So trivial, yet it really ticks you off.

[LizzieMaine]

No one knows the day or hour. To coin a phrase.

 

[LizzieMaine]

We've come a very long way since Major Cyril James Hastings Tolley MC sued Fry & Sons Chocolates for implying in an advertisement that he had taken money to promote their product. He sued them in libel - and won. (1931) Tolley was a champion golfer; Frys had taken a photo of him with a bar of their chocolate sticking out of his pocket, and used it in an advertisement. The court found that this had the 'natural and ordinary meaning' that he had taken money in exchange for endorsing the product - something which the average, upstanding 'man on the Clapham omnibus' in 1931 woul have found to be distasteful, and would have lowered Tolley in his opinion.

Fast-forward to 2005, and Formuls One driver Eddie Irvine successfully sued Talksport Radio in similar circumstances - this time, however, not for libel, but for 'false endorsement' - i.e. using his image to imply endorsement, but without paying him for the privilege....

Sports endorsements have a long and checkered history in the US -- they were very popular around the turn of the century, when you had people like Ty Cobb endorsing Coca-Cola, and players appearing on cigarette cards and other gimcracks. Babe Ruth was the king of endorsements in the twenties, and would endorse any product that would send him a check. But at the same time there were a lot of sharp operators who would put out a product that looked like an endorsement but actually they hadn't paid for it -- Ruth was vexed by a product called "Bambino" smoking tobacco, which used a silhouette of a ballplayer on its label which was clearly him, even though he had nothing to do with the product. And some years later there were "Champ" brand condoms which featured a drawing of a ballplayer clearly intended to be Ted Williams. Williams apparently thought it was funny, and didn't bother to sue -- probably figuring it was a good thing they didn't call them "Splendid Splinter" brand condoms.

The player who really turned endorsements into an organized big business was Mickey Mantle, who was far from the big dumb rube he pretended to be for the public eye. He hired an agent in 1956 to handle all his endorsements, and before long, he was endorsing more products and making more money at it than even Ruth in his prime.

Bubble gum card producers paid ballplayers next to nothing for the use of their images -- the Topps company had the practice of signing players to lifetime contracts for five dollars, and gave them their royalties in the form of cheap premiums from a Green Stamps type of redemption catalog. It wasn't until Marvin Miller came in as the head of the players union in the mid-sixties and started cracking the whip on these kinds of deals that all the players got a fair share of licensing revenue. Today when you buy any kind of MLB merchandise featuring players, the revenue is spread out and shared in equally by all the members of the MLBPA.

 

[MisterCairo]

NHL hockey players still grumble about the income from hockey cards to this day. The old cards have been replaced by slick productions with holograms and QR codes and whatnot, with the main card players making millions while the players whose images they use get pennies*.

* In Canada, rounded up or down to the nearest 5 cent amount, owing to our having stopped using the penny.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The people who were really screwed by the endorsement deals were those whose careers preceded the player's union, but who continued to appear in board games, film documentaries, card sets and the like -- they didn't get anything from the MLBPA contracts. In the late 1990s, Pete Coscarart -- a fine second baseman for the Dodgers in the years before WW2 -- started a class-action suit against Major League Baseball for using their names and likenesses on merchandise without authorization.

384 players from the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s were involved, and they won the case -- but the judge only awarded $75,000 in damages, which was barely enough to cover expenses, and they subsequently lost the case on appeal. Pretty raw deal for workers who had played an important role in building the game during their careers. Commissioner Bud Selig, a man for whom I have nothing but contempt, then spit in Coscarart's face by revoking his $10,000-a-year major league pension, a move which likely hastened the ballplayer's death. May Mr. Selig enjoy a well-heated seat right next to Walter O'Malley in the great beyond.

 

[HudsonHawk]

Queues. I want to scream when folks can't queue like civilised people.

In the UK, standing in line is the national pastime, isn't it?

