Watch the Apple Music Halftime Show With Kendrick Lamar — Full Video

[2761216]

We all know they mean Rock, Country, maaaaybe Alternative Rock and that is it.

We who? Cuz country sucks and everyone here agrees.

 

[diamond.g]

We who? Cuz country sucks and everyone here agrees.

The demographic that doesn't think Rap/Hip-Hop/R&B is music probably finds Country is. Thus making it an acceptable alternative.

 

[2761216]

The demographic that doesn't think Rap/Hip-Hop/R&B is music probably finds Country is. Thus making it an acceptable alternative.

So you agree ppl have different taste in music and it’s totally “acceptable”.
Appreciate that.

Be nice if everyone that’s bashing Kendrick Lamar’s music for some inexplicable reason is as respectable as you are.

 

[diamond.g]

So you agree ppl have different taste in music and it’s totally “acceptable”.
Appreciate that.

Be nice if everyone that’s bashing Kendrick Lamar’s music for some inexplicable reason is as respectable as you are.

Oh don't get it twisted, I loved Kdots performance. it was a master class in Petty wrt Drake. And all the other hidden gems I missed on first viewing.

I just also understand that there is a large number of people that watch the SB that do (would?) not get it, or don't like it (for whatever reason).

 

[iBreatheApple]

There are a ton of black folks hating on it too, so this is just another false narrative. I personally don’t think it was awful, but I’m a fan so inherently biased. - a white dude

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

There are a ton of black folks hating on it too, so this is just another false narrative. I personally don’t think it was awful, but I’m a fan so inherently biased. - a white dude

It's fine not to like it.

Claiming nobody has ever heard of Kendrick Lamar is peculiar.


EDIT:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1889352829476733097

 

[iBreatheApple]

It's fine not to like it.

Claiming nobody has ever heard of Kendrick Lamar is peculiar.


EDIT:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1889352829476733097

Did you mean to quote me? I’m confused.

 

[Silverstring]

Interesting discussions we have here.

What's most "interesting" are those voluntarily telling on themselves by dumping a react on everything without a single substantive argument and/or cogent point made—even when directly asked to expand on their thoughts/provide one.

Of course, we can tell that's because their stance doesn't come from a constructive, substantive, or cogent place—that's why they wont—can't—say, otherwise they would.

Without a leg to stand on, they troll instead. Lets hope they keep up the self-snitching.

Thank you, you are making my point for all those that say how it was to draw in a new audience to the Super Bowl. Nope.

"Nope" based on what? You work for Nielsen?

those that might have tuned in because of the music likely tuned out the rest (I know that wasnt your point, just... thank you ), the rest found it on YouTube. A marketing fail if it was to draw in new viewers for the whole game (for the NFL, not for Kendrick, pure win for him, and okay maybe negative publicity is better than none..)

Lot of assertions here based on absolutely nothing. Just because you claim your point proven, doesn't mean it is.

Good or bad, Football is my escape from the anger in this country and I just didn't appreciate it being shoved down my throat at a time I was watching my team fail miserably (smiles). Arguably, the exposure might do us some good. Sort of the theory I had that if someone yells at me, just yell back louder and they will stop. Never worked, but I kept on trying until I got wiser.

Consider that a lot of people don't have the luxury to "escape" and decide to ignore that anger when they feel like it. That societal yelling and reality gets "shoved down their throat" everywhere they turn. It was a mere 12 minutes of songs popping that bubble, and I'm sure it was really, really, really hard for those who don't want their luxury safe space time interrupted—but those with that mindset will be fine.

But I think the SuperBowl is a read your audience moment, and I am just not convinced people that watch football wanted this for entertainment. Demographics wise, 73% of the most diehard fans are the age group that is being criticized here, over 50 males. Wouldn't it make sense to have a show with more appeal to that demographic? Shrugs. Again, I get it, culture, important message, but it was a football game, not a protest.

The very point of a protest is to create a disruption of sorts so that people are forced to take notice of whatever is being protested and have their bubbles popped.

If protests were compartmentalized, labeled, and scheduled—then people who share your viewpoint of "don't shove this differing perspective down my throat" would simply know to ignore the protest...thereby cutting off the very people it's meant to reach. Protests aren't parties for everyone who agrees to get together and preach to the choir, they're specifically designed to go beyond that to other audiences.

