Potential New Revenue Stream - Advertising on Jerseys

[Brent Burns Beard]

Union folk are usually quite easy to pick out of the crowd.

i own my business ... how about you?

 

[Skarjak]

That thing about "moral obligations" is complete bollocks. The NHL is there to defend the interests of the owners. End of the line. If the players are unhappy with their pay, they are welcome to go elsewhere. That's the way every business works.

Just because player salaries are tied to league earnings does not make it a moral obligation for the league to make a lame attempt at gouging customers to maximize the salaries. The league was not founded to maximize player salaries. That's the NHLPA's job.

Since you supposedly own a business, I assume that you follow the same logic and you do everything in your power to raise the salaries of your employees, going so far as to raise prices of your services to do so?

 

[AllByDesign]

i own my business ... how about you?

Nope.

 

[MayDay]

The jerseys, IMO, already have a sponsor patch - Reebok.

Reebok isn't a sponsor. They are the manufacturer of the freaking jersey. They made it, so they have the right to put their mark on it.

I can't believe some people don't understand the difference between a manufacturer's mark on the one hand, and a completely unrelated company buying advertising space on the jersey, on the other hand.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

Reebok isn't a sponsor. They are the manufacturer of the freaking jersey. They made it, so they have the right to put their mark on it.

I can't believe some people don't understand the difference between a manufacturer's mark on the one hand, and a completely unrelated company buying advertising space on the jersey, on the other hand.

Is the mark marketing?

Do you have manufacturer marks that big on the clothes that you wear? None of my work shirts have manufacturer marks on them on the outside for everyone to see. Neither do my suits, not do my ties. Nor my shoes.

It is marketing/advertising any way you look at it. The same way North Face is on their jackets. Or DKNY on t shirts, or Lee on the jeans. Advertising, pure and simple.

So if Reebok put the patch on the front of the jersey, that would be OK since they make the jersey? What if the patch was 3 times its current size, that would be OK? What if Pepsi made the jersey and put their logo on the front and.

 

[tarheelhockey]

http://adage.com/article?article_id=148809

Chicago Blackhawks - $1,372,007
New York Rangers - $708,267
Pittsburgh Penguins - $676,938?

Assuming the values go down proportionately, with teams like the Islanders and Coyotes pulling in the low six-figures, it just seems like such a tiny amount of money to chase at the cost of cheapening your brand.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Do you have manufacturer marks that big on the clothes that you wear? None of my work shirts have manufacturer marks on them on the outside for everyone to see. Neither do my suits, not do my ties. Nor my shoes.

Look around your office right now and tell me how many products you see which don't have a manufacturer's logo. It really is different than paid ad space.

That said, you're right that clothing is usually held to a higher standard. At most you might have a manufacturer's logo, but nobody would buy an item of clothing with paid ad space on it. The exception being charity-marathon tshirts and the like.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

http://adage.com/article?article_id=148809

Chicago Blackhawks - $1,372,007
New York Rangers - $708,267
Pittsburgh Penguins - $676,938?

Assuming the values go down proportionately, with teams like the Islanders and Coyotes pulling in the low six-figures, it just seems like such a tiny amount of money to chase at the cost of cheapening your brand.

thats a significant amount of money for any enterprise, who are you kidding?

incremental revenue like that goes straight to the bottom line, the only measurement against risk is to determine if the advertisement will impair other revenue sources.

 

[AllByDesign]

Nike shoes, Lacoste shirts, Dickies pants, Addidas Socks... just to name a few.

 

[tarheelhockey]

thats a significant amount of money for any enterprise, who are you kidding?

It's significant for the small handful who have truly valuable ad space to offer. But not even that significant because those are the most profitable teams already -- the Rangers would be adding $700k to their $41.4m profit line?

If the entire league is worth $8m and we subtract the $2.7m represented by the THREE highest-ranked teams, that means the other 27 teams are worth an average of $196k.

Now, I can't offer specifics but I'm going to go ahead and assume that the Flyers, Leafs and Red Wings are worth much more than the Panthers, Thrashers and Coyotes. So the latter will probably be at $100k or less when it's all said and done.

That kind of money is a small drop in the bucket for teams carrying $60m payrolls. Given the pushback against the idea, and the value of branding, and the relatively non-corporate-feeling niche the NHL occupies in the pro sports landscape, it's not necessarily going to be worth enough extra profit.

