NHL Marketing and violence

SnowblindNYR

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 16, 2011
51,728
30,173
Brooklyn, NY
So, the NBA is a league I despise. I actually like the sport but it has A LOT of different aspects of it that made me not want to watch them other than a game here or there. That said their marketing is on point. They try to be the young and hip league that cares about its fans and players. There are examples that I probably shouldn't mention here but a non-controversial example is the lame new jersey every game these guys have. It's really transparent what their marketing is, but it works.

Meanwhile it feels like despite their "hockey is for everyone" campaign the NHL is not even trying to stop being the "old uneducated man" league. The way the league treats players like Tom Wilson and their actions can only be defended if you have a vested interest in the Caps or the lowest common denominator. But it seems like that's culture that permeates the league, as if it's still the 70s. They put an ex-goon as the head of the DPOS. The NHL seems permanently stuck in their ways and are not trying to evolve. The culture of dirty play and violence just doesn't appeal to younger fans that know about CTE and that just have a different look at life.

Thoughts on this? Will the NHL ever join the 21st century beyond wearing rainbow colored jerseys and other surface level initiatives?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MNNumbers

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 17, 2011
7,627
2,486
No they won't. And, the reason is that they are convinced that the largest share of money which flows to them comes from the older portion of their fanbase.

They are not so stupid as to not realize that fans in the majority of their markets have lots of other options, and are not particularly loyal to hockey. But, it's the older fan in places like NY, Boston, Phil, Tor, Mont, who are completely dedicated to the NHL because they grew up that way, who pays for most of the bacon. (and I am speaking here about things like media portion as well). Those older fans like the physical play.

That means that the NHL can't cut it out (and especially not cut it out fast), without those fans saying "It's a soft league now. I'm not interested any more." And, if those fans do that, then HRR goes down, franchise values sink, and the Ponzi scheme gets exposed.

So, no. It can't happen. Even though it should.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bostonzamboni

SnowblindNYR

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 16, 2011
51,728
30,173
Brooklyn, NY
No they won't. And, the reason is that they are convinced that the largest share of money which flows to them comes from the older portion of their fanbase.

They are not so stupid as to not realize that fans in the majority of their markets have lots of other options, and are not particularly loyal to hockey. But, it's the older fan in places like NY, Boston, Phil, Tor, Mont, who are completely dedicated to the NHL because they grew up that way, who pays for most of the bacon. (and I am speaking here about things like media portion as well). Those older fans like the physical play.

That means that the NHL can't cut it out (and especially not cut it out fast), without those fans saying "It's a soft league now. I'm not interested any more." And, if those fans do that, then HRR goes down, franchise values sink, and the Ponzi scheme gets exposed.

So, no. It can't happen. Even though it should.

I listen to sports radio every day and I'm in a baseball town so they talk about baseball a whole lot. They constantly talk about the baseball crisis of appealing only to older fans. And baseball actually HAS fans. Why is the NHL so myopic that they're trying to only appeal to an older demographic pardon my language is going to start dying soon? Baseball seems to not be resting on their laurels and they have more of a reason to.

I think part of the reason is that the demographic that they appeal to runs the league. From the owners, to the GMs, to the friggin announcers. But wouldn't that also be the case with the MLB?
 

SnowblindNYR

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 16, 2011
51,728
30,173
Brooklyn, NY
Is there evidence fans would prefer less violence in hockey? Violence has always been a differentiator to sell hockey.

UFC grew exponentially thanks in part to its graphic nature.

There's a huge difference between two willing fighters fighting each other and dirty cowardly players being dirty to guys like 60 pounds lighter than them and 5 inches shorter than them. I'm not sure most people want to see players hurt through dirty play.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ResilientBeast

DaBadGuy7

Registered User
Dec 28, 2004
2,434
1,145
Newark,NJ
muh current year argument again. It's all so tiring.

"NHL is not even trying to stop being the "old white uneducated man" league"
I'm starting to see this premise as antiwhite. Hockey has a white fanbase. That's ok.

The issue is can the NHL beyond its fanbase/demographics beyond that. They are trying with the “Hockey Is For Everyone” campaign, but is that truly enough? All sports league are trying to appeal to younger audience as social media and streaming is popular. My issue is how they don’t market their stars and how they aren’t trying to appeal with offense/protecting their players.
 

LeHab

Registered User
Aug 31, 2005
15,956
6,259
There's a huge difference between two willing fighters fighting each other and dirty cowardly players being dirty to guys like 60 pounds lighter than them and 5 inches shorter than them. I'm not sure most people want to see players hurt through dirty play.

Only asking what fans and prospective fans would like to see. I agree intentionally injuring a player has no place and that is regardless of what fans may wish.
 

