the NFL has supposedly reached out to various musicians (Katy Perry, Coldplay and Rihanna) to see if they would pay the NFL for the "privilege" of playing at halftime of the Super Bowl...all said no (not in article but I heard this on the radio last night)...
really? does the NFL need the money that badly?
Link - (
New Window )
I think the NFL can afford to pay entertainers for halftime entertainment considering they are raking in the cash. Don't be a dope.
why shouldn't they pay for that opportunity?
This isn't Russia, is it Danny?
Are we really crying for the superstar musical acts?
At a certain point when the goal has become trying to squeeze out every possible dime when already this profitable will result in a lesser quality product.
This isn't Russia, is it Danny?
Are we really crying for the superstar musical acts?
You're sure many people could afford to take a 20% pay cut? Based on... something you just pulled out of your ass?
Nobody is crying for superstar musical acts. The band/act is the one making time and putting on a show, bringing a draw (e.g. female acts who tend to bring in a demographic who otherwise would not watch), and now they have to bid/pay for the opportunity to do so? That makes zero sense.
Except it's totally different. No one is tuning into the Half-time show in the hopes Pepsi's nipple pops out.
I think you're talking about changing an entire business model. I don't see that happening.
I also heard it broken down another way. A 30-sec commercial costs advertisers ~$4M. So the entertainer is basically getting a 12 min "commercial" now worth approximately $100M. That's a huge benefit to the entertainers.
Quote:
the existing practice of having a "halftime sponsor" who is indubitably paying the NFL for the privilege of putting on the "Pepsi is Awesome Halftime Show." Just pushes the payola down a rung.
Except it's totally different. No one is tuning into the Half-time show in the hopes Pepsi's nipple pops out.
How many tune in "just" for the halftime show? I usually take the time to refresh my beer or serve the next round of food if I'm hosting.
Quote:
the existing practice of having a "halftime sponsor" who is indubitably paying the NFL for the privilege of putting on the "Pepsi is Awesome Halftime Show." Just pushes the payola down a rung.
Except it's totally different. No one is tuning into the Half-time show in the hopes Pepsi's nipple pops out.
Speak for yourself.
Quote:
In comment 11816247 Enoch said:
Quote:
the existing practice of having a "halftime sponsor" who is indubitably paying the NFL for the privilege of putting on the "Pepsi is Awesome Halftime Show." Just pushes the payola down a rung.
Except it's totally different. No one is tuning into the Half-time show in the hopes Pepsi's nipple pops out.
How many tune in "just" for the halftime show? I usually take the time to refresh my beer or serve the next round of food if I'm hosting.
Good to have your one vote registered. But I'm going to hold fast to the crazy idea that the whole point of a flashy half-time show is to draw eyeballs.
lol - I thought it fit. haha
Quote:
does that mean they should?
This isn't Russia, is it Danny?
Are we really crying for the superstar musical acts?
You're sure many people could afford to take a 20% pay cut? Based on... something you just pulled out of your ass?
Nobody is crying for superstar musical acts. The band/act is the one making time and putting on a show, bringing a draw (e.g. female acts who tend to bring in a demographic who otherwise would not watch), and now they have to bid/pay for the opportunity to do so? That makes zero sense.
i guarantee you that the NFL brings many more new viewers to these acts then they bring to the game.
They already do the show for free and have been for years. this is just a continuation of that.
Some band will be smart enough to pay up, just watch
LOL.
Only problem is, they apparently can't even lure Fireman Ed back.
And I like this idea. No reason to pay these hacks who can barely play an instrument and lip sync their entire "performance."
I also heard it broken down another way. A 30-sec commercial costs advertisers ~$4M. So the entertainer is basically getting a 12 min "commercial" now worth approximately $100M. That's a huge benefit to the entertainers.
So, should the players pay the NFL?
Needs a psychiatrist.
Quote:
In comment 11816226 Blue Baller said:
Quote:
does that mean they should?
This isn't Russia, is it Danny?
Are we really crying for the superstar musical acts?
You're sure many people could afford to take a 20% pay cut? Based on... something you just pulled out of your ass?
Nobody is crying for superstar musical acts. The band/act is the one making time and putting on a show, bringing a draw (e.g. female acts who tend to bring in a demographic who otherwise would not watch), and now they have to bid/pay for the opportunity to do so? That makes zero sense.
i guarantee you that the NFL brings many more new viewers to these acts then they bring to the game.
They already do the show for free and have been for years. this is just a continuation of that.
Some band will be smart enough to pay up, just watch
Many of the acts that've played already have compiled quite a huge number of fans. It's not like they're putting unknowns out there. The NFL tries to get an act that will attract more than the average football fan to watch, thus why we end up with acts like Beyonce, Madonna, etc. But if you think the majority of viewers tuning in are new to those acts... not sure what to tell you
I'm curious to see what second-tier act they are going to put up there for the fee they're hoping to get.
And these are all very well established acts before hand.
These acts probably didn't need the extra millions in revenue but I think they are happy to get it
those people are probably not on bbi, but they def exist.
I'm curious to see what second-tier act they are going to put up there for the fee they're hoping to get.
Exactly. All hacks that can barely play an instrument and lip sync.
Because even if some pop superstar or hip-hop mogul decides to pony up every so often the obvious next step is that a label would pay up and trot out five or six of its headliners for some colossal pile of shit that pisses off everyone and pleases no one.
At a certain point when the goal has become trying to squeeze out every possible dime when already this profitable will result in a lesser quality product.
Was this mean sarcastically? Because it'd be hard to get much lower in quality. Some years it's not bad - I thought this year was ok, and Tom Petty was pretty good in XLII - but generally they put on really crappy shows. Whether Beyonce is doing it for free or Lady Gaga is paying a little for the privilege isn't going to change the quality much.
I'm curious to see what second-tier act they are going to put up there for the fee they're hoping to get.
I meant the pop acts. Britney, Janet Jackson, etc. Obviously not U2, Rolling Stones, etc. Those are different. :)
I don't know who the NFL is looking at for future performances, but I assume they'll all laugh when asked to pay to play. I'd bet it never happens. Any band worth anything thinks they're bigger than the game anyway.
If they make bad business decisions and lose customers so be it
Quote:
a significant spike in their sales/popularity immediately after performing the halftime show. So why shouldn't the NFL get a piece of that since they are providing the avenue for these entertainers to reach 10s of millions of viewers.
I also heard it broken down another way. A 30-sec commercial costs advertisers ~$4M. So the entertainer is basically getting a 12 min "commercial" now worth approximately $100M. That's a huge benefit to the entertainers.
So, should the players pay the NFL?
Horrible analogy. There's no NFL without the players. The SB would continue flourishing without the halftime show.
If they make bad business decisions and lose customers so be it
I think that's pretty much it. If they don't get entertainers (or quality entertainers) and it causes them to lose business, then it was a bad decision. If it doesn't, then it was a good decision. But there is no "wrongness" to them asking.
If the sport gets destroyed because they put up a shitty super bowl halftime show, they've' got more fundamental problems.
its a pretty efficient system.
But at the end of the day its their choice to make
Quote:
Free enterprise kind of works...
I think the NFL can afford to pay entertainers for halftime entertainment considering they are raking in the cash. Don't be a dope.
Don't be a chucklehead. The NFL is a business and this is business. "Raking in cash" doesn't mean you should just leave money on the table if there is an opportunity to be more profitable. The entertainers clearly benefit before and after they put on this 25 minute show so the NFL is looking to see if it can share in that benefit.
And if an entertainer doesn't want the gig then so be it. But my guess is a show will go on one way or another.