 

[Brent Burns Beard]

.... it's not necessarily going to be worth enough extra profit.

thats entirely probable, but 6 figures is still substantial revenue.

especially to those low revenue teams, the owners only care about maximizing whatever revenue they can.

 

[tarheelhockey]

thats entirely probable, but 6 figures is still substantial revenue.

especially to those low revenue teams, the owners only care about maximizing whatever revenue they can.

The irony is that this revenue stream is most likely to be considered by either:

1) Mega-popular teams who can get a lot of $$$ from it, but don't really need the extra revenue.
2) Obscure teams who need the money but will only get peanuts on an ad deal.

Either way it will be a moment when someone finally goes for it.

 

[ebox99]

8 million is still a lot for putting one patch on a jersey. More than one patch would not be neat/nice looking.

Plus the value will continually increase if the league becomes more popular.

Also, rates can increase for events like the Classics, All Star Game, Stanley Cup finals as they draw bigger audiences.

This could be part of revenue sharing and would help out the weaker teams.

Noticed that Chicago, New York and Pittsburgh was mentioned but I believe Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver could fetch more dollars.

So it could be more than 10 million cause I can't believe Toronto or Montreal would be less than Pittsburgh.

The Heritage Classic has already drawn more sponsorship dollar than the best Winter Classic so the corporate dollar is strong in Canada.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Noticed that Chicago, New York and Pittsburgh was mentioned but I believe Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver could fetch more dollars.

So it could be more than 10 million cause I can't believe Toronto or Montreal would be less than Pittsburgh.

This goes right back to the national TV contract issue. Why is Pittsburgh worth more than Montreal? Because the Pens are featured regularly on American national broadcasts including the Winter Classic and late playoff rounds. Also, their local TV numbers are more than 20% of TSN's national broadcast numbers (>100k to <500k). Add it up and they reach more eyeballs over a much larger territory than the Habs, who are pretty much limited to TSN and CBC unless they make a dramatic playoff charge like they did last year.

The only Canadian team I could see outgunning the high-end American markets would be the Leafs since they're so heavily featured on CBC. And even at that, they would come in below the top half-dozen American teams.

 

[Tommy Hawk]

Nike shoes, Lacoste shirts, Dickies pants, Addidas Socks... just to name a few.

And how big are those marks? They the same size as the Reebok logo? no. Also, no one has answered my question - would you be offended if the REebok logo was twice the size and on the front of the jersey?

And for each one you name there are hundreds that don't have the mark on the outside, hanes, FotL, every single dress shirt manufacturer, every suit manufacturer, every single fashion designer (i have never seen their marks on the runway models and I look very closely!!)

The irony is that this revenue stream is most likely to be considered by either:

1) Mega-popular teams who can get a lot of $$$ from it, but don't really need the extra revenue.
2) Obscure teams who need the money but will only get peanuts on an ad deal.

Either way it will be a moment when someone finally goes for it.

And did you feel that way about all the crap that adorns the boards and the ice in every single arena? What about all the signage inside the arena?

I do not like how most of the european leagues are but one on the front is no big deal since there is already one on the back.

 

[AllByDesign]

And how big are those marks? They the same size as the Reebok logo? no. Also, no one has answered my question - would you be offended if the REebok logo was twice the size and on the front of the jersey?

And for each one you name there are hundreds that don't have the mark on the outside, hanes, FotL, every single dress shirt manufacturer, every suit manufacturer, every single fashion designer (i have never seen their marks on the runway models and I look very closely!!)

There wasn't any mention on the percentage of the real estate on the clothing when it was stated that "My suits don't have logos"... I was just saying some clothes do have logo's on them that are visable to others. Nike likely has the largest use of the item it is on of any other.

To answer your question, I wouldn't be offended.

I do not like how most of the european leagues are but one on the front is no big deal since there is already one on the back

Agreed.

 

[tarheelhockey]

And did you feel that way about all the crap that adorns the boards and the ice in every single arena? What about all the signage inside the arena?

Fundamentally different in that it doesn't affect the strength of the team's brand. There's a perceptual difference between selling ads inside the venue, as opposed to actually turning them into marks on the team uniform.

But to answer your question, I think arenas looked a lot better without the signage, and there is a point where it crosses a line and cheapens the game presentation:

 

[Killion]

Reebok isn't a sponsor. They are the manufacturer of the freaking jersey. They made it, so they have the right to put their mark on it. I can't believe some people don't understand the difference between a manufacturer's mark on the one hand, and a completely unrelated company buying advertising space on the jersey, on the other hand.

