page where people continued to argue about it.

I mention this observation because it is 100% obvious to me that the goal of choosing Bad Bunny was to divide Americans by politics and the observations, I was privy to give anecdotal proof to it having this effect. That's just sad IMO. The NFL had the opportunity to unite AND to win big with celebrating America in its 250th year. That promotional opportunity was once in a lifetime. They chose to divide instead. Just utterly sad.
Click to expand...
Two things
1. According to Goodell, bad bunny was picked because he would be a unifying artist.
2. You may have a gambling problem. 😁
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top