The skit that “missed the mark” occurred in a break in play during the second quarter of Charlotte’s game against the Philadelphia 76ers on Monday. The child was brought onto the court with Hugo, the Hornets’ mascot, dressed as Santa Claus. After a letter to Santa requesting a PS5 was read out loud, a cheerleader came out with a bag containing the video game console.
The young fan was visibly overjoyed as he received the pricy gift. However, according to an online acquaintance, he was less happy when the cameras turned off and a Hornets staffer took it away, replacing it with a jersey.
Certain headlines get really funny if you pretend sports don’t exist.
Or, in my case for this particular situation, if you are a foreigner and are missing a lot of context for American Sports.
The writer of this article is definitely a hornet.
The skit that “missed the mark”
I swear The Boys gets more and more blatant with how evil Corporate America is, but cmon, this episode is just completely ridiculous. Not even Homelander would be that ev…
Wait this happened in a REAL Sportsball game? This is not a bit? sugh
I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed
It’s absolutely amazing to me that they didn’t realize this was gonna cause a backlash.
Right? Like, I don’t understand in what universe did this seem like a good idea?
They actually read the fucking kid’s letter to Santa live at the Stadium, and only pretended to give him a PS5? This is basically bullying the poor guy.
Was it even the kid’s letter to begin with? The whole thing just seems like a setup.
If it was setup, then why the fuck didn’t they just have the letter say he wanted the Jersey of his favorite Hornets player and aovid this shit? That just makes it even more incompetent.
PS5 seems more plausible that a kid would want, in my mind. 🤷♂️ But yeah. Pretending to do anything at all seems like a bad idea to begin with.
This means there was at least one meeting where this plan was discussed and approved by multiple staffers who have jobs and salaries and manage to find their way to work and back home at night.
Likely it cost more to have said meeting than the ps5 itself
I can almost guarantee that one of them wanted the PS5 for themselves, and insisted on swapping it out so they could take the console.
Sometimes psychopaths and other malignant types will purposefully influence a team into a bad move, to try and cast bad light on others who carry it out.
I think I know where they could have gotten the idea.
In re-runs of old gameshows, it’s not unheard of for them to edit the clips to look like the prize is Insert Sponsor Here, when the prize is actually something different. You can really notice this on Kid’s Gameshows when the prize is something like an Xbox 360 for a gameshow that took place in 2002. (When a PS2 would be fair more likely)
However that’s for RE-RUNS of PRE-TAPED SHOWS, meaning the person who won the original prize got the original prize and original airings would have shown said prize. The only “change” would been purely for advertisement purposes only.
That’s very different from “You’re getting an all-expenses paid trip to the Bahamas!” and then backstage they say “And here’s an old Terminator T-Shirt or something, the one we had in storage that doesn’t have the custard stain.”
Which is very much what this situation was.
They probably heard about this practice and assumed that they could give a fake prize that’s sponsor friendly, and then the real prize is something far less extravagant. Which tells me that they did not run this by their lawyers.
Retro-editing to update products in reruns is an interesting and weird concept, but makes total sense given the perfection paranoia of marketers.
The skit that “missed the mark” . . .
Quit sucking up to corporate America, yahoo sports writer. The Hornets farked up a simple PR event in every way it was possible TO fark up. They baited and switched a PS5 with a t-shirt and thought no one would find out about it.
And they have so damn much money that giving him the PS5 would have been like you or me flicking a penny to the kid.
People suck sometimes, I swear.
Sometimes?
No offense, but that’s the wrong take here. “People” (as in The People, or the majority) didn’t do this, a giant 3 billion dollar organization did. Sure, it’s composed of people, but this is unregulated capitalism run amok…
Nah. There was a meeting of actual humans who got together and decided to trick a child hoping no one would notice. Said meeting likely cost more than the said console did in salaries, too.
Edited to clarify. Most people wouldn’t do this. Get a group of randos off the street and they wouldn’t do this to a child.