SnowblindNYR

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 16, 2011
51,728
30,173
Brooklyn, NY
Only asking what fans and prospective fans would like to see. I agree intentionally injuring a player has no place and that is regardless of what fans may wish.

I'm trying to keep it business oriented too. I think there was a time when fans probably liked dirty play. My take is that it's not really the case in 2021. There's nothing honorable in dirty shots, martial arts is another story.
 

LeHab

Registered User
Aug 31, 2005
15,956
6,259
I'm trying to keep it business oriented too. I think there was a time when fans probably liked dirty play. My take is that it's not really the case in 2021. There's nothing honorable in dirty shots, martial arts is another story.

I see it as a balance to strike. For now aggression (not sure if violence is the better word) remains a selling point except for women hockey. What should be the right amount and in what form? Fans may say we don't want fighting, players say fighting minimizes dirty plays. Does the league put a bigger hammer on dirty plays as a possible solution which may reduce overall aggression in hockey?
 

SnowblindNYR

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 16, 2011
51,728
30,173
Brooklyn, NY
I see it as a balance to strike. For now aggression (not sure if violence is the better word) remains a selling point except for women hockey. What should be the right amount and in what form? Fans may say we don't want fighting, players say fighting minimizes dirty plays. Does the league put a bigger hammer on dirty plays as a possible solution which may reduce overall aggression in hockey?

As I posted on the Rangers board, if Bettman and the NHL execs were running the NBA in the 90s, they'd favor Charles Oakley over Michael Jordan. Just an ass backwards league.
 

SnowblindNYR

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 16, 2011
51,728
30,173
Brooklyn, NY
The glaring grammatical error here is ironic, the amount of players in the league from ivy league schools would also blow a hole in your inaccurate judgment.

Cry more about Wilson. Kid's an absolute horse and a joy to watch.

Oh no, I had a typo in my post I must be stupid. The rest, this is the business forum and I don't feel like you're worth being infracted. But all I'll say is people like you being who the NHL appeals to is why it'll continue being an also ran league forever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Holocene

GrizzGreen

Registered User
Oct 16, 2017
1,104
1,003
Laguna
Oh no, I had a typo in my post I must be stupid. The rest, this is the business forum and I don't feel like you're worth being infracted. But all I'll say is people like you being who the NHL appeals to is why it'll continue being an also ran league forever.
If you think the NHL markets violence, you literally haven't been watching hockey for the last 5 years.

The condensed version of games literally doesn't show fights.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SnowblindNYR

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Nov 16, 2011
51,728
30,173
Brooklyn, NY
If you think the NHL markets violence, you literally haven't been watching hockey for the last 5 years.

The condensed version of games literally doesn't show fights.

The NHL making a former goon the head of the DoPS tells me more than there being fewer fights. Wilson apparently wasn't going to be suspended for his incident against the Bruins either but Bettman got involved. Only reason there are fewer fights is because teams are trying to have actual NHL players on their roster. The penalty for fights is the same it's always been.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MeHateHe

Registered User
Dec 24, 2006
2,405
2,729
(It would be really nice if this didn't turn into a main-board-the-game-is-too-soft thread because the business forum is supposed to be above that.)

OP, I think your premise might be wrong. The idea that violence appeals only to a certain demographic is misplaced. Violence has been successfully sold to the so-called elites for millennia, and I think for example, you'd see a pretty broad cross-section of society who follow MMA. In fact, the concept of "guilty pleasure" comes into play. People who would never throw a punch in real life are attracted to viewing violent behaviour for precisely that reason - it unlocks a piece of their psyche they wouldn't otherwise be able to access. It's interesting to note that as boxing's appeal waned - primarily because its structure was so corrupt - a much more violent and potentially dangerous iteration of the same thing - came to the fore.

This isn't to say that violence appeals to everyone, and the violent aspect of the sport certainly turns some people off. So the marketing challenge for the league is if they play up the violent aspect, they will certainly turn off that section of society, but there is a significant portion of the current fanbase who will agitate for a more violent sport.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LeHab

GrizzGreen

Registered User
Oct 16, 2017
1,104
1,003
Laguna
The NHL making a former goon the head of the DoPS tells me more than there being fewer fights. Wilson apparently wasn't going to be suspended for his incident against the Bruins either but Bettman got involved. Only reason there are fewer fights is because teams are trying to have actual NHL players on their roster. The penalty for fights is the same it's always been.
Former goon who just happens to be a Princeton grad. Where did you go, snowblind?