And as I said, I don't think it drew in a new audience (for the game). Maybe whoever advertised during the half time appreciated the gesture.

Funny, for all those assumptions and assertions you made above about marketing failures and audiences behavior, let me share with you some actual stats:

• Sunday night's Super Bowl LIX averaged a record 127.7 million U.S. viewers
• According to Nielsen, the audience peaked at 137.7 million in the second quarter (8-8:15 p.m. ET).
• Kendrick Lamar's Super Bowl halftime performance averaged 133.5 million -- the most-watched Super Bowl halftime on record and a 3% increase from Usher's last year (129.3 million).

Source: ESPN.com

I am not debating the man's talents, cred, or genius,

Genuinely appreciate the clarification. At least you fleshed out your position.

just debating the read your crowd moment that led to thinking that was the choice for that venue.

With the data now in, we can see it was a wise choice—it literally brought in record numbers. Anyone who claims that as anything other than a rousing success—much less a "marketing fail"—is simply in denial of reality.

 

[G5isAlive]

• According to Nielsen, the audience peaked at 137.7 million in the second quarter (8-8:15 p.m. ET).
• Kendrick Lamar's Super Bowl halftime performance averaged 133.5 million -- the most-watched Super Bowl halftime on record and a 3% increase from Usher's last year (129.3 million).

With the data now in, we can see it was a wise choice—it literally brought in record numbers. Anyone who claims that as anything other than a rousing success—much less a "marketing fail"—is simply in denial of reality.

Um. No. Yes more people watched the Super Bowl than before, but you seem to be asserting that Kendrick brought those people in, which I was suggesting might not be true. Then you give us numbers that show the number of viewers went DOWN in the half time from the second quarter. If people were tuning in to see Kendrick, the numbers would have gone UP. Math counts.

 

[Silverstring]

Um. No. Yes more people watched the Super Bowl than before, but you seem to be asserting that Kendrick brought those people in,

He brought more people in to see the halftime show and get eyes on the Super Bowl broadcast, which is the point.

The NFL and their partners make money based who tunes into the game, and on that metric, they succeeded. They don't give a flying hoot if those people are actually paying attention to the game, they are aiming for a demo, and current superstar musical acts do that the way fuddy daddy geriatric acts do not.

which I was suggesting might not be true.

You weren't merely suggesting it, you questioned the wisdom of the decision to choose him as the musical act at all. I'm sure, the NFL, Fox, Tubi, and Apple Music were all extremely happy with, again, record numbers. The only people complaining are the "it wasn't for me, wahhhhh" sour-grapers.

Then you give us numbers that show the number of viewers went DOWN in the half time from the second quarter. If people were tuning in to see Kendrick, the numbers would have gone UP. Math counts.

Nice try, but your whole post was centered around how the halftime show should cater to the people who are already watching the game, like 50yr olds...which would literally be the worst of all worlds—no new eyes, especially in the coveted 18-34 demo, and viewership going down anyway.

Math does count, but what you completely ignore is A. the viewers ALWAYS go down for halftime—regardless of the performer—for plainly evident reasons; B. you act like the audience is zero-sum, as if it's impossible for new viewers who weren't watching the first half to come in for Kendrick and stay (even though, as stated above it doesn't matter to the NFL or networks if they do) while the audience still reduces as the game goes on; C. Ignoring every other possible variable that impacted why the *overall* audience went down after halftime, for example, that the game was a blowout. You are conflating correlative evidence and thinking that it proves your point, when it doesn't do that whatsoever.

Even all that detail aside, the Kendrick halftime was literally the most watched ever, and you suggested it was a "marketing failure", which is laughable on its face.

So, when you asked,

Wouldn't it make sense to have a show with more appeal to that demographic?

The answer is a resounding no, and the numbers prove that out.

Preaching to the choir of the already watching, preexisting old-ass audience during halftime doesn't help the league expand reach, doesn't increase the coveted demo for networks and advertisers, and doesn't make anyone any additional money. The halftime show doesn't exist to cater to you and other fans in your demo, but your whole argument is centered around the premise that if it were—that would be better and somehow more successful. Maybe for you personally it'd be "better" from a self-centered perspective, but there's no way that it'd be more successful by any metric that matters.

 

[thefrost]

What's most "interesting" are those voluntarily telling on themselves by dumping a react on everything without a single substantive argument and/or cogent point made—even when directly asked to expand on their thoughts/provide one.

