Is Michael Vick a legit candidate for the cover?

[adembroski]

I've seen some discussion, some among Madden developers on Twitter and in podcasts, about the next cover athlete for Madden. Michael Vick has come up.

Personally, I say you stay far away from Vick. I'm OK with him playing in the NFL, he's served his time. But from a business perspective, I don't see a good side.

First off, I don't subscribe to the premise that the cover athlete has an appreciable affect on sales. Put Alex Smith on the cover, Madden's gonna sell what it's gonna sell, and I don't see the picture on the box having any effect on that... unless its Vick. Not that most dedicated Madden fans, or just plain dedicated football gamers, are going to care, but there are those who'll take that stand. This might not be an appreciable amount, but on the chance (and it's not an insignificant chance) that, say, PETA decides to take some action (I could see them staging Midnight-Release protests outside of GameStop and Walmart), they'll change a few minds.

To anticipate a counter argument: What about Tiger Woods? He's still on the cover of PGA. Yes, well, if you subscribe to the theory that the cover athlete has an effect on sales (and I generally don't, but I think I could allow it in PGA's case) then the only choice is Woods. Simple fact: Tiger Woods is the only household name in golf. Golf is not a mainstream spectator sport.

Furthermore... Tiger Woods is a dog, but Michael Vick killed dogs. Big difference. One is morally questionable, the other is morally reprehensible.

[kc10785]

Quote: Originally Posted by adembroski

I've seen some discussion, some among Madden developers on Twitter and in podcasts, about the next cover athlete for Madden. Michael Vick has come up. Personally, I say you stay far away from Vick. I'm OK with him playing in the NFL, he's served his time. But from a business perspective, I don't see a good side. First off, I don't subscribe to the premise that the cover athlete has an appreciable affect on sales. Put Alex Smith on the cover, Madden's gonna sell what it's gonna sell, and I don't see the picture on the box having any effect on that... unless its Vick. Not that most dedicated Madden fans, or just plain dedicated football gamers, are going to care, but there are those who'll take that stand. This might not be an appreciable amount, but on the chance (and it's not an insignificant chance) that, say, PETA decides to take some action (I could see them staging Midnight-Release protests outside of GameStop and Walmart), they'll change a few minds. To anticipate a counter argument: What about Tiger Woods? He's still on the cover of PGA. Yes, well, if you subscribe to the theory that the cover athlete has an effect on sales (and I generally don't, but I think I could allow it in PGA's case) then the only choice is Woods. Simple fact: Tiger Woods is the only household name in golf. Golf is not a mainstream spectator sport. Furthermore... Tiger Woods is a dog, but Michael Vick killed dogs. Big difference. One is morally questionable, the other is morally reprehensible.

I don't want to see him on the cover just because he has already been on a cover before when he was playing for the falcons keep it moving there is other young players thats doing big things that can get the spotlight.

[Hova57]

I don't care if he is on he cover, but i don't think he needs to be . i personally liked the cover to be someone on Defense alone, Defense gets so disrespected on madden from covers to actual gameplay.

[Senator Palmer]

I totally get every point of your argument, but with the Tiger Woods example, I don't see how it doesn't apply to Vick. I could see some outside murmurings, like maybe Fox News picking up Vick being on the cover of Madden, and trying to make a story out of it. But, who exactly would not buy Madden who normally would? Maybe you'll get a few upset mothers not purchase the game for their kids, but I think -- I THINK that would be negligible. What other part of the Madden demographic would stay away?

And if you think that "casual" 18-35 year old demo that's making their own money, will stay away then you have to posit that they are still carrying some negative feelings towards Vick, instead of not buying because the game is stale. In my opinion, I think everyone has moved on. There will always be the noisy minority who will carry the torch, but I just don't think most people care anymore. The same way Ray Lewis wound up on the cover after Atlanta, or how no one talks about Kobe and Colorado anymore (see NBA 2K10 -- who could have seen that in 2004?). People find new things to be outraged about and there's just so much other stuff going on in the world to fill that void. If Vick continues to have a historic season, and more importantly post season success with the whole world watching, then this is a story of redemption unlike any that we've seen in recent memory and the negative spin on the story will have no legs.

From a business standpoint I get why they would be a little shook to go with Vick, especially with sales taking a hit. I don't see them risking even one unit being purchased, but from a big picture perspective, I don't think it would make a huge difference one way or the other. I think it's the quality of what's in the package and the word of mouth of how great the game is or isn't that will carry the day one way or the other.

[BallH4wk31]

There's a reason Mike Vick doesn't get endorsements.. there's a chance it will drive business away and nobody will take that chance. There are plenty of kids who get the game and if their mom goes to the store and sees Mike Vick on it then she may not buy it on principle.. he'll never get cover or another endorsement again.

