Tweet this: NFL Pro Bowl players get to share thoughts real-time

The NFL is hoping to kick up its Pro Bowl ratings Sunday by allowing players to Tweet from the sidelines during the game. Some think that’s a silly distraction for players.

Marco Garcia/AP
New Orleans Saints quarterback Drew Brees of the NFC, left, jokes with Arizona Cardinals wide receiver Larry Fitzgerald of the NFC during their Pro Bowl team photo session, Friday, Jan. 27, 2012, in Kapolei, Hawaii.

As Super Bowl week kicks off Sunday with the Pro Bowl playoff in Hawaii, the NFL is hoping to kick up its ratings with the announcement that players will now be allowed to Tweet from the sidelines during the game.

The league has a strict policy against using social media during playtime for the regular season games, but as spokesman Jon Zimmer said from Honolulu where the game will be played, “We are always looking for ways to experiment with new ideas.”

“This game is a good venue for us to try out some new things,” he said.

How well do you know the New England Patriots before Tom Brady? Take our quiz

To be sure, social media has exploded as a way to connect fans and players more directly. But while the move may make sense from a marketing point of view, some critics question the intrusion of more social media opportunities into a professional game setting.  

"I don't think this is a good idea,” says Kelly Lux, the Online Community Manager at the School of Information Studies at Syracuse University in New York, and host of Community Manager Chat.

The players are there to play football, she says via email, “not to Tweet.”

“Their focus needs to be on the game,” she says. “Asking or encouraging them to participate in a conversation on Twitter would take their head out of the game."
 For now, this new policy is strictly relegated to the annual all-star game. There is a clear firewall between what will be allowed for this singular event and policies about Twitter and other social media during the normal season, Mr. Zimmer points out. And the routine for tweeting during the game this Sunday will be tightly controlled.  

Players will be allowed to stop by computers set up on the 20-yard line and tap out a 140 character shout-out to fans – under the vigilant eyes of NFL representatives.

“Nothing will go out that hasn’t been checked first,” says Zimmer, who adds, “Obviously, they are not allowed to be doing this if they have any on-field duties.”

The players may not linger and only one player can be tapping and tweeting at a time. This does not affect the NFL’s current policy of no personal devices on the field. Players may tweet from the locker room during half-time, but “they have to leave their own devices behind when they come back out,” says Zimmer.

Enthusiasts of the power of social media to amplify the sporting experience applaud this experiment.

“This is an all-star game,” points out David Brody, head of marketing for PlayUp, a social networking app that connects sports fans through private and public group messaging as they follow sporting events in real-time.

“The entire point of the day is to entertain the fans,” he adds, pointing out that the Pro Bowl has moved its venue and date several times over the past few years. “The NFL needs to do whatever it can to build awareness.”

But some critics point out that even as a marketing ploy, the move to more social media is a misstep.

“There are marketing and public relations ploys that makes sense, but this decision by the NFL is hard to comprehend,” says John Goodman, a former TV producer who now runs his own public relations firm, adding that the decision shows what “silly things smart people will do to try to gain attention and TV ratings.”

He doubts the move will help ratings. Ever since the advent of the Super Bowl, he says, the Pro Bowl has been the “least meaningful of all the professional sports all-star games since it happens at the end of the season when no one cares who’s playing, or who wins.”

The attempt to attract a younger demographic by expanding social media exposure, says Mr. Goodman,   is “a silly public relations ploy that’s also a turn-off to most true NFL fans above the age of 16.”

“An already silly game, just got sillier,” he says.

How well do you know the New England Patriots before Tom Brady? Take our quiz

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to