I said they don't show fights on the replays of games that are curated by the NHL, not that there are fewer fights.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: Smirnov2Chistov

BOS358

Purveyor of unpopular opinions
Jul 20, 2017
609
329
Boston
OP, I think your premise might be wrong. The idea that violence appeals only to a certain demographic is misplaced. Violence has been successfully sold to the so-called elites for millennia, and I think for example, you'd see a pretty broad cross-section of society who follow MMA.

You're not wrong.

People: Wah, wah, wah, violence is wrong. We don't like it!

Those same people: OMG, did you see the (Tyson/ Holyfield/ McGregor, etc.) fight? No? Do you live under a rock? What's wrong with you?!?!?!?

I generally prefer the stuff that happens between the fights (aka, the actual hockey,) but the fights appeal to the lowest common denominator and the potential for a brawl-filled matchup will draw more eyes than a technically-sound game. I don't like it, but I don't deny reality either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Smirnov2Chistov

LeHab

Registered User
Aug 31, 2005
15,956
6,259
(It would be really nice if this didn't turn into a main-board-the-game-is-too-soft thread because the business forum is supposed to be above that.)

OP, I think your premise might be wrong. The idea that violence appeals only to a certain demographic is misplaced. Violence has been successfully sold to the so-called elites for millennia, and I think for example, you'd see a pretty broad cross-section of society who follow MMA. In fact, the concept of "guilty pleasure" comes into play. People who would never throw a punch in real life are attracted to viewing violent behaviour for precisely that reason - it unlocks a piece of their psyche they wouldn't otherwise be able to access. It's interesting to note that as boxing's appeal waned - primarily because its structure was so corrupt - a much more violent and potentially dangerous iteration of the same thing - came to the fore.

This isn't to say that violence appeals to everyone, and the violent aspect of the sport certainly turns some people off. So the marketing challenge for the league is if they play up the violent aspect, they will certainly turn off that section of society, but there is a significant portion of the current fanbase who will agitate for a more violent sport.

Violence sells for sure in our society, all comes down to presentation. NFL violence does not seem to be turning fans away, quite the opposite.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Burke the Legend

smokes lets go

Registered User
Oct 18, 2008
4,039
792
No they won't. And, the reason is that they are convinced that the largest share of money which flows to them comes from the older portion of their fanbase.

They are not so stupid as to not realize that fans in the majority of their markets have lots of other options, and are not particularly loyal to hockey. But, it's the older fan in places like NY, Boston, Phil, Tor, Mont, who are completely dedicated to the NHL because they grew up that way, who pays for most of the bacon. (and I am speaking here about things like media portion as well). Those older fans like the physical play.

That means that the NHL can't cut it out (and especially not cut it out fast), without those fans saying "It's a soft league now. I'm not interested any more." And, if those fans do that, then HRR goes down, franchise values sink, and the Ponzi scheme gets exposed.

So, no. It can't happen. Even though it should.

Is that the opnion held by the majority of NHL fans or just yourself?
 

sh724

Registered User
Jun 2, 2009
2,823
603
Missouri
Is there evidence fans would prefer less violence in hockey? Violence has always been a differentiator to sell hockey.

UFC grew exponentially thanks in part to its graphic nature.

That is a bit misleading. The UFC had little popularity and could not get licenses to fight in many places until they added many many rules. The UFC today is vastly different than it was in the 90s. If UFC didnt change to a less violent more tactical style they likely would not be in existence today. UFCs popularity grew exponentially after it was cleaned up and became more marketable to the masses.

People like violence but they dont like seeing people get hurt. People want to see fights in hockey but they dont want to see cheap shots and star players getting injured. When there was significantly more fighting in the league it was mostly staged fights between two guys who were primarily paid to fight. Back then "the code" was much more prevalent and respect among players was greater. The point is the "violence" in the NHL today is not the same as the violence of yesteryear.

There absolutely is a marketing angle to the physicality of the NHL. I grew up watching Twist and thought it was great. As an adult I find the staged fights boring and glad they are gone. At the same time I love a fight that is spur of the moment and raw and full of emotion. One of my favorite moments of a game I was at was watching Tkachuk get hit by Phaneuf then getting up and going right after him. Not because it was a great fight but because it was a sporadic emotional fight. The marketing element is not the fight itself but rather the rawness and emotions of it. This why rivalry games make better tv, these is emotion involved, there is a reason the players are being overly physical, it serves a purpose.

The UFCs popularity is not the fights, the UFCs popularity is in the fighters themselves. The UFC is not a fighting organization its an entertainment organization. If they took two random people who were highly trained but had no personality and put them in a octagon together no one would watch or care.

