Sharks new policy - no advertising of other entities (on tshrt, etc.) in Tank

[Dado]

Their actions are deliberate. Subterfuge. ...These guys are just pirates plain n' simple.

Wait a second - this is Killion I'm talking too, right? I thought those where the personality traits we *liked*!

If anything, I'm surprised one of them isn't you!

 

[Killion]

Wait a second - this is Killion I'm talking too, right? I thought those where the personality traits we *liked*!

If anything, I'm surprised one of them isn't you!

Oh hey, I admire their hubris & hutzpah. No question bout that.... as for me personally pulling a stunt like that or even remotely resembling either one of those two over-crisp Javelina's?.... I know where you live. You can run, but you cant hide.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The best part of all this?

"Gorilla" marketing

 

[Killion]

The best part of all this?.. "Gorilla" marketing

Cant stop it really. The Sharks' can & hopefully will shut this one down seeing as how its so blatant, but guess what?. The gophers'll just dig another hole out to wherever and pop goes the weasel all over again. About all you can do is revoke their ST's & slap a restraining order on them. Post their pictures at every entrance on game days but even then, a little face paint and an airbrush..... Man of a 1000 Faces. And these guys are experts. Bail Bondsmen.

 

[zombie kopitar]

The best part of all this?

"Gorilla" marketing

haha yeh, that's because our super hero is a 'genious'

But yeh I get where the Sharks are coming from...I would bet money that Porsche is paying significant more money then Bad Boys ever did, and it is in the best financial interest for the Sharks and HP Pavillion to keep them and the other dozens of multi million dollar companies sponsering these games to feel like their money is being well spent
Those guys would also get on my nerves,whenever they show the bench my eyes go strait to those guys, yeh it's effective for them but so effing anoying the american consumer gets bombarded with enough unwanted advertisements already. I am going to side with the Sharks on this one, I don't see how they can really regulate it though.

 

[saskganesh]

This is a slipperly slope for sure. Most clubs have rules written into thier STH agreements in regards to behavior, etc. etc. and these are fairly open ended ( ie. Basically the club can revoke your STs because they don't like you ), so I would say the club should have approached this guy and said that we don't like the way you are dressed, and work something out.

Exactly. I don't see this why a new policy is needed when the tshirt and ticket holder could likely already be dealt with already under existing Ticket Terms and Conditions. The gorrilla dude has already agreed to those conditions by purchasing said tickets and hence has now breached that contract

is this the new policy/or was it already in place?

"The Holder shall not use admission to the San Jose Sharks hockey game to generate publicity for the purpose of promoting and/or marketing other entities, events, and/or personalities without the prior written consent of the San Jose Sharks"

http://sharks.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=46422

 

[kdb209]

Exactly. I don't see this why a new policy is needed when the tshirt and ticket holder could likely already be dealt with already under existing Ticket Terms and Conditions. The gorrilla dude has already agreed to those conditions by purchasing said tickets and hence has now breached that contract

is this the new policy/or was it already in place?

"The Holder shall not use admission to the San Jose Sharks hockey game to generate publicity for the purpose of promoting and/or marketing other entities, events, and/or personalities without the prior written consent of the San Jose Sharks"

http://sharks.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=46422

The policy was introduced during the off-season. That term was not part of the license agreement last season.

From the back of the Sharks Season Tickets:

THIS TICKET IS A REVOCABLE LICENSE AND MANAGEMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT, WITHOUT REFUND OF ANY PORTION OF THE TICKET PURCHASE PRICE, TO REFUSE ADMISSION OR EJECT ANY PERSON WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY THE POLICIES OF HP PAVILION AND THE INSTRUCTIONS OF HP PAVILION PERSONNEL. SUCH POLICIES INCLUDE THE PROHIBITION OF USING ADMISSION TO GENERATE PUBLICITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING AND/OR MARKETING OTHER ENTITIES, EVENTS, OR PERSONALITIES WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE SAN JOSE SHARKS. FOR FULL TERMS AND CONDITIONS VISIT SEASON TICKET HOLDER LOCKER ROOM AT SJSHARKS.COM. THIS TICKET MAY NOT BE RESOLD OR OFFERED FOR RESALE IN A MANNER OR AT A PRICE IN VIOLATION OF ANY FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL LAW OR REGULATION.

Compare to the disclaimer on last season's Season Tickets:

THIS TICKET IS A REVOCABLE LICENSE AND MANAGEMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT, WITHOUT REFUND OF ANY PORTION OF THE TICKET PURCHASE PRICE, TO REFUSE ADMISSION OR EJECT ANY PERSON WHO DOES NOT ABIDE BY THE POLICIES OF HP PAVILION AND THE INSTRUCTIONS OF HP PAVILION PERSONNEL. FOR FULL TERMS AND CONDITIONS VISIT SEASON TICKET HOLDER LOCKER ROOM AT SJSHARKS.COM. THIS TICKET MAY NOT BE RESOLD OR OFFERED FOR RESALE IN A MANNER OR AT A PRICE IN VIOLATION OF ANY FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL LAW OR REGULATION.

