|
Post by MrHulot on Jan 2, 2024 15:30:50 GMT
New revenue streams. New audience. ^That's what Bud Light thought, in underestimating the pettiness and herd mentality of cancel culture. Of course, women in the studio are probably not egregious enough to capture the Twitter mob's attention. These days you have to be careful about 'insulting' your audience, because your audience is sensitive and snowflakey. I'll admit to not being overly impressed by the first females in the color commentary spot, but they have so many people (men) doing it now who are not very good at all, so the gender is not a line of distinction for me. Nor do I think it's woke to allow a female to try to do a traditionally male job. The Bud Light - Dylan Mulvaney fiasco - come on, Fletcher, that was really stupid. Did they really think they'll get more revenue by making an ultra weird pseudo person their spokes"woman"? Okay, call it "pettiness and herd mentality of cancel culture", whatever. I don't mind color women or female play-by-play announcers, if they have an idea what they're talking about plus voices that are good enough for these jobs (both criteria should also be applied to color men and male play-by-play announcers).
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Jan 2, 2024 16:07:03 GMT
^That's what Bud Light thought, in underestimating the pettiness and herd mentality of cancel culture. Of course, women in the studio are probably not egregious enough to capture the Twitter mob's attention. These days you have to be careful about 'insulting' your audience, because your audience is sensitive and snowflakey. I'll admit to not being overly impressed by the first females in the color commentary spot, but they have so many people (men) doing it now who are not very good at all, so the gender is not a line of distinction for me. Nor do I think it's woke to allow a female to try to do a traditionally male job. The Bud Light - Dylan Mulvaney fiasco - come on, Fletcher, that was really stupid. Did they really think they'll get more revenue by making an ultra weird pseudo person their spokes"woman"? Okay, call it "pettiness and herd mentality of cancel culture", whatever. I don't mind color women or female play-by-play announcers, if they have an idea what they're talking about plus voices that are good enough for these jobs (both criteria should also be applied to color men and male play-by-play announcers).I thought it was a stupid move by Bud Light, but I think a few different things on the topic overall. I probably agree with you on a lot in terms of woke culture and this obsession with virtue signaling, identity politics and victim classifications that has taken hold on the Left. It's mostly ridiculous. The Bud Light thing represented a much broader cultural issue, where people do not wish for every aspect of their lives involve the promotion of leftist causes du jour and virtue signaling, especially their beer. When Bud Light dug the hole deeper by publicly referring to opposition as being "fratty", they really misread the feelings of some of their audience and pissed them off. It represents, on some level, the elite Lefts' lack of tolerance of different viewpoints and the arrogance to conclude that differing/traditional viewpoints are simple ignorance. The notion that the southern, working-class, beer drinking, male is interested in the latest protected-class views of transgender lifestyles was quite a misstep. It does not bother me that Bud Light is learning that their audience and consumer base is not always aligned with what recent Ivy League-graduate marketing execs think is progress. On the other hand, I don't think you can possibly boycott Bud Light and also imagine that you are against 'cancel culture'. The reaction and boycott of Bud Light for associating 1% of their marketing with a Trans influencer is the epitome of cancel culture -- trying to ruin a company for making a gesture that you don't agree with politically. I'm sorry, but it is snowflakey, on some level. It's hardly uncommon for a company to try to grow their audience by appealing to new and different customers. Bud Light felt that their shitty beer might be enjoyed by the LGBTQ+ demographic and tried to use an influencer to reach that audience. Pretty common marketing strategy. If Patagonia wants to sponsor a big-game hunting show, should the Left boycott them? I guess I'm kind of in the camp of 'live and let live' on this, and I am not easily offended or triggered. I don't expect every company that I support with my dollar to match my politics. In this vein, I neither object to, nor celebrate, women announcers for men's sports. Let's see if the market supports it.
|
|
|
Post by chappy28 on Jan 2, 2024 17:28:58 GMT
The Bud Light - Dylan Mulvaney fiasco - come on, Fletcher, that was really stupid. Did they really think they'll get more revenue by making an ultra weird pseudo person their spokes"woman"? Okay, call it "pettiness and herd mentality of cancel culture", whatever. I don't mind color women or female play-by-play announcers, if they have an idea what they're talking about plus voices that are good enough for these jobs (both criteria should also be applied to color men and male play-by-play announcers). I thought it was a stupid move by Bud Light, but I think a few different things on the topic overall. I probably agree with you on a lot in terms of woke culture and this obsession with virtue signaling, identity politics and victim classifications that has taken hold on the Left. It's mostly ridiculous. The Bud Light thing represented a much broader cultural issue, where people do not wish for every aspect of their lives involve the promotion of leftist causes du jour and virtue signaling, especially their beer. When Bud Light dug the hole deeper by publicly referring to opposition as being "fratty", they really misread the feelings of some of their audience and pissed them off. It represents, on some level, the elite Lefts' lack of tolerance of different viewpoints and the arrogance to conclude that differing/traditional viewpoints are simple ignorance. The notion that the southern, working-class, beer drinking, male is interested in the latest protected-class views of transgender lifestyles was quite a misstep. It does not bother me that Bud Light is learning that their audience and consumer base is not always aligned with what recent Ivy League-graduate marketing execs think is progress. On the other hand, I don't think you can possibly boycott Bud Light and also imagine that you are against 'cancel culture'. The reaction and boycott of Bud Light for associating 1% of their marketing with a Trans influencer is the epitome of cancel culture -- trying to ruin a company for making a gesture that you don't agree with politically. I'm sorry, but it is snowflakey, on some level. It's hardly uncommon for a company to try to grow their audience by appealing to new and different customers. Bud Light felt that their shitty beer might be enjoyed by the LGBTQ+ demographic and tried to use an influencer to reach that audience. Pretty common marketing strategy. If Patagonia wants to sponsor a big-game hunting show, should the Left boycott them? I