NHL Marketing and Fighting

[SnowblindNYR]

IMO, it doesn't really matter whether fighting increases viewership or not. That was never a good excuse for it (note that the conversation shifts from "it's part of the game!" to "it's a real moneymaker!") but today it's simply beside the point.

Players who fight routinely are known to suffer severe brain damage because of the mechanism of doing that job. That alone is enough to end it, for the same reason that bare-knuckle brawling is illegal in every other context.

If the ethics of it are somehow not convincing, then the simple fact that it can and will cause the league to get sued out of existence should do the trick.

It's telling that NFL is taking it seriously but the NHL isn't. One league is in the penthouse, one in the outhouse.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The irony of this post...

This truly belongs in the HFBoards Hall of Fame

If your point is that non-fans will get bored by no one fighting so we should have fighting in the NHL you're comparing apples to oranges. If people tuned into this one game because it was trending and expect a fight and don't get it yeah they'll be bored. They tune in for the storyline, not the game. I'm talking a lot bigger picture than one game people tune into to see one specific fight happen. Even if fighting does happen in this game and they watch the whole game, they'll get bored because the storyline won't exist next game and won't watch next game. These aren't real hockey fan prospects and if they are you're not converting them based on this one outlier game that has one (thankfully) outlier storyline. This is much more nuanced than you're making it out to be.

 

[lottster14]

It's moving that way, but I remember getting into an argument with someone how he doesn't like hockey because it loses its credibility with fighting. But he's right. Old people that would rather see a good scrap than a nice goal are being phased out of the league anyway and people are far more likely to think that it's bush league and not watch than not watch because fighting isn't a thing. The NHL is so slow to adapt. The only thing they've tried to remedy is the lack of diversity but it's had very slow results, but has had results nonetheless.

The idea that "old people" or long time viewers of the NHL are the only ones who like rough hockey and fights is literally not true.

You get rid of fighting, physical hockey slowly goes, which includes body contact at all. Calling 10 minor penalties a game (calling everything, preventing any dangerous/rough stuff) resulting in 5 powerplay goals and 7-5 scores consistently is not hockey, and wouldn't received well by hockey fans anywhere. It is true that too much violent stuff is bad for growing the game however, so it's a balance

 

[lottster14]

The idea that "old people" or long time viewers of the NHL are the only ones who like rough hockey and fights is literally not true.

You get rid of fighting, physical hockey slowly goes, which includes any body contact at all. Calling 10 minor penalties a game (calling everything, preventing any dangerous/rough stuff) resulting in 5 powerplay goals and 7-5 scores consistently is not hockey, and wouldn't received well by hockey fans anywhere. It is true that too much violent stuff is bad for growing the game however, so it's a balance.

Fighting won't be going. The number of fights per game has picked up the last 2 years after bottoming out in about 2018[/QUOTE]

 

[jcs0218]

The fact that there are "non-fans" or "casuals" that like fighting is the exact argument why the NHL would want fighting kept in the game.

True hockey fans will watch hockey whether there is fighting or not. It is the non-fans and casuals who the NHL wants to start watching more hockey.

True fans watching vs. casual fans watching is what separates hockey from being a niche sport vs. a mainstream sport.

The question is: Does fighting lure more casual people in or does it tune more casual people out?

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The idea that "old people" or long time viewers of the NHL are the only ones who like rough hockey and fights is literally not true.

You get rid of fighting, physical hockey slowly goes, which includes body contact at all. Calling 10 minor penalties a game (calling everything, preventing any dangerous/rough stuff) resulting in 5 powerplay goals and 7-5 scores consistently is not hockey, and wouldn't received well by hockey fans anywhere. It is true that too much violent stuff is bad for growing the game however, so it's a balance

The NFL doesn't allow fighting and it's still physical, not as physical as it once was but still physical. And you know what? I'd hate 7-5 games all the time, but the NBA has one team score 120 points in like 80% of its games nowadays and NFL teams are scoring at the highest level they ever have.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

The fact that there are "non-fans" or "casuals" that like fighting is the exact argument why the NHL would want fighting kept in the game.

True hockey fans will watch hockey whether there is fighting or not. It is the non-fans and casuals who the NHL wants to start watching more hockey.

True fans watching vs. casual fans watching is what separates hockey from being a niche sport vs. a mainstream sport.

The question is: Does fighting lure more casual people in or does it tune more casual people out?