Actually MayDay, yes they are a "sponsor". They acquired the rights in 2004 from CCM for the NHL. Just what the details are I dont know, but "Official Supplier Status" is generally an expensive commitment to the so called "Big 4" sports. Personally I dont find that kind of sponsorship offensive, however, any other category that includes uniform I.D. from commercial sponsors can be intrusive if not properly applied, and unlike European soccer, hockey etc, I dont think North Americans' would welcome it.

 

[Jamin]

Is the mark marketing?

Do you have manufacturer marks that big on the clothes that you wear? None of my work shirts have manufacturer marks on them on the outside for everyone to see. Neither do my suits, not do my ties. Nor my shoes.

It is marketing/advertising any way you look at it. The same way North Face is on their jackets. Or DKNY on t shirts, or Lee on the jeans. Advertising, pure and simple.

So if Reebok put the patch on the front of the jersey, that would be OK since they make the jersey? What if the patch was 3 times its current size, that would be OK? What if Pepsi made the jersey and put their logo on the front and.

really? Every shirt or shoes or pants I have has the manufacturers logo on them

 

[Jamin]

Fundamentally different in that it doesn't affect the strength of the team's brand. There's a perceptual difference between selling ads inside the venue, as opposed to actually turning them into marks on the team uniform.

But to answer your question, I think arenas looked a lot better without the signage, and there is a point where it crosses a line and cheapens the game presentation:

that looks terrible to me

 

[IU Hawks fan]

Is the mark marketing?

Do you have manufacturer marks that big on the clothes that you wear? None of my work shirts have manufacturer marks on them on the outside for everyone to see. Neither do my suits, not do my ties. Nor my shoes.

Really? What kinds of shoes are you wearing? Obviously not Nike, adidas, Reebok, even my New Balances have a massive N.

I guess you are only talking about dress shoes. Every piece of sporting equipment has manufacturers logos on them. And guess what, hockey players are playing a sport, so it only makes sense that their stuff would have the logos on them.

 

[Killion]

Every piece of sporting equipment has manufacturers logos on them. And guess what, hockey players are playing a sport, so it only makes sense that their stuff would have the logos on them.

In the modern era absolutely. We'd have to turn the clock back about 40yrs to a time when exterior logo identification was actually frowned upon as being less than tasteful (with the exception of sticks). Perhaps someone here knows how companies like Warrior & Nike' who are not "official sponsors" to the league, unlike Reebok which is, are permitted to feature prominent ID on gloves, sticks, skates & such?. Do they pay a smaller "supplier status" fee to the the NHL or if not, find themselves having to remove logo's & ID from positions of prominence?.

 

[MayDay]

Actually MayDay, yes they are a "sponsor". They acquired the rights in 2004 from CCM for the NHL. Just what the details are I dont know, but "Official Supplier Status" is generally an expensive commitment to the so called "Big 4" sports. Personally I dont find that kind of sponsorship offensive, however, any other category that includes uniform I.D. from commercial sponsors can be intrusive if not properly applied, and unlike European soccer, hockey etc, I dont think North Americans' would welcome it.

My point is that the maker of a piece of equipment putting their mark on the thing that they made, is quite a different thing than some airline or bank buying advertising space on it. A completely different thing in fact.

 

[tarheelhockey]

In the modern era absolutely. We'd have to turn the clock back about 40yrs to a time when exterior logo identification was actually frowned upon as being less than tasteful (with the exception of sticks). Perhaps someone here knows how companies like Warrior & Nike' who are not "official sponsors" to the league, unlike Reebok which is, are permitted to feature prominent ID on gloves, sticks, skates & such?. Do they pay a smaller "supplier status" fee to the the NHL or if not, find themselves having to remove logo's & ID from positions of prominence?.

I'm guessing it's because Reebok has not paid the NHL enough money to become the exclusive provider of playing equipment.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

In the modern era absolutely. We'd have to turn the clock back about 40yrs to a time when exterior logo identification was actually frowned upon as being less than tasteful (with the exception of sticks). Perhaps someone here knows how companies like Warrior & Nike' who are not "official sponsors" to the league, unlike Reebok which is, are permitted to feature prominent ID on gloves, sticks, skates & such?. Do they pay a smaller "supplier status" fee to the the NHL or if not, find themselves having to remove logo's & ID from positions of prominence?.

I know they pay endorsements to individual players. Whether or not they pay a supplier fee I am unsure of.