guess I'm kind of in the camp of 'live and let live' on this, and I am not easily offended or triggered. I don't expect every company that I support with my dollar to match my politics. In this vein, I neither object to, nor celebrate, women announcers for men's sports. Let's see if the market supports it. I think there's another angle to this that isn't talked about, and that's the rise of PR for corporations that try to put a "human" face on otherwise profit seeking companies. The fact is that corporations exist to make money, and really nothing else. They don't care about LBGTQ, gay marriage, immigration, war, or anything else. They are run by people who are incented to produce business results, namely revenue and profit growth, cost cutting etc. I think the absurd level of income inequality and corporate concentration of power (i.e. all the food in the grocery store is really produced by 3 companies, 90% of the beer we drink is owned by 3 companies, the gas we put in our car is owned by 3 companies, etc) means that these corporations needed to find a way to make themselves SEEM like something other than profit seeking pariahs that are funneling money out of everyone's pockets into the bank accounts of the already richest people in our country. It's simply an unsustainable system in a democracy because it clearly benefits major shareholders and executives at the expense of everyone else. In a real democracy when a system gets that out of balance, the majority (70% of the country that lives paycheck to paycheck) would vote to change the system --- break up the monopolies, end pharma advertising direct to consumers, prosecute white collar criminals etc. To prevent those types of changes hurting corporate profits the corporate world has gotten this absurd idea that now all of our major corporations need to embrace these BS equity initiatives and spend millions on dollars on commercials making us thing they are just like us. A banking commercial that shows a guy dancing on the way out of his office that ignores the predatory policies that the bank employs. Literally everything we see being sponsored by Pfizer telling us how much it cares about people, so we ignore that they prevented generic versions of the vax that supposedly could have helped poor countries. And eventually Bud Light, the company that single handedly created the "fratty" culture through an absurd amount of marketing spend and swag re-enforcing the exact culture they are now trying to downplay. The fact is simply that all of these major corporations couldn't give a flying you know what about these issues and all we are seeing is what some marketing or PR firm thought would gain them customer loyalty and ultimately more sales. It's not left and right. It's the United States of Corporate Power and Profits, and their failing attempt at controlling the populace to keep their ponzi scheme alive and ensure that people spend as much money as possible on the crap that they are pushing. The sooner people realize that and reject the messaging that comes out of their television, the better of the people of this country will be. If you want to drink a beer. Go buy the beer with the taste you prefer at the price point that makes sense for your budget. These "brands" are a bunch of BS. Marketing these days is applied social psychology just a small step away from brainwashing. Stupid topic for a Bruins forum! Damn you for sucking me in! Back to hockey!
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Jan 2, 2024 17:47:40 GMT
New revenue streams. New audience. ^That's what Bud Light thought, in underestimating the pettiness and herd mentality of cancel culture. Of course, women in the studio are probably not egregious enough to capture the Twitter mob's attention. These days you have to be careful about 'insulting' your audience, because your audience is sensitive and snowflakey. I'll admit to not being overly impressed by the first females in the color commentary spot, but they have so many people (men) doing it now who are not very good at all, so the gender is not a line of distinction for me. Nor do I think it's woke to allow a female to try to do a traditionally male job. On the Bud Lite thing...that's a perfect example of why attaching "woke" to "cancelling" is misleading. They did something supportive for a trans person, and as a result, there was a massive backlash from people who didn't want to be associated with a beer that might turn them trans. OK, maybe that's exaggerating. But there is no material difference between choosing to stop paying for Netflix because of their support for Dave Chappelle's right to say controversial things - literally cancelling your Netflix sub - and choosing to stop buying Bud Lite because of their support for a trans person. It is the same action - using economic choices to reinforce non-economic values. The difference between that and hockey announcing, I suspect (and I could be wrong), is that hockey is probably correct to assume that the base market is solid and won't leave based on something that doesn't affect the quality of their core product. As I mentioned before, don't like the colour commentary? Turn the volume down. The core product is watching the game. In Bud Lite's case, there are already a half-dozen cheap, similarly tasteless, limply alcoholic 'beers' on the market for anyone to pivot to if they just break the habit of getting Bud Lite and shift to a Modello, a Miller Lite, or a Coors Lite, or Natty Lite.... Put all of those in a flight of half-pint glasses and I'll pay for it if anyone can tell which is which, 5 for 5. But hockey fans aren't going to shift their attention to basketball. If they're NFL first fans already, they already aren't paying as much attention between October and February. I think it's a pretty safe assumption and one that held when Fox first tried to screw with the TV broadcast in ways that were far more annoying in the 90s. It was an easy, painless gesture to object to a generally meaningless act by Bud Lite. It cost the consumers nothing but brand loyalty. It would be harder to replace hockey - unless you're going to start watching leagues not affiliated with the NHL. Maybe you'll shift your loyalty from a team with a female colour commentator to one with all men...but the league doesn't really care because that doesn't affect HRR much. This whole thing is very Battlestar Gallactica. This has all happened before. This will all happen again. First woman to anchor a nightly newscast in my lifetime; now they're everywhere. First women on the desk for sports highlight packages - no one bitches now. I think you and OC have hit the nail. The problem right now is that there has yet to be a great example of a woman who does colour. There are some good ones. Good enough to at least argue that they're better than some of the weaker men on the mic. And that's all they have to be right now - better than some of the men doing the same job. Because if that's the case, you can't say they only got the job because they're women.
|
|
|
Post by dannycater on Jan 2, 2024 17:59:10 GMT
Is this the Male Chauvinist Pig thread?....oh good, I was afraid I was in the arguments room.