I personally think that the type of person that likes hockey for the fights is the type of person that won't watch it consistently enough to be a dent on the bottom line. Nowadays fighting is so rare that if you only like hockey for the fights you may have to wait quite a few games.

 

[jcs0218]

The idea that "old people" or long time viewers of the NHL are the only ones who like rough hockey and fights is literally not true.

You get rid of fighting, physical hockey slowly goes, which includes body contact at all. Calling 10 minor penalties a game (calling everything, preventing any dangerous/rough stuff) resulting in 5 powerplay goals and 7-5 scores consistently is not hockey, and wouldn't received well by hockey fans anywhere. It is true that too much violent stuff is bad for growing the game however, so it's a balance

I think physical contact being removed from the game is where hockey is heading. Maybe not in the near future.

But if any of us are still alive in 2071, I think hockey will look a lot different with not much (if any) physical contact.

There is mounting pressure on sport leagues to do whatever they can to avoid concussions and potential CTE. In my opinion, eventually this pressure will lead to zero-contact games.

 

[BruinsBtn]

It's telling that NFL is taking it seriously but the NHL isn't. One league is in the penthouse, one in the outhouse.

Hahahahaha.

Someone show this guy football ratings since they started getting woke and cutting down on hitting.

 

[Canadian Finn]

physical contact will be removed from the NHL around the same time when the NFL goes to flag football.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Hahahahaha.

Someone show this guy football ratings since they started getting woke and cutting down on hitting.

I'm not talking about being woke, completely different conversation. And the NHL has tried being woke and relevant in social justice as well. Matt Dumba kneeling, hockey is for everyone etc. Since become a less of a physical game, I'm pretty the ratings have been going up and up and yeah the kneeling I believe caused a dip but this thread is not about kneeling, nice try though. Also, a hockey fan criticizing the NFL ratings is like a bum on the street criticizing Jeff Bezos for losing money in his divorce settlement.

 

[jcs0218]

physical contact will be removed from the NHL around the same time when the NFL goes to flag football.

I could honestly see football going to flag football at some point in the future.

Sports change. Societies change.

If the anti-contact crowd starts tuning out a sport out because they are disgusted at the violence and concussions and long-term health effects, then the sport will change.

In 2021, if I had to say which direction society is heading in, I would say it is heading in the ant-contact direction.

 

[Canadian Finn]

super

 

[tarheelhockey]

I think physical contact being removed from the game is where hockey is heading. Maybe not in the near future.

But if any of us are still alive in 2071, I think hockey will look a lot different with not much (if any) physical contact.

There is mounting pressure on sport leagues to do whatever they can to avoid concussions and potential CTE. In my opinion, eventually this pressure will lead to zero-contact games.

This was in the cards when the game became predominantly speed-oriented. Between the equipment and the rules and the systems, hockey as a whole has moved into a phase where everything is go-go-go all the time. That makes it impossible to include physical edge and not disable the talented players in the process. That was made abundantly clear 15-20 years ago.

We can definitely have a version of hockey with a lot of heavy hitting and grinding. It cannot be the version that also has north-south sprinting for the vast majority of the game. One of those styles has to give way for the other.

 

[lottster14]

The reality is that people like violence.

Hockey is a game best played when the intensity is the highest. The inevitable manifestation of that is a fight and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. You just do your best to make sure it's a fair fight.

And hockey naturally breeds high emotions and intensity. The league/refs cannot remove the emotion and battle from the sport, especially come playoffs. Fans would absolutely tune out if everything was called including any borderline body contact and little stick taps. Games can't feature 20 minutes of special teams, ruins the sport.

 

[Mez]

Fighting/rough stuff is part of what makes Hockey great. Emotion/intensity is good for the game and it sells.

 

[Mez]

I personally think that the type of person that likes hockey for the fights is the type of person that won't watch it consistently enough to be a dent on the bottom line. Nowadays fighting is so rare that if you only like hockey for the fights you may have to wait quite a few games.

No one watches hockey just for fights...But most people enjoy watching fights in hockey when they happen.

 

[AnInjuredJasonZucker]

Hahahahaha.

Someone show this guy football ratings since they started getting woke and cutting down on hitting.

What was it that someone said about asking others to do their work for them? Show the ratings yourself. And while you're at it, stop conflating issues like the oh-so-scary wokeness and physical play. And since you brought those both up, you'll also have to perform a quantitative analysis regarding the proportionality of which aspect has resulted declining ratings. Be sure to cite your sources.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

No one watches hockey just for fights...But most people enjoy watching fights in hockey when they happen.

