Yeah, I remember you went through 2-3 different career fields last time we talked as well. I know what AWS does. I know that The Kraft Group did specifically for the purposes of marketing for the NFL as well. We have now come to the conclusion that the NFL mines data. The Kraft Group did it for them specifically for marketing purposes. Marketing data yields customer segment data. So now we have come to the conclusion that the NFL does, indeed, look at customer segment data. Good. We're on the same page.
Any ratings dip prior to Kaep is wholly irrelevant to the point at hand, which is why did ratings CONTINUE to dip after the protests. But I suspect that you know this.
https://www.si.com/tech-media/2017/08/31/colin-kaepernick-nfl-ratings-cbs-study-sean-mcmanus
LMFAO. What data is that?
The irony here. So, in two separate posts, you take a stance that the NFL
didn't use data in its position to make that incredibly risky pivot in public relations, then you tell me about "the data we know," which refutes any sort of stretched logic in your first post to me, and now you're making an assumption which completely contradicts what you were trying to chide me for in your OP. The DOJ threatened the deal with the NFL? And that was confirmed beyond any shadow of a doubt? Do you have a source? Could you share it?
Numerous independent studies, which I'm sure you'll fail to accept, confirmed that it had an effect. The debate was about how measurable. The NFL is merely concerned with profit. They're concerned with it enough to consistently **** their own players in negotiations and it will happen again with the new CBA. They would have asked why the profits were down, probably outsourced the data analysis since it isn't concerned with a core business process, had it studied, and then reported back reasons. A pivot like that is extremely dangerous because, once again, you risk alienating the pro-Kaep crowd, having them tune out, and being unable to lure back the anti-Kaep segment that tuned out. You don't take a risk like that unless you're analyzing data and can come up with a solution that you can pivot at a certain level of confidence while retaining your core segments with the most spending power. Just does not happen.
For one, this paragraph is mostly incoherent. For another, the bolded is a straw man. And a weak one at that. I made no such assumption nor did I make any such argument. I wouldn't make that argument. Incorrect information is often gleaned by studying data. If you believe I made that argument, you're welcome to quote it. I won't hold my breath.
The only reason I brought up emotion is because you accused me of relying on emotion rather than take emotion out of it and go on logic. Thinking that the NFL made this decision, hence the "seat of the pants" approach, without turning to data analysis is about the most ridiculous, flawed, and ignorant take I've ever seen. This is now the second time I'm seeing it from you and it's just as embarrassing as the first.
But fine. Let's hear you out. Allow me to flesh this out a bit...
- Your stance is that the NFL made this extraordinarily risky pivot on their policy because the DOJ was threatening to rip up their contract with the NFL. Provide a source. In your opinion, who would have been hurt more by that? The DOJ or the NFL?
- Since you'll undoubtedly have trouble finding a source to back that claim, what, then, do you think the NFL based this decision on? You're on record as disagreeing with the claim that they mined and analyzed consumer data. You're also on record as saying that you don't believe they used the "seat of the pants" approach to come to the conclusion to shift that policy. So what do you think they used to come to that conclusion? What other businesses use that process? Keep in mind the first A in the ADKAR Model while answering this question.
- Why do you think the ratings suddenly began to climb back up after the NFL instituted that policy change? Such an answer will help you form an argument for why they fell in the first place if you're disputing that it was in any way related to Kaep and their former policy of allowing protest to be the players' choices.