 

[HudsonHawk]

In ancient Rome, everyone belonged to one of the chariot racing factions: the Reds, Whites, Blues or Greens, identified by the colors of the charioteer's tunics. One philosopher noted that in the middle of a race, if all the drivers swapped tunics, the crowd's loyalties would go with the tunics, not with the men or horses. Some things never change.

While living in North Carolina, I learned quite a bit about NASCAR fans. One of the biggest was that true fans root for the car, not the driver. Sure, there are those who talk about being fans of particular drivers, but when talking serious about the race, they talk about the "48 car" or the "20 car". It's about the car, man.

 

[tonyb]

^^^^
Interesting, and contrary to received wisdom on the matter.

I recall Chip Hanauer, the last "name" unlimited hydroplane driver, saying many years ago that among the factors contributing to declining fan interest in the sport was that the team owners and the circuit's governing body were promoting the machines (and their commercial sponsors) over the real live humans in the cockpits. Hanauer contrasted that with NASCAR, which had celebrity drivers, and featured their likenesses on all order of stuff.

But that was well over a couple of decades ago. Things change.

 

[EngProf]

While living in North Carolina, I learned quite a bit about NASCAR fans. One of the biggest was that true fans root for the car, not the driver. Sure, there are those who talk about being fans of particular drivers, but when talking serious about the race, they talk about the "48 car" or the "20 car". It's about the car, man.

As a long-time NASCAR fan I would mostly agree, but there is a sub-group that does have particular driver loyalty - such as for Dale Earnhart, Jr., but a lot do care about the car more than the driver.
There is also a contingent (me included) who are brand loyalists - any Chevy is better than any Ford, regardless of who is driving. (this was more prevalent back when NASCAR had half a dozen brands competing - even more-so when they were actually "stock" cars)

 

[Trenchfriend]

I wanted to go to supermarket/grocery-store, today morning, but DAMN, I realized, that it's Ascension-day in Germany, today!

 

[HudsonHawk]

As a long-time NASCAR fan I would mostly agree, but there is a sub-group that does have particular driver loyalty - such as for Dale Earnhart, Jr., but a lot do care about the car more than the driver.
There is also a contingent (me included) who are brand loyalists - any Chevy is better than any Ford, regardless of who is driving. (this was more prevalent back when NASCAR had half a dozen brands competing - even more-so when they were actually "stock" cars)

Oh certainly to all those things. An Earnhardt man would never root for Jeff Gordon, and by golly if your grand daddy was a Chevy man, so are you. But you could tell those that were more serious about it. They spoke about "the 3 car" or "the #2 Ford", knowing there was a collective there, from owner to crew to driver. They spoke like it was a team, the same way one would refer to the Red Sox or Broncos.

 

[HudsonHawk]

^^^^
Interesting, and contrary to received wisdom on the matter.

I recall Chip Hanauer, the last "name" unlimited hydroplane driver, saying many years ago that among the factors contributing to declining fan interest in the sport was that the team owners and the circuit's governing body were promoting the machines (and their commercial sponsors) over the real live humans in the cockpits. Hanauer contrasted that with NASCAR, which had celebrity drivers, and featured their likenesses on all order of stuff.

But that was well over a couple of decades ago. Things change.

There's definitely a celebrity that comes with drivers. I think the thing with hard core racing fans is that they know it's more than the driver that puts the car in victory lane. There's a whole team, and they seemed to appreciate and celebrate the efforts of everyone.

 

[Stearmen]

^^^^
Interesting, and contrary to received wisdom on the matter.

I recall Chip Hanauer, the last "name" unlimited hydroplane driver, saying many years ago that among the factors contributing to declining fan interest in the sport was that the team owners and the circuit's governing body were promoting the machines (and their commercial sponsors) over the real live humans in the cockpits. Hanauer contrasted that with NASCAR, which had celebrity drivers, and featured their likenesses on all order of stuff.

But that was well over a couple of decades ago. Things change.

