Potential New Revenue Stream - Advertising on Jerseys

[Ducksforcup]

The problem here is that one little ad will lead to another little ad...

and well you get the point.

I am completley against this notion.

 

[Brodie]

the major difference between

and

is that the Euro teams are entirely reliant on that ad revenue to survive. If the Red Wings put a little GM patch on their jersey to get some extra cash, it would be on top of their existing profits... HC Davos doesn't have pre-exisiting profits.

 

[MayDay]

the major difference between

and

is that the Euro teams are entirely reliant on that ad revenue to survive. If the Red Wings put a little GM patch on their jersey to get some extra cash, it would be on top of their existing profits... HC Davos doesn't have pre-exisiting profits.

No, I think it's just a difference in sporting culture. Even the rich English soccer teams have big corporate logos plastered across the chest (much bigger than the team name or logo). And those teams certainly don't need the money, they have plenty of other revenue streams.

I don't know what's wrong in simply acknowledging that North America and Europe are different. Europeans find some things acceptable (such as corporate sponsor ads on jerseys) that North Americans tend to find tacky and undesirable. The converse is also true. North Americans don't mind frequent TV commercial breaks interspersed throughout the game in their sports, but many Europeans would find this undesirable.

 

[Mayor Bee]

NHL jerseys already have advertising on it, look at the Reebok logo and all that BS about Reebok Edge jerseys you hear everytime people talk about jerseys.

Quick: name the largest manufacturers' logo on an on-ice jersey in NHL history.

Give up? CCM in the mid-1980s had a hem patch that was about 5" wide and 2" tall.

 

[MayDay]

NHL jerseys already have advertising on it, look at the Reebok logo and all that BS about Reebok Edge jerseys you hear everytime people talk about jerseys.

You really don't see the difference between the manufacturer of the jersey putting their mark on the item that they actually made, and ad placed on the jersey by a completely unrelated corporate sponsor?

 

[Brodie]

No, I think it's just a difference in sporting culture. Even the rich English soccer teams have big corporate logos plastered across the chest (much bigger than the team name or logo). And those teams certainly don't need the money, they have plenty of other revenue streams.

I don't know what's wrong in simply acknowledging that North America and Europe are different. Europeans find some things acceptable (such as corporate sponsor ads on jerseys) that North Americans tend to find tacky and undesirable. The converse is also true. North Americans don't mind frequent TV commercial breaks interspersed throughout the game in their sports, but many Europeans would find this undesirable.

European soccer teams are not typically profit generating entities... many of the larger clubs carry massive amounts of debt, so major sponsorship deals are very much necessary. Plus, the ads have replaced dead space... traditionally, the fronts of soccer kits were just totally blank:

And notice that those soccer teams still aren't as bad as the commonly thrown about examples of what advertising would mean. Modo Hockey has something like 7 ads on their jerseys whereas Chelsea has one. The reason is money.... Modo needs it badly whereas Chelsea doesn't. That's why it would never go beyond a small ad patch in North America.

It's not that Europeans are just more accepting of ads on jerseys, because when the concept first crept into sports leagues over there the reaction was the same as the reaction here. It's that many clubs in many leagues in many sports throughout Europe needed the money and everyone kind of accepted it and moved on. The same thing would happen here.

 

[MayDay]

everyone kind of accepted it and moved on. The same thing would happen here.

Your position may be "meh, you'll get over it."

But I swear, I'm not going to buy any jersey or other gear with a corporate sponsor advertisement on it. I doubt I'm the only one who feels that way.

I'll still be a hockey fan and watch and go to games. But my spending on merchandise will certainly go down.

 

[dkehler]

Your position may be "meh, you'll get over it."

But I swear, I'm not going to buy any jersey or other gear with a corporate sponsor advertisement on it. I doubt I'm the only one who feels that way.

I'll still be a hockey fan and watch and go to games. But my spending on merchandise will certainly go down.

That reminds me, when I bought one of my Blue Bombers jerseys, they gave me the option to purchase the little Rona and CanadInns patches so my jersey would look authentic. Needless to say, I didn't. In fact, I think those companies should pay me to subsidize the purchase of the jersey and use it as advertising.

 

[Jussi]

European soccer teams are not typically profit generating entities... many of the larger clubs carry massive amounts of debt, so major sponsorship deals are very much necessary. Plus, the ads have replaced dead space... traditionally, the fronts of soccer kits were just totally blank:

And notice that those soccer teams still aren't as bad as the commonly thrown about examples of what advertising would mean. Modo Hockey has something like 7 ads on their jerseys whereas Chelsea has one. The reason is money.... Modo needs it badly whereas Chelsea doesn't. That's why it would never go beyond a small ad patch in North America.

