Frizell comment is rubbish and a tad insulting, not going to comment on that.
Why? There are plenty of parts of the ad which involve players not playing football. But the two complaints a levelled at Latrell Mitchell shrouding himself with the Aboriginal flag, and two women embracing (which was actually at a League game). If the issue is 'not enough football', then it is perfectly acceptable to ask why would those scenes be targeted for discussion rather than the rest of the issues.
There's been discussion about how politics shouldn't be in sport, but the footage of Newcastle marching in support of the Steel Workers isn't raised despite it being a prime example of unionism in a political demonstration. It's telling that the only 'politics' being complained about is an indigenous person and non-heterosexual women existing on the ad.
I'm not an expert on what sells the game. I can't provide statistics. But if you can show me statistics that this ad propels the game forward then I'll stand corrected. Lets come back in a year.
But you're an expert enough to criticise the business that probably does have those analytics? Not to mention that we stagnant TV viewership, crowds, and membership would be enough to suggest the current method of 'Just show highlights' doesn't work bringing in new fans.
Yes and that footage was excellent. I'd like to know why those other moments we are all getting stirred up about were placed in there. To attract new fans? If thats the case lets come back in a year and the proof will be in the pudding.
Because the point of the ad, as has been discussed, is that the game is across multiple communities in a broader society and collectively makes everyone feel part of something special and supportive.
Unfortunately, the reaction to the ad is enough to suggest that this is not the case. That it's ok to be indigenous, or gay, as long as you aren't proud of it and keep it hidden. Definitely sounds like a welcoming sport.
