Is NFL+ using a dirty tactic to increase memberships?

[Green-Ghost]

I have attempted to watch games on NFL+.  During each game I received a message that read, “ in order to continue watching the rest of this broadcast, you must enroll in the NFL plus for a per month charge.”

To me this is dirty it makes me mad. It makes me not want to enroll in NFL plus because of dirty tactics.

I think NFL plus executives must think that once you get engrossed in the game you’ll want to enroll just to finish watching the game. It’s like a drug deal give victims free drugs until they’re addicted and then start charging them. This is the best analogy that I can think of that NFL plus it’s using.

What NFL+ should have done is either notify immediately, there is a charge for the service or notify you immediately that the first 30 minutes are free.  Instead, they allow you to watch for 30 minutes and then cut off the game until payment is made.

my question is, how many people think this is okay?

[cardiackat88.]

Lots and lots of dirty little tricks that big companies can legally bully you with.

To me, putting ads on stupid stuff like YouTube and Hulu does not add value to any of the companies placing that ad, but only encourages users to spend more money to not have to see the useless ads in the first place.

[IndyPanther]

17 hours ago, cardiackat88. said:

Lots and lots of dirty little tricks that big companies can legally bully you with.

To me, putting ads on stupid stuff like YouTube and Hulu does not add value to any of the companies placing that ad, but only encourages users to spend more money to not have to see the useless ads in the first place.

This is a completely asinine take. Literally billions of dollars are spent every year on video advertising. This includes practically all of the NFL's revenue, which is primarily on network TV with no subscriptions. To say it has no value to the companies is completely wrong and is disagreed upon by practically every industry.

If you want to make this argument for stadium names, I would agree. It's all about message though. Just putting your name on something is not allowing you to control your message at all so it is next to worthless. A video commercial is the complete opposite though.

[Liminy]

3 hours ago, IndyPanther said:

This is a completely asinine take. Literally billions of dollars are spent every year on video advertising. This includes practically all of the NFL's revenue, which is primarily on network TV with no subscriptions. To say it has no value to the companies is completely wrong and is disagreed upon by practically every industry.

If you want to make this argument for stadium names, I would agree. It's all about message though. Just putting your name on something is not allowing you to control your message at all so it is next to worthless. A video commercial is the complete opposite though.

It's not really that asinine. Besides the person saying "to me" which yknow, means in their opinion or experience or whatever, I think it's really easy to see that advertisements have needed a new trick for a while now.