Patronizing Peyton Manning
At first, I thought the Peyton Manning commercials for Mastercard were funny, but the more I see them the more Manning comes across as a patronizing put-down artist, making fun of -- not championing -- the working stiffs of America who earn a tiny fraction of what he makes for throwing footballs and acting as pitchman for a credit card company. The waitress who drops a tray of food, the stock boy in a supermarket, the deli man slicing meat, moving men and fast-food workers -- all these modest wage-earners are the recipients of Manning's phony high-fives and obssessive antics. This isn't exactly fanfare for the common man; you can't forget that the wholesome Indianapolis quarterback, the one cheering on the below-minimum-wage waitress in the Mastercard commercials, makes millions of dollars a year from the Colts. He's reportedly the highest-paid player in NFL history, getting $99 million for seven years with a $34.5 million signing bonus, and an extra $19 million in incentives. According to Sports Illustrated, Manning gets another $11 million a year from endorsements. He'll never have to worry about waiting tables or moving furniture.
And never mind the whole issue of credit card debt -- whether Manning should be encouraging use of plastic for the same socieconomic class he "celebrates" in these commercials. Since 1989 credit card debt has tripled in the U.S. to more than $700 billion, and studies show that middle- and low-income households carry an average of $9,000. Among the 20-somethings, who are Manning's biggest admirers, debt (college loans and credit cards) is a particularly acute problem. "The [credit card] industry discovered that the most profitable consumers were the least responsible consumers—college students, people who'd declared bankruptcy, housewives [and] people who were consuming beyond their means," Newsweek quoted James Scurlock, the 30-something director of "Maxed Out," a documentary on consumer debt. "People who would pay anything for credit—any fee or any interest rate because they needed more credit. Before, credit was rationed based on whether you could pay it back, based on your reputation, based on your character to some degree. It's just not that way anymore, and that's a huge change."
Do you think Peyton Manning has a clue about this?
And I wonder how many of the workers depicted in these commercials have health insurance benefits from their employers. According to Investor's Business Daily, the cost of uncompensated care in the U.S. reached $28.8 billion in 2005. That was up from $26.9 billion the prior year. The estimate on uninsured Americans ranges from 46 million to 48 million these days.
So, pardon me for no longer laughing at Peyton Manning's Everyman-Everyfan commercials. The "joke" has worn thin now, but I wonder if Manning has the slightest clue that some of his fans, including this one, might see it that way.
Comments
You hit on an excellent point here. It would be nice if our public school system would include some basic economics classes as part of the "core curriculum" at the high school level. It's not a "standard" offering in the same idea as reading, writing, and 'rithmetic. I know it wouldn't be a fix-all, but if it helps a decent percentage of the population understand finances a little better, we'd certainly be better off overall.
I once had a financial "advisor" vehemently question why I was trying to pay off my mortgage early instead of putting that "extra" money in the market. As if paying off the mortgage wouldn't avoid up to $200,000 in interest alone over the next so-many years, the equity in my (insured) home was negligible, and the long-term savings potential once a house payment is out of the equation was not that important. Maybe I won't get rich off the next Google IPO, but I'm building a safe, comfortable financial nest-egg for my family.
Interest paid is bad. Interest earned is good. Maybe we could add those lines as an amendment to the Pledge of Allegiance?
Posted by: Eric | December 11, 2006 11:54 AM
Eric,
For many people, continuing to pay the mortgage and investing is the smart move. If you have a mortgage at, say, 6% but could earn 8%-10% (historically valid numbers) in the market, it makes sense to make a marginal 2%-4% in the market. Based on your statements above, though, it seems like your risk tolerance would be much lower and thus for you paying the mortgage earlier is the best thing. Mathematically, your advisor was absolutely right to question your assumptions. But it also likely means that he wasn't listening to your investing goals, risk tolerances and time horizons. Time for a new advisor who is willing to consider your needs.
Also, credit cards themselves are not evil. I buy everything on credit, pay no interest and no late fees. Why? Because I treat my credit card like a debit card and only purchase within my means. If my credit card company is willing to give me free perks like airline miles, I'm more than happy to take them up on their offer. I do agree that, as a whole, consumers much more education regarding credit, though.
Posted by: Mitch | December 11, 2006 5:03 PM
This may be the first and last time I defend Peyton Manning. But in no point in your whiny socialist rant do you mention the contributions Peyton Manning makes to the poor via the progressive tax rate. In his latest contract, he earned about $35 million guaranteed, out of which he probably received about half. The other half that he (not the government) earned was redistributed to pay for medical care for those who don't pay for themselves (i.e. the drug dealers and users you emphatize with), to pay for educating others, etc.
Again, I welcome socialists like yourself to move to Cuba, and capitalists who want to work hard to take your place and make valuable contributions to a great society.
Posted by: Shane | December 12, 2006 9:07 AM
Enough already with Peyton Manning. Find me a commercial during a game that he's NOT in.
Posted by: TimD | December 12, 2006 9:33 AM