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.


Comment