No More, the NFL's domestic violence partner, is a sham

[soxhop411]

http://deadspin.com/no-more-the-nfls-domestic-violence-partner-is-a-sham-1683348576?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow

"Our role," the group says, "is to raise awareness ... and attract more resources and support for our partner groups."

More at the link.
 

 
Jane Randel is now an NFL consultant, brought on during the public relations crisis caused by the league's poor handling of several prominent players accused of domestic violence; she signed the post-Super Bowl email sent out to those who signed the group's online pledge to say, "No more." It's a telling set of of relationships. No More is a brand created as an extension of other brands, and has come to prominence at a time when its co-founder, a specialist in using marketing tactics to change the reputation of brands and make them seem socially conscious, found herself with a client in need of precisely these services. It's all the more telling given that No More doesn't seem to actually do anything, aside from existing as a brand.

 

[fairlee76]

Jesus Christmas.  Just when one thinks marketing can't possibly be any more cynical...

 

[TomRicardo]

To be fair why would a league that wouldn't even admit or help its players with the head trauma they received while playing football do anything to help battered women who don't even play the game?

 

[Reverend]

I think I already knew this.

 

[fairlee76]

To be fair why would a league that wouldn't even admit or help its players with the head trauma they received while playing football do anything to help battered women who don't even play the game?

Right.  They reacted in both cases.  In the former, once the science began to indicate a correlation between NFL football and TAU-encrusted brains and in the latter once elevator camera footage forced their hand.
 

I think I already knew this.

Me too.  But I'm still immature enough that it pisses me off.

 

[crystalline]

It seemed obvious from the ads discussing "starting the conversation".

The conversation is already ongoing and has been for some time.

The one who benefits from spinning it as "starting the conversation" is the NFL. Its a brilliant piece of marketing. I implies the NFL was right to ignore Rice because who could have known better, back then, before the conversation was started? And it doesn't require the NFL to take any action beyond talking.

 

[pappymojo]

It seemed obvious from the ads discussing "starting the conversation".

The conversation is already ongoing and has been for some time.

The one who benefits from spinning it as "starting the conversation" is the NFL. Its a brilliant piece of marketing. I implies the NFL was right to ignore Rice because who could have known better, back then, before the conversation was started? And it doesn't require the NFL to take any action beyond talking.

 
I especially love the ad where people stare at the camera without talking.  How exactly is that starting the conversation?

 

[moondog80]

Why are we relying on the NFL to eliminate domestic violence?  Other than create awareness and donate money, what else do we want them to do?  They can ban every abuser for life and it isn't going to do anything to solve the problem.

 

[pappymojo]

Why are we relying on the NFL to eliminate domestic violence?  Other than create awareness and donate money, what else do we want them to do?  They can ban every abuser for life and it isn't going to do anything to solve the problem.

 
Who are the 'we' in your question?  I don't think anyone here expects the NFL to eliminate domestic violence.  Myself, I expect them to deal with it honestly and consistently when players, officials, coaches, etc. are implicated in incidents of domestic violence. 

 

[moondog80]

 
Who are the 'we' in your question?  I don't think anyone here expects the NFL to eliminate domestic violence.  Myself, I expect them to deal with it honestly and consistently when players, officials, coaches, etc. are implicated in incidents of domestic violence. 

 
I think the article and thread title takes an awfully cynical view of the NFL.  Yes, some people will buy into the  "no more" campaign on only a superficial level.  But it's better than nothing, and pretty much all they can do.  And it has a far greater chance of having an impact than automatic lifetime bans for employees who are implicated (which is a standard that zero other companies have, by the way).

 

[Devizier]

 
I think the title takes an awfully cynical view of the NFL.  Yes, some people will buy into the  "no more" campaign on only a superficial level.  But it's better than nothing, and pretty much all they can do.  And it has a far greater chance of having an impact than automatic lifetime bans for employees who are implicated (which is a standard that zero other companies have, by the way).

 
The "No More" advertising campaign is sound and fury. If you want to curtail domestic violence, support shelters for battered women. Improve policing. Or better yet, don't actively contribute to the problem by employing police as "fixers". The campaign is ass-covering at best, Komen-level cynicism at worst. Selling branded products to benefit whom, exactly?

 

[fairlee76]

 
Who are the 'we' in your question?  I don't think anyone here expects the NFL to eliminate domestic violence.  Myself, I expect them to deal with it honestly and consistently when players, officials, coaches, etc. are implicated in incidents of domestic violence. 

Yes.  And that is exactly what they purportedly did not do for the past few decades.  No one in this thread thinks the NFL can "solve" domestic violence.  We can expect them not to enable it.

 

[GregHarris]

Yup.  Less "No More" and more bringing down the hammer on these guys.  This is a league that will levy significant penalties for pot, but have a very poor track record with domestic violence issues.
 
Also, getting Eli's ugly mug off my TV as an added bonus.

 
 
 
Edit:  always have a hard time getting images to work in IE, need to use chrome.

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

So NFL players' rate of Domestic Violence is 55% of the general public's rate?  Or is 55% higher?
 
All offenses are only 13% of General Public?  Or 13% higher?

The chart is missing something

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

At least with a program like play60 the league is getting involved in the community, using its brand and resources to push something positive. Outside of some dialogueless commercials, what is no more doing that's tangible?

 

[Klostrophobic]

I'd probably guess 13 percent of the public, but I'm a cynic.
 
Or do NFL players account for  55.4 % of all domestic abuse arrests?

 

[OnWisc]

Um, did anyone ever view these ads as anything other than an attempt to whitewash Goodell's image and create a sense of action without actually doing anything tangible? The fact that these ads didn't spark a much greater deal of outrage embodies society's willingness to utterly avoid examining the reality of a situation as long as the façade looks nice.

I can understand NFL players agreeing to appear in these ads, as to some extent it's their image too. But fuck every non-NFL celebrity who shamelessly appeared in these things just to get a little more face time.

 

[speedracer]

 

[soxfan121]

I'd probably guess 13 percent of the public, but I'm a cynic.
 
Or do NFL players account for  55.4 % of all domestic abuse arrests?

 
:speechless:

 

[Marciano490]

 
:speechless:

Well, they only work 16 days a week, that's plenty of time to account for half the domestic violence in this country of 300 million plus people.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

16 days a week? That's 2x as many days Manziel thinks is in a week and he's in rehab. You ok Marciano?

 

[Marciano490]

Time is a flat circle.

 

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

Bill Burr on "No More" and "Stand Up To Cancer"
 
The whole thing is funny but the first 2:15 is priceless.  Burr is the best.  
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n3WgiMftaU

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

God damn that was side splitting as usual by Burr. Brilliant. Conan is dying