Paid Patriotism

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

Interesting Report from Senators McCain and Flake:

Tackling Paid Patriotism

Excerpt:

In 2013, a roaring crowd cheered as the Atlanta Falcons welcomed ϴϬ National Guard members
who unfurled an American flag across the Georgia Dome’s turf. Little did those fans—or millions
of other Americans—know that the National Guard had actually paid the Atlanta Falcons for this
display of patriotism as part of a $315,000 marketing contract.

This unfortunate story is not limited to professional football, but is repeated at other
professional and college sporting events around the nation. In fact, these displays of paid
patriotism are included within the $6.8 million that the Department of Defense (DOD) has spent
on sports marketing contracts since fiscal year 2012.

Consider this: Honoring five Air Force Officers put $1,500 into the pockets of the LGalaxy. In
another example, taxpayers footed the $10,000 bill for an on-field swearing-in ceremony with the
World Series finalist New York Mets. And the list goes on. By paying for such heartwarming
displays like recognition of wounded warriors, surprise homecomings, and on-field enlistment
ceremonies, these displays lost their luster. Unsuspecting audience members became the
subjects of paid-marketing campaigns rather than simply bearing witness to teams’ authentic,
voluntary shows of support for the brave men and women who wear our nation’s uniform. This
not only betrays the sentiment and trust of fans, but casts an unfortunate shadow over the
genuine patriotic partnerships that do so much for our troops, such as the National Football
League’s Salute to the Service campaign.

More details in the linked report of course.

**thenoobbomb**

Starting to learn from Putin, I see.

**whembly**

Yeah... that's a cash grab.

I get it's "advertising" in a sense...

Is it wrong that I feel like this rubs me the wrong way?

**Ouze**

Whembly, why aren't you supporting the troops?

**d-usa**

It's an interesting report, that's for sure.

Like McCain, I'm fine with the DoD spending money for traditional advertising and marketing opportunities. There really isn't a difference between the DoD and the local cable company when it comes to having a "join the Army" billboard in the stadium, a booth for recruiters, or ads over the speakers. You can argue about the effectiveness of these advertisements, but I don't think there is anything "wrong" with spending money like that.

But when a team has a patriotic event, it should be because the team is patriotic, not because they are paid for it.

**hotsauceman1**

The military has always had weird ways of recruiting. When I was turning 18, I got an envelope in the game. Made of construction paper and handwritting adress. it looked like a kid sent it to me. like a present. Boom, I open it up, military brochure.
I see no problem with this in concept, But I do have a problem with the money being spent. 315k? is that just the Falcons?

**whembly**

Ouze wrote:
Whembly, why aren't you supporting the troops?

Heh... you know I support the troops.

*shrugs*

I guess I'm wrong then.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:

But when a team has a patriotic event, it should be because the team is patriotic, not because they are paid for it.

What this man says.

**hotsauceman1**

Ouze wrote:
Whembly, why aren't you supporting the troops?

I have always had problems with what "Supporting the troops" actually means. To some, it means supporting the war they are fighting, for some, it is getting them home. For some its other things.
But in our military culture, if you dont support the troops, you are a bad person.

**Nevelon**

Part of me would like to have a little asterisk aside, like you see at the end of political ads. “This add payed for by X” Just to keep things open and clear.

I’d also prefer that such patriotism was grassroots, rather then purchased.

But I also don’t begrudge the armed forces an advertising budget. They need to recruit, and this is part of that. If they get more milage out of spending money this way then sending junk mail to young men, more power to them.

So I’ll file this under “Not 100% happy with it, but willing to look the other way."

**Ahtman**

It is the best patriotism money can buy.

**Easy E**

Is that how Warbonds got sold during WWII? The War Department paid a corporation to host an event? I honestly do not know?

**Steelmage99**

So a professional army that needs to recruit new....well, recruits...do so by plucking at the heart-strings with displays of apparent patriotism.

Who is surprised?

Why do you think recruitment ads has a cool soundtrack, lots of American flags and uses words like; honour, duty, country, elite and so on?

Organised patriotism seems to be a very American thing - Like swearing allegiance to the flag or singing the national anthem at any given opportunity.

**ScootyPuffJunior**

It bothers me that the DoD did this and it bothers me that NFL was complacent in it. However, neither of those things surprise me.

**dogma**

What makes me really mad is that no one thought of the sponsorship opportunities.

"This homecoming brought to you by Budweiser. Vets, this Buds for you!"

**djones520**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Whembly, why aren't you supporting the troops?

I have always had problems with what "Supporting the troops" actually means. To some, it means supporting the war they are fighting, for some, it is getting them home. For some its other things.
But in our military culture, if you dont support the troops, you are a bad person.

Well, if you don't support me, you are a bad person.

**hotsauceman1**

djones520 wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Whembly, why aren't you supporting the troops?