It's not that Europeans are just more accepting of ads on jerseys, because when the concept first crept into sports leagues over there the reaction was the same as the reaction here. It's that many clubs in many leagues in many sports throughout Europe needed the money and everyone kind of accepted it and moved on. The same thing would happen here.

This.

It's just a matter of time. Owners are going to start looking for extra sources of revenue sooner or later, there's only so much money hockey can bring as it is.

 

[Skarjak]

A bunch of people here are saying it's inevitable. I would like to have your crystal ball. How can you say it's inevitable when none of the four major sports in North America allow advertising on jerseys? Quite the contrary, it would be completely unexpected for the NHL to do this.

Bear in mind, just saying "but it would bring in more money!" is not enough. There's lots of things you can do to bring more money, but not all of them are acceptable to your customers. There is no doubt you will see jersey sales go down if they start putting ads on them. Not only that, but I can guarantee that fans of original six or Canadian teams would be extremely mad if the league imposed an ad on all jerseys, and these are the most profitable markets.

I fail to see how this is inevitable.

 

[Brodie]

none of the 4 major leagues allow it now therefore none of them ever will. great logic

 

[MayDay]

none of the 4 major leagues allow it now therefore none of them ever will. great logic

They do it that way in Europe, and therefore we're bound to do it that way here as well. Also great logic.

 

[ebox99]

I think it's a matter of time before it happens. Some teams have advertising on practice jerseys already. The league may eventually permit it and some teams will do it while others may not.




NBA, NHL soften stance on jersey ads :

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2009-07-28-jersey-ads_N.htm


"NHL chief operating officer John Collins says the league might put ads on game jerseys for the right price."


"Beginning this season the NBA will let teams sell ads on their practice jerseys, says deputy commissioner Adam Silver, who adds the league is continuing to explore the issue of ads on game jerseys."

"The NFL's Tennessee Titans have had a small patch for a local hospital on their practice jerseys since relocating from Houston more than a decade ago, and the league put rules in place last spring to permit the activity league-wide. Five teams — the New York Jets, New York Giants, Indianapolis Colts, St. Louis Rams and Chicago Bears — have taken advantage, NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy says. "

 

[finchster]

If I am paying $300+ for an authentic jersey there better not be any large advertisements on it. There is no way I am paying that kind of money for the ‘privilege’ of being a walking billboard. If they start putting ad’s on the jerseys, they better start selling them at a much reduced rate, but they won’t.

 

[Brodie]

They do it that way in Europe, and therefore we're bound to do it that way here as well. Also great logic.

I think you mean they do it everywhere else in the world. In leagues with promotion and relegation, in leagues with franchises, on every continent and in pretty much every sport. Why? Because it's a logical step. Quick gallery:

Australia

South Korea

South Africa

Argentina

Tell me... are all of these countries and sports leagues simply copying Europe? Are have they all come to the same conclusion: Advertising on jerseys is a great way to make some money

 

[Franck]

I agree it looks tacky.

Funny how America's reputation is greed and capitalism, yet they have jersey sponsorship in European leagues but none in the highest level of the four major sports.

In baseball, the Mets actually had to re-design their inaugural season patch for Citi Field because MLB wouldn't approve the first design, as it was too much like a Citi Bank ad.

We have ads on the jerseys, you have mid-period commercial breaks, sponsored powerplays and replays and all that rubbish.

I know what I prefer.

 

[Cornwall OHL]

Quick: name the largest manufacturers' logo on an on-ice jersey in NHL history.

Give up? CCM in the mid-1980s had a hem patch that was about 5" wide and 2" tall.

Well I hope that I get asked that question in trivia.

You really don't see the difference between the manufacturer of the jersey putting their mark on the item that they actually made, and ad placed on the jersey by a completely unrelated corporate sponsor?

I see a difference between Reebok making the jersey and putting their name on it, and Tampax putting their logo on the front of the jersey right beside my beloved team's logo. I find it annoying the way they have taken some sweet looking jerseys, made them look like crap with pin stripes and then tell us they are better.

 

[TheFlyingV]

I have said before and I will say again that they day that this happens is the day I stop watching the NHL. Its unprofessional, tacky and ugly

 

[Roomtemperature]

http://freakonomicsradio.com/the-nfls-best-real-estate-isnt-for-sale-yet.html

sure its about the NFL but I think some of it applies to the other sports leagues.

 

[garnetpalmetto]

There's another factor to be considered here: jersey sales.

Merchandise sales are a big revenue stream for the NHL. Sure, they would make some money selling ad space on jerseys, but it wouldn't be worth it of their jersey sales to fans took a hit.

Speaking for myself, I've spent probably over $1000 on various authentic and replica NHL jerseys, but I wouldn't buy another one the moment they turned into corporate billboards. I buy and wear hockey jerseys because I want to support my team, not to support some bank or airline or telecom.