That seems like a blanket statement though. And the question is opportunity cost. If they didn't happen would some people take hockey more seriously?

 

[Mez]

That seems like a blanket statement though. And the question is opportunity cost. If they didn't happen would some people take hockey more seriously?

Could they take it less seriously if its removed?...fighting brings some emotion/excitement to games, remove it, and your removing some emotion/excitement. I don't think that's a good thing. Some of the most talked about and most memorable games have been full of fighting and rough stuff.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

What was it that someone said about asking others to do their work for them? Show the ratings yourself. And while you're at it, stop conflating issues like the oh-so-scary wokeness and physical play. And since you brought those both up, you'll also have to perform a quantitative analysis regarding the proportionality of which aspect has resulted declining ratings. Be sure to cite your sources.

Besides without conflating politics and physical play his argument has no leg to stand on. Polls mention politics being the problem. The first CK protest was in 2016, ratings started to have a steep decline in 2017, which makes sense because I think that's when it became a bigger issue.

The NFL started moving towards less physical more offensive football after the 2003 AFCCG. Ratings kind of remained steady until 2008 or so and then they skyrocketed. So no, less physical play did not result in lower ratings but sure politics did. Good thing NHL fighting has nothing to do with politics.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Could they take it less seriously if its removed?...fighting brings some emotion/excitement to games, remove it, and your removing some emotion/excitement. I don't think that's a good thing. Some of the most talked about and most memorable games have been full of fighting and rough stuff.

I get it, but I don't understand why hockey is so special that it's the only league that needs that emotion and excitement from fighting. Shouldn't the game be enough? No other sport needs it to spice up the actual game.

 

[Mez]

I get it, but I don't understand why hockey is so special that it's the only league that needs that emotion and excitement from fighting. Shouldn't the game be enough? No other sport needs it to spice up the actual game.

Its not about needing it, its just 1 thing that sets it apart from most sports. Other sports dont need it either...but fighting would totally spice it up for those sports too.

 

[SnowblindNYR]

Its not about needing it, its just 1 thing that sets it apart from most sports. Other sports dont need it either...but fighting would totally spice it up for those sports too.

I guess that's where we diverge in opinions. The NHL is small time, wouldn't you rather it follow other sports' examples that are more successful? I guess if you think that the NHL can only compete as a niche sport based on its fighting. I just don't think that's the case. It's not Lacrosse.

 

[Canadienna]

Oh man. Let's begin.

There are two problems with fighting from a marketing standpoint:

1) It's this super quirky part of a beautiful sport that defines the sport for many people. Some people who aren't fans like it (only thing I like about hockey is fighting), but they're not serious fans. But overall it makes the league not look serious.

So one of your two arguments for why fighting is problematic for marketing hockey is that many people find fighting integral to hockey, but that the league doesn't look "serious" because of it.

This is ridiculous. Many people currently that watch hockey like fighting and big hits. As you even point out. These things are a boon for marketing hockey.

Every other sport there are real repercussions when it comes to fighting. As is it makes the league look bush league. It's like your friend that says silly things all the time. He's lovable but no one takes him seriously.

You've equated fighting in hockey with a person who says "silly things" to prove it means they're not taken seriously. This isn't an argument. Is this what you think marketing is? Saying silly things is obviously silly, but fighting in hockey is not obviously unpopular.

2) 99% of fighting is clean and these guys respect each other. That said when you promote fighting it creates a culture of violence where dirty plays end up being overlooked because it's not that much of a leap to dirty play.

This is another assumption on your part without any evidence. There are plenty of players who fight regularly or even infrequently but would never be considered dirty.

Where dirty plays are being overlooked, that is the issue. Trying to throw fighting in as the reason the DoPS didn't give Wilson proper discipline is disingenuous and incoherent.

Kind of like in politics things tend to go into extremes more and more, even if they start center left or center right. And that's what creates the DOPS giving a guy a $5k fine for dangerous actions. Once again bad marketing, makes the league look completely bush league.

This is your entire argument - without zero evidence or reason supporting it, just assumptions. This could have been the entire post.

If you want the NHL to grow you need to get rid of unnecessary violence and promote tough physical forechecking hockey instead. Because that's actually part of the game.

"And, in summary, I have provided no evidence or logic, but feel very strongly that fighting needs to go"

Many hockey fans feel fighting is integral to the sport. That's not going to change with any new generation or demographic.

I've tried not to "flame" but I think you've not really provided any sound reason that fighting is limiting the NHL's marketability.