Of course, we can tell that's because their stance doesn't come from a constructive, substantive, or cogent place—that's why they wont—can't—say, otherwise they would.

Without a leg to stand on, they troll instead. Lets hope they keep up the self-snitching.

This thread got me laughing.

 

[G5isAlive]

He brought more people in to see the halftime show and get eyes on the Super Bowl broadcast, which is the point.

The NFL and their partners make money based who tunes into the game, and on that metric, they succeeded. They don't give a flying hoot if those people are actually paying attention to the game, they are aiming for a demo, and current superstar musical acts do that the way fuddy daddy geriatric acts do not.

You weren't merely suggesting it, you questioned the wisdom of the decision to choose him as the musical act at all. I'm sure, the NFL, Fox, Tubi, and Apple Music were all extremely happy with, again, record numbers. The only people complaining are the "it wasn't for me, wahhhhh" sour-grapers.

Nice try, but your whole post was centered around how the halftime show should cater to the people who are already watching the game, like 50yr olds...which would literally be the worst of all worlds—no new eyes, especially in the coveted 18-34 demo, and viewership going down anyway.

Math does count, but what you completely ignore is A. the viewers ALWAYS go down for halftime—regardless of the performer—for plainly evident reasons; B. you act like the audience is zero-sum, as if it's impossible for new viewers who weren't watching the first half to come in for Kendrick and stay (even though, as stated above it doesn't matter to the NFL or networks if they do) while the audience still reduces as the game goes on; C. Ignoring every other possible variable that impacted why the *overall* audience went down after halftime, for example, that the game was a blowout. You are conflating correlative evidence and thinking that it proves your point, when it doesn't do that whatsoever.

Even all that detail aside, the Kendrick halftime was literally the most watched ever, and you suggested it was a "marketing failure", which is laughable on its face.

So, when you asked,

The answer is a resounding no, and the numbers prove that out.

Preaching to the choir of the already watching, preexisting old-ass audience during halftime doesn't help the league expand reach, doesn't increase the coveted demo for networks and advertisers, and doesn't make anyone any additional money. The halftime show doesn't exist to cater to you and other fans in your demo, but your whole argument is centered around the premise that if it were—that would be better and somehow more successful. Maybe for you personally it'd be "better" from a self-centered perspective, but there's no way that it'd be more successful by any metric that matters.

Dude. Chill. Agree to disagree. I’m not putting down your hero. I’m talking math and you don’t get it. Cool. Over shouting me doesn’t mean you’re right.

People stopped watching when the show started. Your numbers showed it. YouTube is attracting the crowd you are talking about.

In the end, glad you enjoyed it.

 

[UltimaKilo]

It's interesting that you assume that everyone you know is part of a large majority.

Not at all. There’s plenty of polling out there.

 

[UltimaKilo]

Is there some kind of empirical evidence you have to prove you are in the majority?

And does it matter…? This is quite a juvenile and boring argument.

Yes, I would look at the aggregate of polls (not just these unscientific polls, although with fairly large sample sizes). https://thespun.com/nfl/poll-gives-official-grade-to-kendrick-lamars-halftime-show

Couple that with the tepid (at best) reaction from the crowd at the game, and you can paint a fairly clear picture.

Plenty of other polls if you [Google/News/Superbowl Halftime Show Poll]

 

[Silverstring]

Dude. Chill.

I’m chill. I forget…was that me who got bent out of shape to that my “escape” was interrupted for 12 grueling minutes, again?

I don’t need to get agitated to make a point, but reality is easy to ignore when making unfounded assumptions.

Agree to disagree.

I’m talking viewership statistics, this isn’t a matter of opinion just because the numbers don’t support your position.

I’m not putting down your hero.

Not my hero, and my—or your—opinion of his music is immaterial to the point of what the halftime show accomplished from a quantitative audience and viewership perspective.

I’m talking math and you don’t get it.

Pointing out “this number is smaller than this number” isn’t “talking math”.

I assure you I do get math beyond mere subtraction. More importantly, I understand statistics, which is necessary knowledge to make sound conclusions from these numbers.

I’ll give you an example of a fatally flawed conclusion from the basis of statistics (emphasis mine):

number of viewers went DOWN in the half time from the second quarter. If people were tuning in to see Kendrick, the numbers would have gone UP. Math counts.

