Recently, while fan bases are as strong as ever, ad sales for the sporting industry have gone down as much at 15 percent.  With the state of the economy, ad revenue from the financial sector and domestic auto has slowed, but sectors like these have been offset by other long-term investments for the time being.
    The NFL in particular is feeling the slump.  Ads for normal Sunday games are selling for less than normal, and there are still a number of slots left open for commercials during the Super Bowl.  Many previous, big Super Bowl advertisers have pulled out from putting a commercial in this year.  Moreover, the argument here is that the sports industry is feeling the pressure of the hurting economy, and losing revenue because of it.
    With the economy and advertisements down, the NFL needs higher ratings during the upcoming Super Bowl more than ever to see an increase in revenue.  Therefore, this bolsters my argument because the NFL needs to protect against big Super Bowl viewing parties that infringe upon copyright, and therefore affect ratings.  The NFL’s greatest source of revenue comes from advertisements, and unless the NFL makes licensing agreements with large Super Bowl viewing parties, they are losing revenue when establishments hold such parties.  Moreover, while churches and other establishments may argue that the NFL has enough money and should not complain about small cuts, the NFL is still a business that looks to maxmize their profits, and they should not be looked down upon for trying to do so.

Valenti, Jack. "Ratings History: How it All Began". Motion Picture Association of America Online. <http://www.mpaa.org/Ratings_HowItAllBegan.asp>.

This article, written by former president of the MPAA Jack Valenti, details how the MPAA film rating system was conceived. He describes the turbulent national scene in 1966 – women’s rights, civil rights, youth protests, and “crumbling of social traditions.” Since he realized that a “new kind of American movie” was being made by filmmakers with a much more open course of dialogue between the filmmaker and the viewer, filmmakers felt they were subject to fewer restraints and restrictions, simply exercising the will of the people. The Hays Code had been continually challenged through loopholes over the years and the emerging counter-culture seemed determined to throw it out altogether. He describes one instance where MGM tried to market the first major studio picture with nudity, which was denied by the PCA of California. The Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that states could constitutionally prevent children from seeing films but not adults. Filmmakers were becoming more brazen and thus, bad language and controversial images were becoming more common. Ultimately, the rating system had to be created in 1968 to take the place of the now-defunct Hays Code.

This is relevant to Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song because of the way it was marketed, rated, and ultimately distributed. The film received an X rating “by an all-whyte jury” (according to the film’s opening credits), which went along with the pornographic pretence director Melvin Van Peebles created during production in order to avoid trouble on the set of his controversial film. The rating system was still in its infancy in 1971 when the film was released and thus, many changes in the system were still being implemented. In 1970, the minimum age of admission to R-rated movies was raised from 15 to 16 while X-rated films remained at 17. The audience limitations set by this new system made it even harder for Van Peebles to get exhibitors to play his racy, independent film at first. Of course, the rampant success of the film changed all that, but the historical cinematic context in which Sweetback was released made its initial opening and distribution much tougher. Now, filmmaker's consider it a curse if their film receives the NC-17 rating (replacement for X), since very few papers advertise NC-17-rated films. Sweetback was the shining example of this and this article helps show the impact of the initial X-rating.  The film’s rating has since been changed to R.

This is an interesting article from the New York Times that discusses a new measure of television and radio ratings. In 2005, Arbitron began giving their volunteers what are called "portable people meters". This device transmits data back to Arbitron what and how much programming people were exposed to in a day. This is called a "passive measurement" that circumvents human error in remembering everything they have watched or listened to.

As the writer, Jon Gertner points out, changing the way you count the ratings can drastically change their composition. Advertising dollars will go in different directions and some shows may be canceled or renewed based on a new count. Changing the count will reallocate millions of dollars and potentially change the business model of radio and/or television in order to adapt. Gertner even goes so far to suggest that changing the way we count changes cultural consumption, cultural business, and perhaps even our culture itself.

Gertner may be right, but he does not declare a side, and for that matter, I do not want to either. Changing the way we count ratings may give us a more accurate ratings system and give the NFL an accurate return on the broadcast of the Super Bowl or any other game. When you undertake an intervention though, you sometimes cause more problems than you solve. Even though I would prefer a more accurate ratings system, is it practical and can our culture absorb such a change? Some things are better left untouched, even if it is wrong. A sudden change in counting I believe would be a bad idea, but a slow gradual one might be a reasonable solution.