Its been repeated forever, the NHL is bad at promoting its players. The younger generations, as a whole, arent as into teams as they are into players regardless of the sport. The celebrities with the biggest personalities are going to be the most popular. An NHL superstar with a huge personality will bring in new fans. A video of gratuitous violence will get hits on YouTube but it wont get people to turn into the games. Some one like Ryan Reaves who has a large personality and plays very physical can bring in younger fans bc of his personality. Younger fans can get behind the way he plays. What they cannot get behind is violence for the sake of violence.

The actions of the NYR/Caps game will draw headlines and positive attention because there is a story behind. The events of the previous game only created negative attention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LeHab

LeHab

Registered User
Aug 31, 2005
15,956
6,259
That is a bit misleading. The UFC had little popularity and could not get licenses to fight in many places until they added many many rules. The UFC today is vastly different than it was in the 90s. If UFC didnt change to a less violent more tactical style they likely would not be in existence today. UFCs popularity grew exponentially after it was cleaned up and became more marketable to the masses.

People like violence but they dont like seeing people get hurt. People want to see fights in hockey but they dont want to see cheap shots and star players getting injured. When there was significantly more fighting in the league it was mostly staged fights between two guys who were primarily paid to fight. Back then "the code" was much more prevalent and respect among players was greater. The point is the "violence" in the NHL today is not the same as the violence of yesteryear.

There absolutely is a marketing angle to the physicality of the NHL. I grew up watching Twist and thought it was great. As an adult I find the staged fights boring and glad they are gone. At the same time I love a fight that is spur of the moment and raw and full of emotion. One of my favorite moments of a game I was at was watching Tkachuk get hit by Phaneuf then getting up and going right after him. Not because it was a great fight but because it was a sporadic emotional fight. The marketing element is not the fight itself but rather the rawness and emotions of it. This why rivalry games make better tv, these is emotion involved, there is a reason the players are being overly physical, it serves a purpose.

The UFCs popularity is not the fights, the UFCs popularity is in the fighters themselves. The UFC is not a fighting organization its an entertainment organization. If they took two random people who were highly trained but had no personality and put them in a octagon together no one would watch or care.

Its been repeated forever, the NHL is bad at promoting its players. The younger generations, as a whole, arent as into teams as they are into players regardless of the sport. The celebrities with the biggest personalities are going to be the most popular. An NHL superstar with a huge personality will bring in new fans. A video of gratuitous violence will get hits on YouTube but it wont get people to turn into the games. Some one like Ryan Reaves who has a large personality and plays very physical can bring in younger fans bc of his personality. Younger fans can get behind the way he plays. What they cannot get behind is violence for the sake of violence.

The actions of the NYR/Caps game will draw headlines and positive attention because there is a story behind. The events of the previous game only created negative attention.

That is why I said graphic nature is only part of success. Many factors came together promoted by an excellence marketing strategy to make UFC what it is today. Even managed to sell women fighting which is quite an accomplishment.

In individual sports or even team sports like NBA its easier to make it about athletes. More team oriented sports such as NHL and MLB have much bigger uphill battles since single athletes don't have as much of impact. MLB ratings were up during steroid era as individuals chased record books. I do agree, even if challenging, both leagues have to allow its athletes individual personalities to shine especially in today's social media world. Even if some behaviors may be deemed disrespectful by old/conservative standards. MLB in particular seems to be easing in this department with its "let the kids play" slogan but the road is still long. As you said sports are part of entrainment business. So many opportunities to better engage with fans outside of regular games.

Some worry individuality is detrimental to team cohesion. PK was often scolded in Montreal for showing too much of personality and making it about himself rather than the team. Hope that mentality changes.
 

edog37

Registered User
Jan 21, 2007
6,055
1,602
Pittsburgh
No they won't. And, the reason is that they are convinced that the largest share of money which flows to them comes from the older portion of their fanbase.

They are not so stupid as to not realize that fans in the majority of their markets have lots of other options, and are not particularly loyal to hockey. But, it's the older fan in places like NY, Boston, Phil, Tor, Mont, who are completely dedicated to the NHL because they grew up that way, who pays for most of the bacon. (and I am speaking here about things like media portion as well). Those older fans like the physical play.

That means that the NHL can't cut it out (and especially not cut it out fast), without those fans saying "It's a soft league now. I'm not interested any more." And, if those fans do that, then HRR goes down, franchise values sink, and the Ponzi scheme gets exposed.

So, no. It can't happen. Even though it should.

this isn't true. The Pens have done a great job marketing the team to a younger fan base for almost 20 years now. Here's how they did this.

Marketing campaigns geared towards a younger audience illustrating the speed & skill of the game. Doing student rush programs aimed at the college age crowd as well. These are the next generation season ticket holders & it's worked like a charm. The team has been sold out for 13 years straight. It helps to a have a young team, but there are ways to do this.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->