|
|
|
Post by islamorada on Jan 2, 2024 18:22:20 GMT
^That's what Bud Light thought, in underestimating the pettiness and herd mentality of cancel culture. Of course, women in the studio are probably not egregious enough to capture the Twitter mob's attention. These days you have to be careful about 'insulting' your audience, because your audience is sensitive and snowflakey. I'll admit to not being overly impressed by the first females in the color commentary spot, but they have so many people (men) doing it now who are not very good at all, so the gender is not a line of distinction for me. Nor do I think it's woke to allow a female to try to do a traditionally male job. On the Bud Lite thing...that's a perfect example of why attaching "woke" to "cancelling" is misleading. They did something supportive for a trans person, and as a result, there was a massive backlash from people who didn't want to be associated with a beer that might turn them trans. OK, maybe that's exaggerating. But there is no material difference between choosing to stop paying for Netflix because of their support for Dave Chappelle's right to say controversial things - literally cancelling your Netflix sub - and choosing to stop buying Bud Lite because of their support for a trans person. It is the same action - using economic choices to reinforce non-economic values. The difference between that and hockey announcing, I suspect (and I could be wrong), is that hockey is probably correct to assume that the base market is solid and won't leave based on something that doesn't affect the quality of their core product. As I mentioned before, don't like the colour commentary? Turn the volume down. The core product is watching the game. In Bud Lite's case, there are already a half-dozen cheap, similarly tasteless, limply alcoholic 'beers' on the market for anyone to pivot to if they just break the habit of getting Bud Lite and shift to a Modello, a Miller Lite, or a Coors Lite, or Natty Lite.... Put all of those in a flight of half-pint glasses and I'll pay for it if anyone can tell which is which, 5 for 5. But hockey fans aren't going to shift their attention to basketball. If they're NFL first fans already, they already aren't paying as much attention between October and February. I think it's a pretty safe assumption and one that held when Fox first tried to screw with the TV broadcast in ways that were far more annoying in the 90s. It was an easy, painless gesture to object to a generally meaningless act by Bud Lite. It cost the consumers nothing but brand loyalty. It would be harder to replace hockey - unless you're going to start watching leagues not affiliated with the NHL. Maybe you'll shift your loyalty from a team with a female colour commentator to one with all men...but the league doesn't really care because that doesn't affect HRR much. This whole thing is very Battlestar Gallactica. This has all happened before. This will all happen again. First woman to anchor a nightly newscast in my lifetime; now they're everywhere. First women on the desk for sports highlight packages - no one bitches now. I think you and OC have hit the nail. The problem right now is that there has yet to be a great example of a woman who does colour. There are some good ones. Good enough to at least argue that they're better than some of the weaker men on the mic. And that's all they have to be right now - better than some of the men doing the same job. Because if that's the case, you can't say they only got the job because they're women. The woke issue should not be a subject. This is a fifty year set of old issues that have now been neutralized to a large degree and only to be recast to give a "Voice " for those who essentially choose (young intellects) to do something different than the norm that their parents did with the black, women and gay movements last century. Post modernist self promoting facebook nurtured individuals who are narcissistic. Looking at films in the past, the issue of Trans has been a subject for a long time. Do we need to change? Ok, fine. Mandates,well, fuck that. Meritocracy please. Enough of that shit altogether. I don't like sterile male voices like Faust, or a long drawn out explanation that takes two minutes to digest (Edwards), or shrill like some of the enlighten (sarcastic) sports broadcasters have done promoting females to fulfill a quota (undefined). Find people male or female who are not hard to listen to. Then look for personalities that have the ability to explain a play without stumbling with the english language. Even watching the news on local TV in Boston will give one an idea of who is easy to listen to for a hour or two. The next qualification is knowing the game of hockey enough to make quick concise analysis without over using words like there, here, and conjunctions. Listen complain all you want, if I am watching a game with any of the above annoyances I simply hit the mute button. I look up jersey numbers on opposing teams, bingo, I have a idea of the flow of the game. The only time for further explanation is like the other night when goalie interference took time to analyze.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Jan 2, 2024 18:47:43 GMT
^That's what Bud Light thought, in underestimating the pettiness and herd mentality of cancel culture. Of course, women in the studio are probably not egregious enough to capture the Twitter mob's attention. These days you have to be careful about 'insulting' your audience, because your audience is sensitive and snowflakey. I'll admit to not being overly impressed by the first females in the color commentary spot, but they have so many people (men) doing it now who are not very good at all, so the gender is not a line of distinction for me. Nor do I think it's woke to allow a female to try to do a traditionally male job. The Bud Light - Dylan Mulvaney fiasco - come on, Fletcher, that was really stupid. Did they really think they'll get more revenue by making an ultra weird pseudo person their spokes"woman"? Okay, call it "pettiness and herd mentality of cancel culture", whatever. I don't mind color women or female play-by-play announcers, if they have an idea what they're talking about plus voices that are good enough for these jobs (both criteria should also be applied to color men and male play-by-play announcers).Yes. I think they did. And let's be clear about who did what and what was really stupid. Bud Lite sponsored an instagram influencer. They didn't do a national TV and billboard campaign making Mulvaney the face of the brand. They did something relatively tiny to expand their tent slightly. Something that probably doesn't even get seen by the majority of Bud Lite drinkers because they probably couldn't give a shit about Instagram. It blew up because some people threw a hissy fit about it. No, Bud Lite, you are not allowed to have any association with a trans person even if by doing so you're reaching out to a community that might otherwise think you're not for them. I didn't follow the blow by blow, but apparently there were bomb threats to Bud Lite factories. They made a low risk play to expand their market and the backlash was beyond all proportion. Anyway, I don't care about Bud Lite or Dylan Mulvaney. I suspect that people who stopped drinking Bud Lite probably started drinking something else made by whoever owns Anheiser Busch now, and a social media influencer got a whole bunch of attention to confirm that they have influence. Onward. Like I said to Fletch, I think this is a question of quality control, and it's only a question about sex and gender if people want to make it one because they don't like women 'invading' traditionally male spaces. There was a discussion on here a while ago about the two streams producing on air talent for hockey - the journalism school stream and the player stream. Journos go play by play because it's not an easy thing to do, and it takes training and being conscious of your performance while also responding near-instantaneously to fast paced action. You're also the person on the headset with the producers in the control room so you're getting input from you eyes and your ears on different details and trying to have what comes out your mouth be clear, concise and accurate. Players go colour largely because we believe that a former player will tell us something we wouldn't see or understand having never played. And they have stories. "When I played with Ray Bourque, I couldn't believe how early he would arrive at the rink...". Etc. If they're garrulous, they can get you through the third period of an 8-1 Rangers-Coyotes game in February like no one else. Right now, the women they're bringing in are mostly former players at the highest level available to women. This can go two ways if you think that a playing career is a major asset for a colour commentator. One, they have more insight into playing the game at an elite level than almost all fans, so as long as they don't sound like Pee Wee Herman, let 'em have a shot; two, the highest level of women's hockey isn't anywhere close to the NHL, so when comparing an NHL player's insight to theirs, they're always going to fall short. I can see something from both sides, but think we need to be clear and distinct rather than categorical. For part one, five words: "All you kids out there...." Grapes made a hell of a living off of telling kids when it was time to go off the glass and out, when to put the puck behind the defensemen to make them turn and skate, why it was important for the wingers to cover the points in the defensive zone. Colour guys aren't much different. How much of what they say actually requires lived game experience at the NHL level? 