I have always had problems with what "Supporting the troops" actually means. To some, it means supporting the war they are fighting, for some, it is getting them home. For some its other things.
But in our military culture, if you dont support the troops, you are a bad person.

Well, if you don't support me, you are a bad person.

I cant in good concious support the detroit redwings.

**Jihadin**

Time is money. Everythinng cost time...money...and its cable television...

**Ahtman**

dogma wrote:
What makes me really mad is that no one thought of the sponsorship opportunities.

"This homecoming brought to you by Budweiser. Vets, this Buds for you!"

That is to honest I imagine. It would ruin the illusion that has been created.

**Ensis Ferrae**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
is that just the Falcons?

According to one report that I've seen regarding the NFL, only 5 teams did not receive, or ask for money for the sort of patriotic display. And, IIRC, according to that article, "America's Team" was one of the ones who were paid. Additional IIRC, 2 of the 5 teams I think were Seattle and Houston, though I'm not remembering the other 3 (if those are even correct as well)

Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:

I cant in good concious support the detroit redwings.

Ohh, and have an exalt for this one

**LordofHats**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
only 5 teams did not receive, or ask for money for the sort of patriotic display.

I'm just saying, how hilarious would it be if the Patriots weren't one of them

**Jihadin**

Ahtman wrote:
dogma wrote:
What makes me really mad is that no one thought of the sponsorship opportunities.

"This homecoming brought to you by Budweiser. Vets, this Buds for you!"

That is to honest I imagine. It would ruin the illusion that has been created.

We don't have a drinking problem in the US Military........

Gentleman Jack, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Walker, and That crazy Irish Killigan Red are just my Monopoly gaming buddies

**Ensis Ferrae**

LordofHats wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
only 5 teams did not receive, or ask for money for the sort of patriotic display.

I'm just saying, how hilarious would it be if the Patriots weren't one of them

Well, given that only one of the two Texas teams were patriotic, it wouldn't be all that surprising.

And according to the NPR article I just looked up,the Patriots were paid 700k

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ohh, and here's a USA Today article... apparently, not only did Seattle receive money, but it is among the "biggest recipients" in the league.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/11/04/millions-paid-pro-teams-patriotic-events-sens-flake-mccain-say/75141688/

**LordofHats**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
,the Patriots were paid 700k

False advertising!

**CptJake**

Jihadin wrote:

We don't have a drinking problem in the US Military........

Gentleman Jack, Mr. Daniels, Ms. Walker, and That crazy Irish Killigan Red are just my Monopoly gaming buddies

LTC Slade wrote: Clear them little bottles off. And when I get off the phone here, call up Hyman and tell him I want it wall to wall with John Daniels.

Charlie wrote: Don't you mean Jack Daniels?

LTC Slade wrote: He may be Jack to you son, but when you've known him as long as I have...

Also had some counseling sessions with CPT Morgan. Good man. For a squid.

**Tannhauser42**

Knowing that they pay for these things, in my mind, cheapens it a bit. Last year I went to the Texas Rangers game on July 4th, and there was a swearing in ceremony for new recruits. A solemn occasion, then. But knowing now that it was, in essence, a paid advertisement just lessens it somehow.

**CptJake**

Tannhauser42 wrote:
Knowing that they pay for these things, in my mind, cheapens it a bit. Last year I went to the Texas Rangers game on July 4th, and there was a swearing in ceremony for new recruits. A solemn occasion, then. But knowing now that it was, in essence, a paid advertisement just lessens it somehow.

I bet the kids getting sworn in still thought it was pretty damned neat, as did their families and friends who saw it.

My biggest issue is that I doubt there was any real strategy nor metrics used to measure success for the $$$$ spent. In effect it was money spent on advertising which very likely was not worth what the taxpayers shoveled out for it, but made some high level brass feel good.

**Torga_DW**

Can it be called patriotism if it's been paid for? I've got nothing against advertising, but seems a little off to me.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Isn't this just capitalism at work? What could be more patriotic?

**Nevelon**

CptJake wrote:
Tannhauser42 wrote:
Knowing that they pay for these things, in my mind, cheapens it a bit. Last year I went to the Texas Rangers game on July 4th, and there was a swearing in ceremony for new recruits. A solemn occasion, then. But knowing now that it was, in essence, a paid advertisement just lessens it somehow.

I bet the kids getting sworn in still thought it was pretty damned neat, as did their families and friends who saw it.

My biggest issue is that I doubt there was any real strategy nor metrics used to measure success for the $$$$ spent. In effect it was money spent on advertising which very likely was not worth what the taxpayers shoveled out for it, but made some high level brass feel good.

How much would it cost to rent a venue, pay for air time, etc if this was done purely as a PR/advertisement thing? I worry, as with most government spending, about where, why, and how much money is being spent due to pork-belly projects and politics, rather then need and efficiency.

**Frazzled**

The people who signed off on this should be fired/cashiered out of the military. The people who put this in the budget should be as well.