A guy comes into the bar and orders 10 shots of whiskey and pounds them all down one after another. The Bartender says, "WOW BUDDY!.. That's a lot if drinks. What's the occasion?" The guy says, "I just experienced my first B.J.". The Bartender says, "Well, that IS a reason the celebrate! Let me buy you a drink". The guy says, "No Thanks. If 10 shots didn't get the taste out if my mouth... One more won't help".
That is a good point. But, they aren't similar professions.
An athlete is tested and scored on its natural physical attributes to achieve a goal.
And Models are tested on their natural physical attributes alone. And 90% of women already wear make up in the normal day to day.
Therefore it's unfair for an athlete to gain an unfair advantage through chemicals, while a model already uses them, and it doesn't actually add much to her/his appearance. So it's not an unfair advantage in any way.
Sorry I nitpicked the hell out of this, but I have to, it's sort of a hobby. :{
reply
[deleted]
3 ups, 1 reply
I figured someone else would point all this out, so I didn't bother.
I'd also like to point out that models are used to sell products, while athletes are required for the game to exist. And more often than not, the products models are being used to advertise IS makeup. The same way skinny, muscular attractive people are used to advertise gym memberships and equipment and such. Nobody is using muscular people to advertise sports. Sports and local patriotism advertises sports.
Generally speaking, to expand on Keg's comment, where models sell the product, athletes ARE the product. They are however sometimes paid to be a "model" as well.
I'm sorry but no. The athletes aren't the product. They're the CSR for any products they help sell. Just like models. You don't go to the game to see one guy. You go to support a team. And the teams all sell you products. :{
I don't "fully" agree. If that were the case there would be a one contract fits all pay scale. Also certain athletes would not be the difference between a half filled or a standing room only stadium. Merchandising stats would also back this up. I agree the "game" should be the product but that's just not the real world anymore where in sports its almost all become style over substance.
The individual athlete is a poster boy, not a product. So, you're wrong on that still. Sorry. People don't go to the stadium/coliseum to see one person unless it's a musical performance dude.
I'm sorry that you think it's all about one athlete, but that's wrong. People don't pile up just to see Lebron James or Kobe Bryant. They like that team for that reason.
But to think that each popular athlete is a product and not a poster boy/mascot/CSR is just opinion and perspective not fact. :{
Respectful disagreement bro, I love it! :) I will however stand by my assessment of today's sports. You DO have a group of diehard fans that show up no matter what, but you still can't convince me that there are not individuals who put asses in the seats. Its the big reason why I have despised the NBA since the days of Micheal Jordan. That whole team became about him and the rest were just a supporting cast. In fact the whole league became about him complete with rule changes based on his game.
That doesn't mean that certain athletes are products though. It only proves that some fans are stupid.
And the thing about Jordan isn't that he is a product, he's used a s mascot to advertise the team and the games.
I know you think it's a matter of opinion on this, but it's not. It's just factual to say that the individual athletes, no matter how popular, aren't themselves the products. They might have toys of themselves that are products, but they themselves are just adverts for the game.
We don't pay the athlete to see the game. We pay the stadium. :{
I'm not sure that a matter of "opinion" is really the right way to put it, more like a matter of perspective. I was a diehard sports fan from about the time I could walk. I was collecting cards and memorizing stats from about the time I could count. I'm 53 so that is a lot of years, I have seen a lot of changes in the games and the athletes through the years and have seen the focus of the games change from the teams to a handful of stars. If you listen to the commentators its subtle but it is always "Tom Brady and the Patriots, Peyton Manning and the Broncos" etc... I grew up loving the 76ers as a team, not just Dr. J, the Reds, not just Bench or Rose *I can still name the starting lineup for the Reds). I will agree that the emphasis and the loyalty SHOULD be to the team, I just don't see it in the marketing and the shifting fan bases.
*sighs at you nitpicking the terms opinion and perspective.
Those are the same things essentially. You're debating semantics now.
Even if an athlete is marketed towards fans, it doesn't make the athlete a product. You can't purchase the athlete for instance, like a company or team would.
I get what you mean, but it still doesn't make the athletes products in any way. Yes, from your perspective/opinion, they are. But that's your perspective/opinion of an athlete.
The factual truth is that the athlete is an employee of a team/company/corporation/etc. They are used to sell the fans products, but not to sell themselves to the fans directly. Cards and other merch is just that, merchandise. You could say that the athlete becomes a brand name in a way, but even that is a stretch of opinions and perspectives. :{
Athletes are bought with contracts, and traded maybe athletes would be better described then as a commodity? I agree that the team packaged with the game should be the product, I just don't think that is how it is marketed any more. I have to end it there, but I do welcome your last word should you want to leave one, and still know we agree on more than we disagree on. :)
They are only a commodity to the team that's buying them though. And commodity is synonymous with product so again, we're getting into semantics on that.
I also didn't say that the team packaged with the the game was the product. The game and the stadium experience are the product. The team advertises and entices the costumer into going. That's why I said they're the mascot/CSR's/poster boys.
And it doesn't matter how it's marketed or how it appears to you. The athlete is simply not a product. By definition. It's a matter of fact not opinion.