0.01%? 0.001%? I'm sure they know infinitely more about the finer points of the game than I do, but I can't tell you the last time I learned something from the colour guy about how to play hockey, strategy, or what it feels like to get bag-checked and thrown face first into the dasher. So I'm not sure you have to have NHL experience or even elite experience, though you do have to know the game. For part two, five more words from Grapes: "I remember this one time...." Those were the best. "I remember this one time, Eddie Shore come up to me as I'm lacing up my skates and says Geez, Cherry, you're pretty good at that. Too bad...I thought the reason you skate like that is because your boots aren't done up." Or "you know who was tough, like really tough? Guy called Splinters McClendon. From a little town called Mustyvagina about three hours north of Saskatoon. Grew up on a chicken farm, and some days he said he had to run out to the henhouse in his bare feet in the dead of winter to fight off wolverines with a wooden spoon. He was tough. Never made the NHL because back then there was just 36 jobs for defensemen eh? And he might have got there, but he got his left nut caught in some barbed wire snowmobiling back on the farm one Christmas. Never the same after that." That's what we're paying for from colour guys. Colour. Not "analysis". Colour. So until you get Jennifer Botterill filling time in a 7-1 Leafs loss to the BJs with a story about how Haley Wickenheiser won a drinking contest with a KGB agent in Sochi and took a shit in a car on the way back from the bar, I don't think we're going to get "colour". They'll focus on analysis because the higher ups think they just need to show how much they know to win people over. The one thing they won't have is access in the same way the former NHLers have it. They won't have had the locker next to the guy coaching the PP for Philly when they played together in Norfolk in 1987. That kind of thing is part of how a good colour guy builds his repertoire of material, and the women won't have that.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Jan 2, 2024 18:56:05 GMT
I thought it was a stupid move by Bud Light, but I think a few different things on the topic overall. I probably agree with you on a lot in terms of woke culture and this obsession with virtue signaling, identity politics and victim classifications that has taken hold on the Left. It's mostly ridiculous. The Bud Light thing represented a much broader cultural issue, where people do not wish for every aspect of their lives involve the promotion of leftist causes du jour and virtue signaling, especially their beer. When Bud Light dug the hole deeper by publicly referring to opposition as being "fratty", they really misread the feelings of some of their audience and pissed them off. It represents, on some level, the elite Lefts' lack of tolerance of different viewpoints and the arrogance to conclude that differing/traditional viewpoints are simple ignorance. The notion that the southern, working-class, beer drinking, male is interested in the latest protected-class views of transgender lifestyles was quite a misstep. It does not bother me that Bud Light is learning that their audience and consumer base is not always aligned with what recent Ivy League-graduate marketing execs think is progress. On the other hand, I don't think you can possibly boycott Bud Light and also imagine that you are against 'cancel culture'. The reaction and boycott of Bud Light for associating 1% of their marketing with a Trans influencer is the epitome of cancel culture -- trying to ruin a company for making a gesture that you don't agree with politically. I'm sorry, but it is snowflakey, on some level. It's hardly uncommon for a company to try to grow their audience by appealing to new and different customers. Bud Light felt that their shitty beer might be enjoyed by the LGBTQ+ demographic and tried to use an influencer to reach that audience. Pretty common marketing strategy. If Patagonia wants to sponsor a big-game hunting show, should the Left boycott them? I guess I'm kind of in the camp of 'live and let live' on this, and I am not easily offended or triggered. I don't expect every company that I support with my dollar to match my politics. In this vein, I neither object to, nor celebrate, women announcers for men's sports. Let's see if the market supports it. I think there's another angle to this that isn't talked about, and that's the rise of PR for corporations that try to put a "human" face on otherwise profit seeking companies. The fact is that corporations exist to make money, and really nothing else. They don't care about LBGTQ, gay marriage, immigration, war, or anything else. They are run by people who are incented to produce business results, namely revenue and profit growth, cost cutting etc. I think the absurd level of income inequality and corporate concentration of power (i.e. all the food in the grocery store is really produced by 3 companies, 90% of the beer we drink is owned by 3 companies, the gas we put in our car is owned by 3 companies, etc) means that these corporations needed to find a way to make themselves SEEM like something other than profit seeking pariahs that are funneling money out of everyone's pockets into the bank accounts of the already richest people in our country. It's simply an unsustainable system in a democracy because it clearly benefits major shareholders and executives at the expense of everyone else. In a real democracy when a system gets that out of balance, the majority (70% of the country that lives paycheck to paycheck) would vote to change the system --- break up the monopolies, end pharma advertising direct to consumers, prosecute white collar criminals etc. To prevent those types of changes hurting corporate profits the corporate world has gotten this absurd idea that now all of our major corporations need to embrace these BS equity initiatives and spend millions on dollars on commercials making us thing they are just like us. A banking commercial that shows a guy dancing on the way out of his office that ignores the predatory policies that the bank employs. Literally everything we see being sponsored by Pfizer telling us how much it cares about people, so we ignore that they prevented generic versions of the vax that supposedly could have helped poor countries. And eventually Bud Light, the company that single handedly created the "fratty" culture through an absurd amount of marketing spend and swag re-enforcing the exact culture they are now trying to downplay. The fact is simply that all of these major corporations couldn't give a flying you know what about these issues and all we are seeing is what some marketing or PR firm thought would gain them customer loyalty and ultimately more sales. It's not left and right. It's the United States of Corporate Power and Profits, and their failing attempt at controlling the populace to keep their ponzi scheme alive and ensure that people spend as much money as possible on the crap that they are pushing. The sooner people realize that and reject the messaging that comes out of their television, the better of the people of this country will be. If you want to drink a beer. Go buy the beer with the taste you prefer at the price point that makes sense for your budget. These "brands" are a bunch of BS. Marketing these days is applied social psychology just a small step away from brainwashing. Stupid topic for a Bruins forum! Damn you for sucking me in! Back to hockey!Exactly!