The Hanauer, Steve Reynolds rivalry helped a lot back then. I was a Chip fan, but later, after Steve's tragic accident, I found out he was actually a nice guy. None of them rivaled Mr. Hydroplane, Bill Muncey! What really did in hydroplane racing was the change from Thunder Boats, to Whoosh Boats! Fortunately, we may hear thunder again, the Chinook CH-47 engines are becoming just as hard to find as the old Allison and Merlin V12s, so there is a hunt on for an alternative in the form of piston power.

 

[Edward]

In the UK, standing in line is the national pastime, isn't it?

Pastime? It's the prevailing culture.

 

[GHT]

Pastime? It's the prevailing culture.

You want the new Apple I-Phone? Get to the back of the queue.

 

[Trenchfriend]

You want the new Apple I-Phone? Get to the back of the queue.
View attachment 49313

But, we all know, that these happenings are mainly "staged". Or not?

 

[tonyb]

The Hanauer, Steve Reynolds rivalry helped a lot back then. I was a Chip fan, but later, after Steve's tragic accident, I found out he was actually a nice guy. None of them rivaled Mr. Hydroplane, Bill Muncey! What really did in hydroplane racing was the change from Thunder Boats, to Whoosh Boats! Fortunately, we may hear thunder again, the Chinook CH-47 engines are becoming just as hard to find as the old Allison and Merlin V12s, so there is a hunt on for an alternative in the form of piston power.

Even in the sport's heyday fans had their loyalties to the Bud or the Pak or the Thriftway or the Bardahl or ...

So I wouldn't wish to leave the impression that for most fans the machines themselves weren't a huge part of the sport's appeal. But those fans knew the names of the pilots and, often, where they lived and the particulars of their relationships with their racing teams.

As in most all motor sports, the most skillful hydroplane jockey wouldn't find himself on the winner's podium without benefit of a machine appreciably the equal of those of his competitors, and in most cases their superior. In many post-heyday years, that seemed increasingly the case, with one or two teams dominating. Big money sponsorship made for big wins. Bernie Little couldn't put any-old-body in the Miss Budweiser's cockpit, but he could go with Anyoldbody's somewhat more skillful brother.

 

[Edward]

But, we all know, that these happenings are mainly "staged". Or not?

If only. Sadly, I think Apple is one of those brands with so many blindly loyal "fans" that they could put out any old rubbish with a logo on it and people would still queue up at midnight to buy it. Reminds me of George Lucas.... except I hear there are people who enjoy recent iPhones.

 

[tonyb]

If only. Sadly, I think Apple is one of those brands with so many blindly loyal "fans" that they could put out any old rubbish with a logo on it and people would still queue up at midnight to buy it. Reminds me of George Lucas.... except I hear there are people who enjoy recent iPhones.

I fear for Apple's future. No gotta-have-it new product in quite some time, and none on the horizon.

Microsoft looked to be in real trouble a few years back, but they seem to have relocated their footing. Maybe Apple can do the same. Maybe not.

 

[Zombie_61]

But, we all know, that these happenings are mainly "staged". Or not?

I don't know about Europe, but here in the U.S. there is a segment of the population who must have the newest device the very moment it becomes available, and these idiots will do whatever it takes to get one.

 

[GHT]

there is a segment of the population who must have the newest device the very moment it becomes available, and these idiots will do whatever it takes to get one.

In my lifetime I have seen the phenomena of credit cards and the acceptance of debt. There was a time when debt was seen as being something rather grubby. You might have to borrow, but you never admitted it. Along came credit cards and, slowly at first, they weren't seen as debt, more, with skillful marketing, an alternative to cash. A spin off for the credit card companies was the ability to track card holders spending, then with the internet and digital technology, tracking card holders purchases really took off. Now big business fuel these 'impulse' purchases. Creating the hype, adding to the hysteria and increasing card holders debt ceiling. You now have the perfect recipe for the: Lemming phenomenon, as seen by that queue in the above photo.