 

[obsenssive*]

Have the Sharks violated fans’ freedom of speech?

Watch any NHL game on television, and you may not remember what the fans seated in back of the home bench were wearing that night.

Watch any San Jose Sharks home game on television, and the oddity of the image lingers: Neon pink letters around a cartoonish logo of a muscle-bound tough guy bending jail bars, on a shirt that promotes a local bail bonds company.

Here's the thing: The Sharks argue that "promotion" of a business on a T-shirt at the game is actually "advertising." So the team changed its dress code at HP Pavilion for the 2011-12 season: Prohibiting ticket holders from using their tickets to "generate publicity for the purposes of promoting and/or marketing other businesses."

Which means, going forward, the team intends to ban Bad Boys Bail Bonds T-shirts behind the players' bench.

Which means they now have a 260-pound problem on their hands named Jeffrey Stanley, who owns the company.

"My constitutional attorney says we have a legal right to wear the shirts at the game," Stanley told us on Monday.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/pu...Sharks-violated-fans-freedom-?urn=nhl-wp13538

 

[Mantha Poodoo]

I don't get where anyone else is getting that the Bad Boys company is getting 'free advertising' out of this. Those season tickets that close to the bench can't be cheap.

 

[Fehr Time*]

The Sharks would probably like a mulligan on this whole situation. They would have been better off just biting their collective tongues and tipping their hats to these guys for out playing them at their own game. All they are really doing here now is giving these guys more publicity and opening up other cans of worms that should have stayed closed.

 

[JimmyStart*]

I posted this on the sharks board but thought I would share it here as well:

It is pretty obvious the intent of bad boys is to get the "free" advertising especially given seat location and number of seats. I see where the sharks are coming from from a business perspective but don't know if there is any way to enforce it. The Sharks would have been better off saying that they are no longer allowing him to do it because he did not renew the sponsorship; they then could take the angle that it was a benefit of being a sponsor. I have no doubt in my mind that the Sharks looked the other way because he was a sponsor previously.

Don't businesses have the right to refuse service or in this case refuse to sell him tickets? This used to be horribly abused in favor of racism but in this case it'd be a fair exercise of rights to say "Cut it out or we won't sell you tickets anymore". to come up with such a overarching ban though I guess suggests they can't? Or they're dumb

 

[Jumptheshark]

there is a logic here

during the world cup of football--a well known dutch beer maker had 30 females where the colours of the brewery during the game--because they were too cheap to pay for advertising during the game

the arena is private property so they do have control and rights for people advertizing without paying the team

 

[LadyStanley]

Actually, HP Pavilion (in it's original named entity: San Jose Arena) is city property, run by the Sharks.

So, it's kinda "private" property in that you have to pay for the privilege of being inside, AIUI.

 

[gee]

couldn't they overlay those digital adds onto the bench glass to cover Mr. Bad Boy up?

 

[kdb209]

C & P from the OT: BB Bail Bonds Shirts at Tank thread on the Sharks board

There was a 1980 case vs the Pruneyard shopping center in which the Supreme Court ruled that the CA Constitution granted citizens the right to free speech even in private shopping centers. In this particular case, there were UC Students collecting signatures at the mall. I'd be curious to know if you think that ruling would have any bearing on this one should the attorney actually try to bring it to trial? It would seem to me (not a lawyer), that the ruling at least opens the door (a little) for the BB Bail Bonds guys to make a case. I could envision the attorney trying to make a case that since the arena is owned by the city, it should be considered 'quasi-public' (like a shopping mall).

I don't thing the CA Supreme Court ruling in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins - upheld by the SCOTUS would be applicable here.

The CA court held that a shopping center is a public space - "Members of the public are rightfully on Pruneyard's premises because the premises are open to the public during shopping hours" - and recognized the role of shopping centers (as opposed to independent retail establishments) as public spaces.

The HP Pavilion is not a space open to the public - people are permitted under the license terms granted on the ticket.

Since then the CA Supremes have narrowed the scope of Robbins - allowing stand alone Costcos to prohibit public speech and allowing those as part of shopping centers to place reasonable restrictions on the times, locations and frequency of use.

And note that this is an issue of commercial speech, subject to more regulation than private speech - although those differences may be tested in this post Citizens United world.

We may be big and full of cash
but we have rights to spend our stash
Corporations are people too
And so we hope you understand
as we try to buy your land
Corporations are people too
Wacka doo wacka doo

 

[Linkster]

couldn't they overlay those digital adds onto the bench glass to cover Mr. Bad Boy up?

Probably that's what Sharks' ownership should try. Keep quiet and figure out how to obscure the image from the offending camera angles.

Digital overlays, or some kind of semi-reflective coating for the glass that doesn't block fans' views but interferes with the digital processing.

 

[LadyStanley]

Similar to film put on the exterior of buses, there's a "polka dotted" overlay that can be put on the glass that looks opaque from the ring side (advertising), but can be seen through on the seating side.

That might be a solution.

 

[Ruslan Zainullin]

It seems that all the sharks have done so far is give much more publicity to this guy than he ever would have gotten otherwise.