No, the overall number would only go up if one falsely assumes that not only the new viewers came in, but everyone who was previously watching before halftime didn’t move and stayed watching, so that any new viewers could only be added to the pre-halftime baseline.

Your conclusion is based on the premise that the reduction is attributable to the halftime show in a vacuum, and that no viewers stop watching to take a bathroom or smoke break, to go pick up a pizza or run to the store, or do any of the other millions of things that would cause a break in viewership that say absolutely nothing about halftime bringing in new viewers or driving them away.

In statistics, context counts.

People stopped watching when the show started.

Correlation, not causation is a simple concept. Not as simple as subtraction, granted, but a cursory knowledge of statistics would tell anyone not to make any conclusion from this number divorced from any context, as you have.

Your numbers showed it.

They showed the number went down, but that’s it.

What they don’t indicate in any way whatsoever are your assertions throughout your entire post that I responded to that the halftime performance was a poor choice, that another choice catering to the existing audience would be better, that no new audiences/demographics were attracted, and that the entire endeavor was a “marketing failure”.

Easy to walk back/forget all of your own confidently-stated speculation and set the bar as low as possible to ”one number smaller than another number when looked at in a vacuum and divorced from all historical context”, congrats.

YouTube is attracting the crowd you are talking about.

Wrong, none of the record numbers cited take into account YouTube whatsoever, so you’ll have to fill me and the rest of us in on how you concluded this, and how it has anything to do with the audience brought in to a live Super Bowl broadcast.

Were you looking at another number in complete isolation and trying to make a broad conclusion from it? Did you make another huge, unbelievable series of unfounded assumptions, for example “everyone who watched/watches on YouTube is a Kendrick fan but somehow didn’t care to see it live, that the YT people couldn’t possibly be NFL fans and completely ignored the game, and that people watching on YouTube aren’t people who *also* saw the game?”

Show your “proof”.

In the end, glad you enjoyed it.

Awesome, me too!

 

[Silverstring]

This thread got me laughing.

Some like to have substantive discussions on discussion boards, others only communicate in single sentences and emojis, and still others fall somewhere in between. Different strokes, there wouldn’t be much to talk about if we were all the same.

We know you think the thread is interesting and funny, but do you have any thoughts beyond that on the topic? From an artistic/cultural/business/ratings/anything perspective?

Why do you find the thread interesting? Why does it make you laugh? Feel free to go beyond one line!

 

[thefrost]

Some like to have substantive discussions on discussion boards, others only communicate in single sentences and emojis, and still others fall somewhere in between. Different strokes, there wouldn’t be much to talk about if we were all the same.

We know you think the thread is interesting and funny, but do you have any thoughts beyond that on the topic? From an artistic/cultural/business/ratings/anything perspective?

Why do you find the thread interesting? Why does it make you laugh? Feel free to go beyond one line!

Well. It is a forum after all and I don't need to share. Thanks for reaffirming.

 

[G5isAlive]

I’m chill. I forget…was that me who got bent out of shape to that my “escape” was interrupted for 12 grueling minutes, again?

I don’t need to get agitated to make a point, but reality is easy to ignore when making unfounded assumptions.

You are the only one who is using abusive language and putting other ones down. So chill. I can have another perspective and not be 'denying reality'. I don't have too insult your intelligence they way you do with folks that have a different opinion. If you resort to that, you dont have a strong argument in my opinion.

And same for hyperbole. Did I ever say 12 grueling minutes? Nope. I haven't given my personal thoughts on the show at all except to say I didn't tune in for politics when I turned on a football game.

But if you want to know, I think he diluted his protest message by bringing in his personal beef with Drake.

And it's a shame but the overall quality of the broadcast was poor, mostly sounded like mumbling on my system. and before you put my system down, it's not cheap tv speakers I listen through.

So yeah. I continue to think NFL missed the audience that has been loyal (and hence supporting revenue all year) and you offer zero in reply, despite being assertive and offensive. shrugs.

Chill.

I’m talking viewership statistics, this isn’t a matter of opinion just because the numbers don’t support your position.

yeah. statistics mean nothing outside of context. Yep viewership went up, higher than ever before. Who was it who said, "Correlation, not causation is a simple concept." Oh yeah, you.