I'm not liking how you worded that i could leave a comment if I want though. I get that you don't mean it the way it sounds, but it sounds fascistic if you tell someone if they can or can't speak. lol
I'm not in any way mad at you bra! I like discussing stuff like this. I'm sorry if when you read my comments it comes across in any negative ways. If you heard me saying it you'd know I'm just clarifying and not trying to force it on you. :{
Naw bro. I too enjoy a good discussion like that where tempers don't have to come in to play. You make some great points! I didn't mean to sound like I was granting permission, I meant it as more of a "I need to get to bed but would really appreciate any response you left"! I'm a little tired so I'm not rereading and critiquing myself as I would normally do :) See how good that whole going to bed thing is working? lol
Of course the salaries of the team's players affect the price of tickets. But you aren't paying to see a single player on the field/court. You're paying to see that player on a team trying to win, and hopefully winning.
But that individual is still not the product you came for. You came for the overall game and the hopes that your team will win. Not just to see Kobe, Lebron, or Jordan. (I don't know why I'm only using BBall players names lol)
The stadium is the store, not the cashier. The ticket taker/seller and the food slingers are the cashiers. The players are the CSR's/Mascots/poster boys. The product, is the game itself or the stadium experience of it.
Think about watching the game on TV. You don't usually have to pay anyone to see a game(ABC/CBS/NBC/etc. are free channels that make money of adverts). So how can the athlete be a commodity/product to the viewer?
And even to the corporations and people who own the teams, the athlete isn't a product. They're a tool or an employee.
Again, I get that you think this is one of those "matters of opinion", but it's actually not factual to say that the athletes are products. :{
reply
[deleted]
3 ups
Yeah, like nobody wants to see a fat guy pointing at his gut like "Yeah, b****, check this s*** out." on something being marketed as "healthy" just like nobody wants to see Ms. Unibrow 2015 on their eyeliner ads. It's a matter of public appeal and marketing.
Re-caption this meme
And I bet she gives a mean/sloppy BJ. :{
An athlete is tested and scored on its natural physical attributes to achieve a goal.
And Models are tested on their natural physical attributes alone. And 90% of women already wear make up in the normal day to day.
Therefore it's unfair for an athlete to gain an unfair advantage through chemicals, while a model already uses them, and it doesn't actually add much to her/his appearance. So it's not an unfair advantage in any way.
Sorry I nitpicked the hell out of this, but I have to, it's sort of a hobby. :{
I'd also like to point out that models are used to sell products, while athletes are required for the game to exist. And more often than not, the products models are being used to advertise IS makeup. The same way skinny, muscular attractive people are used to advertise gym memberships and equipment and such. Nobody is using muscular people to advertise sports. Sports and local patriotism advertises sports.
You could also point out that athletes are used to sell products too. Like sports drinks, energy bars, clothing, etc. :{
I'm sorry that you think it's all about one athlete, but that's wrong. People don't pile up just to see Lebron James or Kobe Bryant. They like that team for that reason.
But to think that each popular athlete is a product and not a poster boy/mascot/CSR is just opinion and perspective not fact. :{
And the thing about Jordan isn't that he is a product, he's used a s mascot to advertise the team and the games.
I know you think it's a matter of opinion on this, but it's not. It's just factual to say that the individual athletes, no matter how popular, aren't themselves the products. They might have toys of themselves that are products, but they themselves are just adverts for the game.
We don't pay the athlete to see the game. We pay the stadium. :{
Those are the same things essentially. You're debating semantics now.
Even if an athlete is marketed towards fans, it doesn't make the athlete a product. You can't purchase the athlete for instance, like a company or team would.
I get what you mean, but it still doesn't make the athletes products in any way. Yes, from your perspective/opinion, they are. But that's your perspective/opinion of an athlete.
The factual truth is that the athlete is an employee of a team/company/corporation/etc. They are used to sell the fans products, but not to sell themselves to the fans directly. Cards and other merch is just that, merchandise. You could say that the athlete becomes a brand name in a way, but even that is a stretch of opinions and perspectives. :{
I also didn't say that the team packaged with the the game was the product. The game and the stadium experience are the product. The team advertises and entices the costumer into going. That's why I said they're the mascot/CSR's/poster boys.
And it doesn't matter how it's marketed or how it appears to you. The athlete is simply not a product. By definition. It's a matter of fact not opinion.
I'm not liking how you worded that i could leave a comment if I want though. I get that you don't mean it the way it sounds, but it sounds fascistic if you tell someone if they can or can't speak. lol
I'm not in any way mad at you bra! I like discussing stuff like this. I'm sorry if when you read my comments it comes across in any negative ways. If you heard me saying it you'd know I'm just clarifying and not trying to force it on you. :{
Of course the salaries of the team's players affect the price of tickets. But you aren't paying to see a single player on the field/court. You're paying to see that player on a team trying to win, and hopefully winning.
But that individual is still not the product you came for. You came for the overall game and the hopes that your team will win. Not just to see Kobe, Lebron, or Jordan. (I don't know why I'm only using BBall players names lol)
The stadium is the store, not the cashier. The ticket taker/seller and the food slingers are the cashiers. The players are the CSR's/Mascots/poster boys. The product, is the game itself or the stadium experience of it.
Think about watching the game on TV. You don't usually have to pay anyone to see a game(ABC/CBS/NBC/etc. are free channels that make money of adverts). So how can the athlete be a commodity/product to the viewer?
And even to the corporations and people who own the teams, the athlete isn't a product. They're a tool or an employee.
Again, I get that you think this is one of those "matters of opinion", but it's actually not factual to say that the athletes are products. :{