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Jan 2, 2024 18:57:31 GMT
Is this the Male Chauvinist Pig thread?....oh good, I was afraid I was in the arguments room. David Krejci was a trans icon. Discuss.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Jan 2, 2024 20:18:10 GMT
Good responses. Book, chappy, isla -- all very interesting and on-point.
I thought the initial executive explanation from Bud Light probably did more harm than the actual Mulvaney thing, because it implied that people who have a problem are ignorant, behind the times, unevolved, etc. which is a big trigger for people right now. I had such a bi-polar response to that too.
While the wokey types are working to re-define and change language and cultural norms at blinding speed and reckless abandon, to implement the most trendy interpretations of progressivism -- anyone who pushes back or dissents (dissent, at one time being a core value of the Left) cannot just be dismissed as being "fratty". On the other hand, OF COURSE Bud Light has a fratty image, like all other crappy American beers, because a fratty image worked for so long to sell beer.
The Simpsons, as usual, are so close to the truth it's hard to even call it a parody.
|
|
|
Post by HaggsNeckFat on Jan 2, 2024 20:38:51 GMT
Listen folks, it takes a very high level of education, prefessionalism, pretardation, and experience to make it in this bussines, and woman lack the kean hockey knowledge and ensights that are part of the job.
Only the best make it. Period. Fluto and I work so damn hard, we've had to order-in fast food, day and night, for 25 years.
The last thing we need is a system where personal appearance, hygiene, self-discipline, spoken and written grammer, and general dignity are valued over connections and good old-fashioned nepotism. I send Cam Neely a glazed ham every year. That's how you keep a press pass, honey.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Jan 2, 2024 20:45:46 GMT
Listen folks, it takes a very high level of education, prefessionalism, pretardation, and experience to make it in this bussines, and woman lack the kean hockey knowledge and ensights that are part of the job. Only the best make it. Period. Fluto and I work so damn hard, we've had to order-in fast food, day and night, for 25 years. The last thing we need is a system where personal appearance, hygiene, self-discipline, spoken and written grammer, and general dignity are valued over connections and good old-fashioned nepotism. I send Cam Neely a glazed ham every year. That's how you keep a press pass, honey. Shut up, fatso.
|
|
|
Post by jmwalters on Jan 2, 2024 20:58:37 GMT
It’s just beer, and a shitty one at that.
Get over it.
Jeesh!
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Jan 2, 2024 21:29:57 GMT
A shitty P by P or color commentator are just that, shitty, doesn't matter what sex they are, at least to me. I just want someone who is engaged and knowledgeable,some are just flat out boring to me, Faust being one.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Jan 2, 2024 21:49:02 GMT
Good responses. Book, chappy, isla -- all very interesting and on-point. I thought the initial executive explanation from Bud Light probably did more harm than the actual Mulvaney thing, because it implied that people who have a problem are ignorant, behind the times, unevolved, etc. which is a big trigger for people right now. I had such a bi-polar response to that too. While the wokey types are working to re-define and change language and cultural norms at blinding speed and reckless abandon, to implement the most trendy interpretations of progressivism -- anyone who pushes back or dissents (dissent, at one time being a core value of the Left) cannot just be dismissed as being "fratty". On the other hand, OF COURSE Bud Light has a fratty image, like all other crappy American beers, because a fratty image worked for so long to sell beer. The Simpsons, as usual, are so close to the truth it's hard to even call it a parody. Ah, the Simpsons. I cannot believe it is still running. And I agree with the point about the tone deafness escalating a conflict by dismissing someone's reaction. That's never the path to sanity. My one caveat, though, is that anyone moving to bomb threats and shooting things symbolically with ARs has lost all perspective. That moves things into "teach the debate" territory for me. I have to say that generally I have no time for the term "woke" or the term "cancel culture." "Snowflake." "Trigger." Fuck off. These are branding for ideas and behaviours that didn't need new branding to be understood, but the act of branding them has been an attempt to disassociate the traditional context for that behaviour from its application in a new context. Woke is a term of contempt for both sides of the moderate centre left it gets applied to. Those further left are looking at someone who thinks they can fix all systemic bias now that they're aware of it - look who finally woke up. To the right, it's used synonymously with virtue signaling - more cynically than the left's version of being late to the party. Anyone who describes themselves as woke is channeling Tobias Funke. Cancel culture is nothing more than a values-based economic decision amplified by social media. Buy local. Make in America. And as you pointed out above, snowflakes and triggers are ubiquitous, but the terms get used to imply that an opponent is particularly guilty of taking offense where there's none to be taken - often with a giant blind spot to why a different community might have a vastly different perspective. I think the language of the debate these days has done a lot to ensure there is no real discussion of the issues.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Jan 2, 2024 21:51:21 GMT
Listen folks, it takes a very high level of education, prefessionalism, pretardation, and experience to make it in this bussines, and woman lack the kean hockey knowledge and ensights that are part of the job. Only the best make it. Period. Fluto and I work so damn hard, we've had to order-in fast food, day and night, for 25 years. The last thing we need is a system where personal appearance, hygiene, self-discipline, spoken and written grammer, and general dignity are valued over connections and good old-fashioned nepotism. I send Cam Neely a glazed ham every year. That's how you keep a press pass, honey. Thanks, Lord NeckFat. Always the voice reaso...sorry, the voice of seasonings...all eleven herbs and spices. Quick question while we have you here. I notice that you're speaking into a drumstick in your avatar. I'm I correct in assuming that you ate the microphone?