[Senator Palmer]

Quote: Originally Posted by BallH4wk31

There's a reason Mike Vick doesn't get endorsements.. there's a chance it will drive business away and nobody will take that chance. There are plenty of kids who get the game and if their mom goes to the store and sees Mike Vick on it then she may not buy it on principle.. he'll never get cover or another endorsement again.

He may not get the cover, and he may not the NFL's version of the sell-everything Michael Jordan-esque pitchman what he was, but to say that he will never get another endorsement is totally wrong. Winning and time heals all things. There is no real moral outrage anymore.

No one could have ever seen Ray Lewis on the cover of Madden or doing old spice commercials after being accused of murder in Atlanta, and I remember vividly how he was vilified. And no one could have seen Kobe Bryant on the cover of NBA 2K or having his own shoe with Nike after Colorado.

People are too fickle and too busy to carry a serious grudge beyond a few news cycles and a few years.

[TreFacTor]

I predicted that Vick would make history.

Comeback player of the year
MVP
First time ever repeat cover athlete for Madden
Vick's new success is short lived due to his lack of good judgment.

It wouldn't surprise me to see him on the cover again, but I don't think he needs the attention. i would hope that he takes just enough endorsements to make him and his family comfortable, and leave the rest alone and concentrate on football, but that's like hoping for real physics in M12.

[BallH4wk31]

Quote: Originally Posted by Senator Palmer

He may not get the cover, and he may not the NFL's version of the sell-everything Michael Jordan-esque pitchman what he was, but to say that he will never get another endorsement is totally wrong. Winning and time heals all things. There is no real moral outrage anymore. No one could have ever seen Ray Lewis on the cover of Madden or doing old spice commercials after being accused of murder in Atlanta, and I remember vividly how he was vilified. And no one could have seen Kobe Bryant on the cover of NBA 2K or having his own shoe with Nike after Colorado. People are too fickle and too busy to carry a serious grudge beyond a few news cycles and a few years.

I'd bet every dollar he never gets another endorsement. Ray wasn't convicted, therefore he was deemed innocent, regardless of what happened. Kobe wasn't convicted of a crime, he was accused, they "settled" it was very under wraps and ambiguous. Vick was deemed guilty, he did time for it. It was a crime that offended a lot of people. Trust, Vick never gets another endorsement deal.

[Senator Palmer]

Quote: Originally Posted by BallH4wk31

I'd bet every dollar he never gets another endorsement. Ray wasn't convicted, therefore he was deemed innocent, regardless of what happened. Kobe wasn't convicted of a crime, he was accused, they "settled" it was very under wraps and ambiguous. Vick was deemed guilty, he did time for it. It was a crime that offended a lot of people. Trust, Vick never gets another endorsement deal.

Ray Lewis plead out to obstruction of justice to avoid the murder charge and had to testify against his two co-defendents. Now anyone who actually looked at the facts of the case could see that it was an attempt to railroad the man, BUT that didn't matter. It didn't matter that he didn't actually stab anyone, what mattered was that his name was mentioned in connection to a murder. And at the time, that made him anything but innocent. Nuances get lost in the sensationalism. That's why that year, whenever the Ravens went on the road there were signs in the stands calling Ray Lewis a murderer, that's the reason Ray Lewis couldn't be in the Disney Land parade after being named Super Bowl MVP -- it was all because of the perception. Perception is all that matters from a business standpoint -- not right and wrong and certainly not morality. The same thing with Kobe Bryant, he wasn't convicted, but there was no more vilified a player and no more toxic a name than Kobe at that time.

Convictions don't matter one way or the other. The narrative does. When the Ravens won the Super Bowl, during that telecast the broadcasters mentioned the Atlanta murders. Last night against the Steelers, not a word, because it is no longer part of the narrative. The same thing will happen with Vick if he sticks around long enough. The narrative will be all about his spectacular play.

From a strictly cold-hard, business perspective, if Michael Vick continues to have this on-field success, lighting up the stat sheet at a historic level, keeps out of trouble, he will be a viable pitchman when enough time has passed. He only got out of jail in May of 2009. It's 2010 and he is just now beginning to re-emerge on the national stage in a positive light. It's a little soon for companies to stick their necks out and take that chance, but if his team winds up a fixture on the national stage, and competing for multiple championships during sweeps when everyone is watching and advertising dollar are set, there is no way that he will not be able to conservatively generate millions of dollars a year in endorsements. Will he ever be at the level that he was with the Michael Vick Experience, etc., I doubt it, but I didn't think he'd be a franchise quarterback again, either.

[Joborule]

Considering he's already been on, the talk should stop there. And his recent history in being in jail and all, I don't see him as a candidate. I feel EA will want to have a player that has good standing PR relations and hasn't done anything to put him in a negative light. Although they had Ray Lewis on the cover, but that's different since Ray wasn't seen with a negative aurora at all at that point.

Plus with what Tiger Woods has done recently and how that could've effected the appeal of the Wii game to families, I don't think EA wants to take the risk with Vick case that's worse since it involves animals.