I just think we shouldn’t shield these evil people by pretending it’s “the business” doing it. It’s humans. Really really shitty humans, but they made the decision to do this to a kid, on camera, thinking it wouldn’t immediately backfire in this age of social media.
So not only are they assholes, but also fucking stupid.
Jfc… How much of a psychopathic piece of shit do you have to be, to hurt a kid’s feelings like that?! I fucking hate people.
It reminds me of the Santa mall scene in a Christmas Story
Corporate America…
I feel like this is so boneheaded that it has to be the case where the staff member in charge of this giveaway just wanted to keep the PS5 themselves and thought the kids wouldn’t complain about the ol’ switcheroo! This just even sounds like something Michael Scott would have done in The Office.
No, Michael Scott is a moron, not a jackass. He wouldn’t pull this shit. He’s tone deaf, he constantly thinks he’s doing the right thing without realizing why what he’s doing has the opposite of the intended effect even when it’s obvious to everyone else. Giving a kid something he wants and then taking it away when no one’s look is a move of calculated evil.
He’d imply heavily a PS5 then give the kid a Jersey, at no point would he actually have the thing in the kid’s hand and then take it back.
Maybe that’s just me, but I don’t see Michael Scott as a character that would knowingly choose to do something immoral. He’d do a bad deed, but without realizing it.
Mike Scott’s more the “We’re taking away free tampons on the women’s room, because we just don’t have the money for luxury goods.” type, who’s then baffled when he’s called sexist because he legitimately believed tampons were a luxury. Not the “Promote a woman? Are you insane? This is a man’s office sweetheart!” type.
I could totally see Dwight taking the PS5 for himself and mocking the kid over it though. Even then he’d do it out of Chaos, not Evil.
Michael kidnapped a pizza delivery boy because he didn’t want to pay full prize. This fits right in.
Season 1 Michael was a bit more of a jackass though. Maybe he could’ve done it.
Top tier analysis. Thank you.
I’ve been playing as Michael Scott in that Funko Fusion game, I’ve been doing “The Thing” stages as him, because it’s the funniest thing I can imagine happening.
It has gotten me thinking a lot about the character and how he’d behave.
Ah so you are classically trained.
It’d be nice if people stopped acting like fucking psychos.
$500 for good press or $0 for bad. Looks like Charlotte is as bad at math as they are at basketball.
I’m sure the Chinese made Jersey has some value.
One of the comments about why
How would this commenter know that?
I mean surely it could be a lie but they just took away a PS5 from a kid…
what? lies? on the internet? why would anyone do such a thing.
Now I feel like I’m back on Reddit.
tips le fedora
I know, right? I’m human like you and totally not a dog
Ew, humans. snarls
By having met her.
Source: trust me bro
It’s entirely plausible this person knows the lady in question.
You want Lemmy adoption… you get folks with stature in the machine sharing mundane recon… you don’t believe anything.
Look, I’m just engaging in critical thinking here. I don’t believe everything I read on the Internet especially since people love just making up random crap just so they can have a story to tell.
That’s fair. I try to do the same. But we suspend belief all the time to survive the shit. Let some light in whether proven and your day might be better 🤷
That’s a Reddit comment though.
Whoosh. Sorry, don’t follow. What do you mean?
The comment in the screen shot is Reddit, not Lemmy.
Yikes.
Unfortunately, this applies to 99% of people in power I know of, if they think they’ll get away with it, they’ll do it.
You don’t usually get into places of power by being thoughtful and considerate.
What fucking cheapskates.
Do they make their players turn out their pockets after each game in case they picked up some loose change off the ground too? Lol
LOL. Cheap bastards. I mean, PS5 is an expensive gift, but not for such an occasion, no?
The team has revenue in the millions. They’d never have noticed the money. This should be in the dictionary under Penny Wise, Pound Foolish.
Kinda reminiscent of various Russian official events involving children.
That’s coincidentally the name of my last porno.
Compared to the marketing expenses of even very small companies, a PS5 is so ridiculously cheap that these costs are not even worth mentioning.
I meant expensive for a kid. Of course, yes.