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Jan 2, 2024 22:02:51 GMT
It’s just beer, and a shitty one at that. Get over it. Jeesh! Big beer has bigger fish to fry...beer battered fish.... Beer sales are taking a hit lately with the legalization of marijuana, and especially with the next generation of drinkers who aren't getting in the habit. Food prices, housing prices...less disposable income for the young and independents who used to be good for a few. And microbrew has changed the landscape significantly in the last 30 years. When I was first in bars, they had a Labatts tap, a Molson tap, and a light beer tap - strangely is was usually Coors rather than either Blue Light or ... whatever Molson had as a lower alcohol offering. And if it was a fancy faux Irish pub, it would also have Guinness and maybe Harp, Stella or Heineken. The place I usually go to in Ottawa - perfect pub because it's underground, low-ceilinged, dark at all times, and has about 30 taps at all times with 11 rotating - doesn't have anything branded Labatts or Molsons. Most of the taps are "local" ranging from about 1KM away to somewhere in Ontario. Too small to have been bought up by the big distributors. I had the urge to listen to Lou Reed's New York yesterday. Last Great American Whale seems appropriate here. So many cultural changes causing shifts that big beasts are nimble enough to handle without great pain. I think we're going to see it in the world of sports before the end of the decade, with broadcast TV rights taking a major hit because they don't have the audience to pay for the exorbitant rates they pay now. If gambling doesn't replace the revenue, it's likely going to mean work stoppages and a major renegotiation of the economic landscape. And god help the players if the owners realize that athletes are the only "content" still getting paid like partners.
|
|
|
Post by schlich on Jan 3, 2024 0:24:13 GMT
[br I am of the school that says the play by play guys should talk as little as possible. I love some of the old baseball calls where you hear the ball hit the bat and the crowd and then all that's required from the PbP guy is 'can if corn'. Hard to say less with hockey PBP, but I'd love someone giving it a try. Always hated the call by Dick Stockton on 75 WS Fisk's HR on NBC....*if it's fair...home run*....yawn...yes, sometimes it's great to let the fans call it...or go nuts, but still have to say something that resonates the situation...Michaels did it a lot in big moments...you still have to be better than just "talk as little as possible." Hated stockton. thought he was aweful with the sox. very surprised when he got the promotion to a national job
|
|
|
Post by schlich on Jan 3, 2024 1:04:52 GMT
I thought it was a stupid move by Bud Light, but I think a few different things on the topic overall. I probably agree with you on a lot in terms of woke culture and this obsession with virtue signaling, identity politics and victim classifications that has taken hold on the Left. It's mostly ridiculous. The Bud Light thing represented a much broader cultural issue, where people do not wish for every aspect of their lives involve the promotion of leftist causes du jour and virtue signaling, especially their beer. When Bud Light dug the hole deeper by publicly referring to opposition as being "fratty", they really misread the feelings of some of their audience and pissed them off. It represents, on some level, the elite Lefts' lack of tolerance of different viewpoints and the arrogance to conclude that differing/traditional viewpoints are simple ignorance. The notion that the southern, working-class, beer drinking, male is interested in the latest protected-class views of transgender lifestyles was quite a misstep. It does not bother me that Bud Light is learning that their audience and consumer base is not always aligned with what recent Ivy League-graduate marketing execs think is progress. On the other hand, I don't think you can possibly boycott Bud Light and also imagine that you are against 'cancel culture'. The reaction and boycott of Bud Light for associating 1% of their marketing with a Trans influencer is the epitome of cancel culture -- trying to ruin a company for making a gesture that you don't agree with politically. I'm sorry, but it is snowflakey, on some level. It's hardly uncommon for a company to try to grow their audience by appealing to new and different customers. Bud Light felt that their shitty beer might be enjoyed by the LGBTQ+ demographic and tried to use an influencer to reach that audience. Pretty common marketing strategy. If Patagonia wants to sponsor a big-game hunting show, should the Left boycott them? I guess I'm kind of in the camp of 'live and let live' on this, and I am not easily offended or triggered. I don't expect every company that I support with my dollar to match my politics. In this vein, I neither object to, nor celebrate, women announcers for men's sports. Let's see if the market supports it. I think there's another angle to this that isn't talked about, and that's the rise of PR for corporations that try to put a "human" face on otherwise profit seeking companies. The fact is that corporations exist to make money, and really nothing else. They don't care about LBGTQ, gay marriage, immigration, war, or anything else. They are run by people who are incented to produce business results, namely revenue and profit growth, cost cutting etc. I think the absurd level of income inequality and corporate concentration of power (i.e. all the food in the grocery store is really produced by 3 companies, 90% of the beer we drink is owned by 3 companies, the gas we put in our car is owned by 3 companies, etc) means that these corporations needed to find a way to make themselves SEEM like something other than profit seeking pariahs that are funneling money out of everyone's pockets into the bank accounts of the already richest people in our country. It's simply an unsustainable system in a democracy because it clearly benefits major shareholders and executives at the expense of everyone else. In a real democracy when a system gets that out of balance, the majority (70% of the country that lives paycheck to paycheck) would vote to change the system --- break up the monopolies, end pharma advertising direct to consumers, prosecute white collar criminals etc. To prevent those types of changes hurting corporate profits the corporate world has gotten this absurd idea that now all of our major corporations need to embrace these BS equity initiatives and spend millions on dollars on commercials