Would the absolute viewership go up over previous years regardless? or did it go down actually from what it could have been? we dont know. you don't know. all we know is the number went down during the half time show. that is a simple fact.

Not my hero, and my—or your—opinion of his music is immaterial to the point of what the halftime show accomplished from a quantitative audience and viewership perspective.

and yet you seem to be reacting emotionally. why?

Pointing out “this number is smaller than this number” isn’t “talking math”.

I assure you I do get math beyond mere subtraction. More importantly, I understand statistics, which is necessary knowledge to make sound conclusions from these numbers.

I’ll give you an example of a fatally flawed conclusion from the basis of statistics (emphasis mine):

Uh huh, so you keep saying, yet you keep missing the point. And I don't think you really presented an example of a fatal flaw since it doesnt really address my point. But cool.

No, the overall number would only go up if one falsely assumes that not only the new viewers came in, but everyone who was previously watching before halftime didn’t move and stayed watching, so that any new viewers could only be added to the pre-halftime baseline.

Yeah, and where did those new viewers go after the half time?

My point of discussion is, and remains, the NFL misread the audience with that show. Maybe some signed on just for it, but they didn't stay, and they weren't watching beforehand. The numbers support that. NFL is about advertising dollars. Economics 101, maximize potential, NFL wanted people there for the whole game. Not just 12 minutes.

Correlation, not causation is a simple concept. Not as simple as subtraction, granted, but a cursory knowledge of statistics would tell anyone not to make any conclusion from this number divorced from any context, as you have.

Does it make you feel better to say that? Cause its ironic you talk about people divorced from context when you continuously misrepresent my postion.

They showed the number went down, but that’s it.

What they don’t indicate in any way whatsoever are your assertions throughout your entire post that I responded to that the halftime performance was a poor choice, that another choice catering to the existing audience would be better, that no new audiences/demographics were attracted, and that the entire endeavor was a “marketing failure”.

Easy to walk back/forget all of your own confidently-stated speculation and set the bar as low as possible to ”one number smaller than another number when looked at in a vacuum and divorced from all historical context”, congrats.

Yep. It was a marketing failure. They did not attract new people to the NFL long term. you want to argue short term, go right ahead. I am taking a long term view. Even short term, not in the numbers you indicate, and they did disenfranchise some of the loyal viewers. It's not just my opinion, but others. You on the other hand just cite numbers and claim they support your position and its statistics but you give zero analysis. Maybe my analysis is wrong but at least I present it and explain it.

But heck the NFL even apologized for it . Yet here you are saying not true!

NFL 'apologizes' over half time show snub amid Kendrick criticism

Kendrick, who included his famous 'Not Like Us' diss track about bitter rival Drake, was slammed for putting on 'the worst halftime show ever' as fans made their displeasure known.

www.dailymail.co.uk

https://thespun.com/nfl/poll-gives-official-grade-to-kendrick-lamars-halftime-show

Wrong, none of the record numbers cited take into account YouTube whatsoever, so you’ll have to fill me and the rest of us in on how you concluded this, and how it has anything to do with the audience brought in to a live Super Bowl broadcast.

Were you looking at another number in complete isolation and trying to make a broad conclusion from it? Did you make another huge, unbelievable series of unfounded assumptions, for example “everyone who watched/watches on YouTube is a Kendrick fan but somehow didn’t care to see it live, that the YT people couldn’t possibly be NFL fans and completely ignored the game, and that people watching on YouTube aren’t people who *also* saw the game?”

Show your “proof”.

Um, have you read this thread? Others have justified how popular Kendrick is by the number of hits on YouTube his show got (50M and counting). the one thing you and I might agree on is popularity isn't even the point, but its not me making this point but others here. Are you targeting them? Because you accuse me of making assumptions I did not

*****

To be clear, I could be wrong. It's a simple statement I have made, you haven't really shown anything to counter it, but in the end who cares? Only the advertisers and they will have their chance to talk with their dollars.

I am not presenting a political view. There is nothing anyone needs to defend here. There are a lot of trolls here in this thread on both sides of the discussion. I do not support those trolling against, but I also do not support that anyone that wasn't thrilled with the show is an old out of touch idiot, or worse.

And if you think I am old, you're right. If you think you know my politics from this, you are likely wrong.

It does appear to be a marketing failure. It does not appear to appeal to the typical NFL demographic that supports the advertising dollars. That's just my observation. If that offends some, apologies.