I wouldn't give up on hockey, I'd just stop buying the new ad-plastered merchandise. I'm simply not going to buy a hockey jersey with a corporate ad on it (not counting the unobtrusive manufacturer's mark, of course).

If the NHL is going to do something stupid like this out of pure greed, the appropriate way for fans to respond and voice their displeasure is to vote with their wallets, and ensure that such a move will backfire financially.

From my experience, at least in the ECHL, the replicas and authentics that are sold lack any of the advertising patches. The only time you'd get a jersey with an advertising patch is if you got a game-worn jersey. Look below - my white Columbia Inferno jersey is a game-worn whereas the black one is a replica available at their souvenir stand:

Pardon the atrocious photo quality, of course, but you can see that only the game-worn has the Holiday Inn patch which probably could be removed - I've never had the mind to remove it, but I'm sure a seamstress could remove it.

Well I hope that I get asked that question in trivia.



I see a difference between Reebok making the jersey and putting their name on it, and Tampax putting their logo on the front of the jersey right beside my beloved team's logo. I find it annoying the way they have taken some sweet looking jerseys, made them look like crap with pin stripes and then tell us they are better.

Well, from a technical/performance aspect, they are better, at least from what I've heard from friends who actively play. If you dislike the look of the jerseys, blame the individual teams, as they're the ones who designed the aesthetics of the individual jerseys, not Reebok.

 

[Skarjak]

I think you mean they do it everywhere else in the world.

So? You could just as well twist this around and claim that clearly, the North American market is fundamentally different from the others. It is, after all, the only market in the world that doesn't put advertising on jerseys! Clearly, there must be something special in the air that makes people here not want ads to be put on jerseys. It is therefore, completely impossible for this to ever happen. Bam, there you go, it's been proven folks, this discussion can now be put to rest.

...

It's just completely wrong to argue that it's inevitable, as some have in this thread. Ads are not this irresistible force of nature that invades everything. Just because they exist somewhere doesn't mean they have to exist everywhere. The league has survived for a long time without ads on jerseys and there is no reason to think that the situation will change.

 

[yotesreign]

I'm surprised no one has suggested the reason the crowds have dwindled in Phoenix isn't the ownership or the lack of fans but all the ads on the boards and ice and on the seats in the front rows?

I watch my team, and I liked their Kachina-look jerseys better than the new ones, but I still watch them and go to their games and they could wear unis that look like Kevin Harvick's or Denny Hamlin's for all I care I'm still going to watch them, and if anyone seriously is going to become less of an NHL hockey fan if the jerseys become plastered with ads... that seems pretty fickle. Way more fickle than the people from Mesa who whine that 'the drive to Glendale is too far to go on weeknights'.

I guess I'm skeptical that a real hockey fan would give up the sport over advertising.

Complain, sure, voice a desire to see no proliferation of ads on the unis, fine; but 'oh, if they put ads on the unis, that's it I'm done' sounds pretty flighty and not anything like someone who's a real fan, sounds more like a precious teenage girl who'd drop a singer as her absolute favorite singer because he sprouted a soul patch.

"Like, ok, be that way, whatevah..."

 

[sepHF]

I still don't see a problem with this

That's how it begins, then in 10 years it will look this this :

I would NEVER buy a jersey again. You would have to think that they would lose a decent amount of money from jersey sales should they implement ads, but i'm sure they'd still make profits -- it would just be lower.

 

[Brodie]

because SEL teams are really raking in the same kind of coin an NHL team is. Those Euro hockey teams need ads to survive, here it would just be an excuse to bring in $10 million in extra revenue. Think EPL and not European hockey

Ads are not this irresistible force of nature that invades everything.

Yes they are. In the past two years alone we've seen ads on the glass become a league wide norm and now ads on the seats in Montreal and Phoenix. Almost every minor league in North America is doing this already, including the CFL and the WNBA. It is only a matter of time.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

I doubt it because the AHL and old IHL had sponsor patches dating waaaaaaayyyyyyy back. ECHL as well. If any league could use money it would be those and their jerseys never ended up looking like the European ones.

Also, as pointed out, the replica/authentic ones don't usually have the sponsor patch on them but the game worn ones do but I am not sure why anyone would pay $300 for an authentic when you can get a game-worn jersey for the same price.

I think the ads on the boards and the ice are a disaster. Just wait until they do like in Europe and each of the big face-off circles are a logo of a company. Then you will be begging for ads on jerseys instead.

Also, where is all the uproar over the Reebok, CCM, etc. manufacturing logos on the uniforms and equipment. I know when I buy a Brooks Brothers shirt I do not have a 2"x3" patch on the back. The manufacturer name is basically a sponsor patch. So if Reebok put a 6"x6" patch on the jersey that would be OK but not a 1"x3" Cintas patch because they manufacture the jerseys? Notice how they don't have a big logo on the socks.....yet.