making us thing they are just like us. A banking commercial that shows a guy dancing on the way out of his office that ignores the predatory policies that the bank employs. Literally everything we see being sponsored by Pfizer telling us how much it cares about people, so we ignore that they prevented generic versions of the vax that supposedly could have helped poor countries. And eventually Bud Light, the company that single handedly created the "fratty" culture through an absurd amount of marketing spend and swag re-enforcing the exact culture they are now trying to downplay. The fact is simply that all of these major corporations couldn't give a flying you know what about these issues and all we are seeing is what some marketing or PR firm thought would gain them customer loyalty and ultimately more sales. It's not left and right. It's the United States of Corporate Power and Profits, and their failing attempt at controlling the populace to keep their ponzi scheme alive and ensure that people spend as much money as possible on the crap that they are pushing. The sooner people realize that and reject the messaging that comes out of their television, the better of the people of this country will be. If you want to drink a beer. Go buy the beer with the taste you prefer at the price point that makes sense for your budget. These "brands" are a bunch of BS. Marketing these days is applied social psychology just a small step away from brainwashing. Stupid topic for a Bruins forum! Damn you for sucking me in! Back to hockey! Amen. There’s a lyric from a Fugazi song - “It’s not what they’re selling. It’s what you’re buying” And a lyric from a minutemen song. — “Let the products sell themselves Fuck advertising, commercial psychology Psychological methods to sell should be destroyed” I’m old
|
|
|
Post by The OC on Jan 3, 2024 1:12:29 GMT
The Bud Light - Dylan Mulvaney fiasco - come on, Fletcher, that was really stupid. Did they really think they'll get more revenue by making an ultra weird pseudo person their spokes"woman"? Okay, call it "pettiness and herd mentality of cancel culture", whatever. I don't mind color women or female play-by-play announcers, if they have an idea what they're talking about plus voices that are good enough for these jobs (both criteria should also be applied to color men and male play-by-play announcers). Yes. I think they did. No, they didn't. There is an element here that most people miss, and you in particular miss with your defense of modern cancelling. You've said in the past an argument I've heard elsewhere of it's "capitalism at work". It's not. It's activism, and that's why it's different. Choosing to buy or not buy a product based on morals and endorsements is as old as time, and yes absolutely practiced by both ends of the political spectrum. There is a strong argument that until this century that sort of thing was much more of a right-wing activity, with companies dropping talent based on moral failings or saying things unacceptable to "families", etc. Generally it works pretty well to keep companies acting how the public wants. What's different about modern cancel activities is that it's often NOT based on consumer demand or audience approval. Mark Hamill (not the guy drafted by the Bruins) uses every second tweet to bash Trump and his followers. That MMA woman changed her pronouns in bio to (Beep/Bop/Boop). One was removed from Star Wars, one was not. Why? Was it because people were going to stop watching? No. The reason is this: wfanet.org/knowledge/diversity-and-inclusion/di-taskforceThe WFA is a body created by the WEF and most large companies are a part of it. As part of joining it, the companies take a pledge to promote certain ideals. DEI is a HUGE part of those ideals, and companies are scored based on criteria such as visibility of under represented groups. A group of high priority to the WFA is transgendered individuals. Advertisers gain cred by including them, and are supposed to advertise with organizations that push the DEI goals of the WFA. So organizations and advertisers are including DEI elements in their content not because their audience wants it or because it will grow their audience, but due to pressure from the WFA and other bodies which use similar tactics. Bud Light parent Anheuser-Busch (AB) InBev is a member of WFA. The Bud Light Boycott is a particularly interesting case study. It's a blue collar product so using a trans endorsement clearly was not done with their audience in mind. It was done to improve their DEI scoring. However, the trans topic is possibly the single biggest example of the general population feeling disconnect between what is frequently being shown in media and their own feelings/opinions. I know a couple trans people and a couple parents of trans children, but other than them the vast majority of people I know don't honestly, genuinely think someone born with a dick can become an actual woman. People range from politely calling a he2she a woman to be kind/accepting to thinking the whole thing is absolutely ridiculous/insane. It's a prime example of an ideal that has been pushed through lobbying and activism and media/social media manipulation, and as such a powder keg for people when they see it pushed on their beer. What's fascinating and flies in the face of you saying they do these things to grow/satisfy their audience is despite completely plummeting sales, Bud Light has done nothing to appease their audience. They can't, because InBev has signed their pledge to the WFA and will maintain it despite the costs. That's activism at work, and anti-capitalism. On a much lesser scale, the NHL having women and minorities on TV isn't mostly about growing their audience or making it happy. It's definitely not about the best talent. It's about making groups such as the WFA happy and make sure they don't blacklist them for advertising. Personally I kind of like them including women as long as they're good. I grew up watching hockey more with my mom than my dad, my wife watches with me, both my son and daughter are learning to play. It's good it's not a total sausage fest now. Having some black guys on the broadcast I'm sure helps with feelings of inclusion too. But it's mostly about DEI numbers and lobby groups.
|
|
|
Post by schlich on Jan 3, 2024 2:13:47 GMT
“screak” isn’t a word
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Jan 3, 2024 2:49:57 GMT
Mad Mike had his run stay retired. Does it have to be an ex-Bruin? If not, I wouldn't mind Roenick. Younger than Brick, and very opinionated. But he never played for the Bruins.