Sure. But the Hornets aren’t interested in the child, they’re only interested in marketing. The only way I can explain this is that either some employee wanted the PS5 and just took it from the kid or the Hornets’ marketing department thinks that even bad publicity is free publicity. Maybe they intentionally planned for the predictable media coverage on this matter because it also brings attention. If the Hornets wanted to buy this kind of exposure, that paltry $500 wouldn’t even begin to cover it.
If a PS5 is too expensive to give away, then don’t pretend to give one away.
I feel like I shouldn’t have to say this.
It could have literally been a tax write off
It could have been a glitch in tax calculator tbh. Not my point. And I agree with you. “LOL. Cheap bastards” was my point.
yeah, anything under 1000 was a rounding error.
Budget lint
Not expensive for a literal NBA team.
Three. Billion. Dollars.
That’s what the team is worth and what it was sold for a year ago…
Why? It’s a few hundred dollars, not a car or something.
deleted by creator
I might suggest that the kid got a nicer present in the form of a reason to file suit against the team for the embarrassment and emotional distress. Using the kid for a BS publicity stunt is not acceptable.
That’s called theft. Legally a gift is irrevocable once it’s given.
IANAL Warning
Indeed, there was a story a while back where a bar had a contest for their staff; Whoever could sell the most drinks would receive a new Toyota.
Well one woman who really needed a new car busted her ass for that, and was taking to a parking lot where she was given a stuffed toy of Yoda from Star Wars; a “Toy Yoda”
She was told it was a joke and there was never any realistic chance of some local pub giving away new cars to minimum wage staff.
Well she sued over this joke, and actually won because during the contest she specifically asked what kind of Toyota it was and was told by her supervisor; the one who started the contest in the first place. That it very specifically was a real car that would be paid for in full and put in her name at no cost to her. Which invalidated any claim to this being a gag or a hoax.
You can imply that the prize is whatever you want it to be, and give whatever you want the prize to be. But the second you specify what the prize is in no unsubtle terms, you have to give it.
It’s why I can say in a public ad that if you show up to my house wearing a Ballerina Outfit and a Cowboy Hat, and then knock on the door in the rhythm of the BGM “Bloody Tears”, I will give you 100 Grand. You have no case if I hand you a candy bar literally called 100 Grand.
But if I said “That’s right, one hundred thousand dollars in cash!”, that wouldn’t fly and you can take me to court.
But If I stayed on message and only said 100 Grand, using THAT exact phrasing, especially if I make other misleading but accurate claims like it being “100 Grand, yeah that’s something to really sink your teeth into” then what I’m doing is hillarious.
By putting the PS5 Box in the kid’s hands and saying he won a Playstation, that ended any ambiguity, taking away the box and giving him a Jersey was an act of fraud.
She was told it was a joke and there was never any realistic chance of some local pub giving away new cars to minimum wage staff.
I remember that story. It wasn’t a local pub, it was a Hooters. Hooters is an enormous nationwide chain that could easily afford a Camry.
Hooters? Fuck I was told it was just some pub, that makes it 5000 times worse
Certainly possible it happened again at a local pub, but the one I’m familiar with was Hooters
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/former-hooters-waitress-settles-toy-yoda-lawsuit/
Yeah, I remember it as hooters too
He was given an empty box for show, letting him keep it wouldn’t make it any better.
They never intended on giving the kid the gift. If they allowed them to go home with the PS5, and then requested it back the next day, then the family would have a good argument that ownership was transferred to them. This was just a bad joke.
Edit: on lemmy.world it’s like I never left reddit!
That’s utter nonsense. A gift only counts if you make it home with the gift? Where did you come up with that?
I’m guessing it’s based on the rules of the schoolyard game to run from one side of a field to the other while avoiding the corporate bullies in the center.
The donor of the gift must have a present intent to make a gift of the property to the donee
Intent needs to be proven or it’s not a gift. They did not intend on giving a gift.
The cheerleader and other people around were reportedly also confused when the PS5 was confiscated. The child’s uncle was apparently informed he wouldn’t get to keep the gift, but not the child himself.
They unfortunately made the kid fully believe their whole intent was to give him the gift. That’s so sad for the kid. :(
I wonder how this would play out in court, though. The company can argue that it was the uncle’s responsibility to inform the kid as he was with him, but the kid’s parents can argue the uncle wasn’t his legal guardian and that he needed to be informed personally to play along.
Idk, this armchair is comfy though. lol
They couldn’t argue it was the Uncles responsibility to tell the child. The Uncle was told, and would also have been told to not tell the child. They set out to make the child believe they got the PlayStation because they wanted the reaction from the child.
Why would the act of going home change the legality? Or intent?
If i take a $20 bill and hand it to a stranger in front of witnesses and say, “Here you go, this is a gift.”
If in 5 mins, I snatch that bill back and walk away. That’s legal? Because he didn’t touch his house first, and I never had intent to give a gift?
It’s like a game of tag, once an item is exchanged you best start running home!
That’s why birthday parties are traditionally held at home
Source: I made it up
Intent matters but not if the intent was to deceive. If the act had all the elements that represent giving a gift, then legally it WAS giving a gift. Otherwise all gifts could be taken back at any time just by claiming that it was actually a joke.
Don’t be defensive. I didn’t downvote you, but when you pull false claims out of your ass that make no sense, that’s going to happen…
How is my claim false?
because you said they never intended on giving the kid the gift. It doesn’t matter what they intended. They literally did give the kid the gift. and it isn’t a joke in any sense of the word. They gave the kid a gift, turned off the cameras, and took it back and gave him something else. That’s just theft. It’s not a joke, there’s nobody that would see it as a joke, it’s not even possible to interpret it as a joke, as who would be the audience?
Gift law, what the original person was talking about, literally states that the donor must intend on giving the gift.
The donor of the gift must have a present intent to make a gift of the property to the donee.
If you come over to my house and say “hey, nice PS5” and I say “you want it? It’s yours!” and then before you leave I say “I was just joking, you can’t leave with my PS5.” You really think you can go to the police and have me charged with theft?
If you did it on fucking tv then yes, you absolutely can, you’ve made your intent clear to tens of thousands, if not millions of people. You don’t get to take the intent back when the cameras turn off. The timing here matters.
That’s mixing up actions with intent. Their actions made it seem like it was a gift, sure. Their intent was that it was a prank. They even told the uncle it was a prank from the start.
If I go to a store an stick a PS5 into my jacket I can’t be charged with theft. It looks like theft, but intent to steal needs to be shown. How do they know my intent isn’t to pay for it? It’s not theft until I leave the store without paying. Just like sticking a PS5 into my jacket isn’t instantly theft, handing someone a PS5 isn’t instantly a gift. Actions and intent are different things.
The article has been updated to say they’re actually giving the kid a PS5 because of the bad press so in the end they’re doing the right thing anyways.
I guess I’ll continue not watching basketball or football or whatever
“Did you see that ludicrous display last night?”
The thing about Arsenal is they always try to walk it in!
Yeah. Fuck this noise. I’m boycotting the Hornets. You won’t catch me at a Hornets Football match!
I bet the price of that console was going to break their bank.
I mean I would get it if they had an empty box out on the court for the show, and then having to take away the empty show box… But they gave the kid a jersey instead? Wtf?
I don’t understand how what you’re describing is better. If you make the kid think he’s just gotten a PS5 then to take it away is incredibly cruel. Giving him a jersey is just insult cherry on the shameful cake. Unless I am misunderstanding what you’re proposing?
Sorry yeah I’m missing a whole ass sentence there haha… As bork picked up, once off the court, take the empty box and replace with the full box.
Ahhh I think I get it now
Pretty sure they are saying use an empty box on the court (lighter, no risk of breaking), and then take away the empty box afterwards (implied to give them an actual, not-empty box afterwards).
Ooooh. I definitely didn’t get that implication and thought the same as the commenter above. Couldn’t figure out how that’d be understandable lol.
I think they meant like theyd still give em a ps5 it just wouldn’t have been in the box on camera.