Don't know who would be a good choice if it has to be an ex-Bruin.JR wants to be on a national level. Not on NESN.
|
|
|
Post by sandogbrewin on Jan 3, 2024 2:55:14 GMT
[br I am of the school that says the play by play guys should talk as little as possible. I love some of the old baseball calls where you hear the ball hit the bat and the crowd and then all that's required from the PbP guy is 'can if corn'. Hard to say less with hockey PBP, but I'd love someone giving it a try. Always hated the call by Dick Stockton on 75 WS Fisk's HR on NBC....*if it's fair...home run*....yawn...yes, sometimes it's great to let the fans call it...or go nuts, but still have to say something that resonates the situation...Michaels did it a lot in big moments...you still have to be better than just "talk as little as possible." Stockton wasn't ever on the same level as Michaels, Scully or Buck. But 75' was a good call.
|
|
|
Post by MrHulot on Jan 3, 2024 2:55:36 GMT
Does it have to be an ex-Bruin? If not, I wouldn't mind Roenick. Younger than Brick, and very opinionated. But he never played for the Bruins.
Don't know who would be a good choice if it has to be an ex-Bruin. JR wants to be on a national level. Not on NESN. That's too bad.
|
|
|
Post by davinator on Jan 3, 2024 17:01:47 GMT
The Bud Light - Dylan Mulvaney fiasco - come on, Fletcher, that was really stupid. Did they really think they'll get more revenue by making an ultra weird pseudo person their spokes"woman"? Okay, call it "pettiness and herd mentality of cancel culture", whatever. I don't mind color women or female play-by-play announcers, if they have an idea what they're talking about plus voices that are good enough for these jobs (both criteria should also be applied to color men and male play-by-play announcers). Yes. I think they did. And let's be clear about who did what and what was really stupid. Bud Lite sponsored an instagram influencer. They didn't do a national TV and billboard campaign making Mulvaney the face of the brand. They did something relatively tiny to expand their tent slightly. Something that probably doesn't even get seen by the majority of Bud Lite drinkers because they probably couldn't give a shit about Instagram. It blew up because some people threw a hissy fit about it. No, Bud Lite, you are not allowed to have any association with a trans person even if by doing so you're reaching out to a community that might otherwise think you're not for them. I didn't follow the blow by blow, but apparently there were bomb threats to Bud Lite factories. They made a low risk play to expand their market and the backlash was beyond all proportion. Anyway, I don't care about Bud Lite or Dylan Mulvaney. I suspect that people who stopped drinking Bud Lite probably started drinking something else made by whoever owns Anheiser Busch now, and a social media influencer got a whole bunch of attention to confirm that they have influence. Onward. Like I said to Fletch, I think this is a question of quality control, and it's only a question about sex and gender if people want to make it one because they don't like women 'invading' traditionally male spaces. There was a discussion on here a while ago about the two streams producing on air talent for hockey - the journalism school stream and the player stream. Journos go play by play because it's not an easy thing to do, and it takes training and being conscious of your performance while also responding near-instantaneously to fast paced action. You're also the person on the headset with the producers in the control room so you're getting input from you eyes and your ears on different details and trying to have what comes out your mouth be clear, concise and accurate. Players go colour largely because we believe that a former player will tell us something we wouldn't see or understand having never played. And they have stories. "When I played with Ray Bourque, I couldn't believe how early he would arrive at the rink...". Etc. If they're garrulous, they can get you through the third period of an 8-1 Rangers-Coyotes game in February like no one else. Right now, the women they're bringing in are mostly former players at the highest level available to women. This can go two ways if you think that a playing career is a major asset for a colour commentator. One, they have more insight into playing the game at an elite level than almost all fans, so as long as they don't sound like Pee Wee Herman, let 'em have a shot; two, the highest level of women's hockey isn't anywhere close to the NHL, so when comparing an NHL player's insight to theirs, they're always going to fall short. I can see something from both sides, but think we need to be clear and distinct rather than categorical. For part one, five words: "All you kids out there...." Grapes made a hell of a living off of telling kids when it was time to go off the glass and out, when to put the puck behind the defensemen to make them turn and skate, why it was important for the wingers to cover the points in the defensive zone. Colour guys aren't much different. How much of what they say actually requires lived game experience at the NHL level? 0.01%? 0.001%? I'm sure they know infinitely more about the finer points of the game than I do, but I can't tell you the last time I learned something from the colour guy about how to play hockey, strategy, or what it feels like to get bag-checked and thrown face first into the dasher. So I'm not sure you have to have NHL experience or even elite experience, though you do have to know the game. For part two, five more words from Grapes: "I remember this one time...." Those were the best. "I remember this one time, Eddie Shore come up to me as I'm lacing up my skates and says Geez, Cherry, you're pretty good at that. Too bad...I thought the reason you skate like that is because your boots aren't done up." Or "you know who was tough, like really tough? Guy called Splinters McClendon. From a little town called Mustyvagina about three hours north of Saskatoon. Grew up on a chicken farm, and some days he said he had to run out to the henhouse in his bare feet in the dead of winter to fight off wolverines with a wooden spoon. He was tough. Never made the NHL because back then there was just 36 jobs for defensemen eh? And he might have got there, but he got his left nut caught in some barbed wire snowmobiling back on the farm one Christmas. Never the same after that." That's what we're paying for from colour guys. Colour. Not "analysis". Colour. So until you get Jennifer Botterill filling time in a 7-1 Leafs loss to the BJs with a story about how Haley Wickenheiser won a drinking contest with a KGB agent in Sochi and took a shit in a car on the way back from the bar, I don't think we're going to get "colour". They'll focus on analysis because the higher ups think they just need to show how much they know to win people over. The one thing they won't have is access in the same way the former NHLers have it. They won't have had the locker next to the guy coaching the PP for Philly when they played together in Norfolk in 1987. That kind of thing is part of how a good colour guy builds his repertoire of material, and the women won't have that. You talk too much to be a color guy...sheesh! "Mustyvagina, Saskatchewan"? Good stuff, Book.
|
|