Canadiens announce RBC as first official game jersey partner

[417]

Don't understand why you are getting lost. All of Habs history, all of the big moments from now on, will have a smiling player promoting a bank in full view. That's a significant difference to what came before.

There are a lot of significant differences between what is today, vs what it's in the past....so what?

And the jersey itself, not just the logo, is part of Canadian folklore, immortalized in a film many of us saw growing up, and in all of the representations of Canadiens history. Those are factual statements that should not be hard to follow. Whether you think they have any value is separate question. You've made it clear it has no value. So nothing much else to say.

I'm not big on folklore personally but the Montreal Canadiens logo is what's iconic, not necessarily the jersey so I guess agree to disagree there.

Yeah, I don't see the manufacturer's mark on hockey equipment as an ad. It's a categorically different message to me. Adidas owned the physical object before the NHL did, and the NHL took it based on its athletic quality.

But I promise you, it is...otherwise Adidas wouldn't insist on stitching their name on it.

Do you really think Adidas does that for the love of hockey? lol...they make them, they brand it with their logo, players wear it and it gives them visibility.

The only literal difference between it and the RBC logo, is the location on the jersey.

That's literally it.

An ad would be where Adidas just pays to cover up the Nike logo with Adidas. The message was supposed to be, "this is the mark of a quality garment," and someone bought it to say, "this is just an object for sale."

You can dress it up all you want, doesn't change the fact.

You're choosing to not be bothered by it and be bothered by the RBC logo, that's fine, just so long as you realize that.

 

[haseoke39]

You're choosing to not be bothered by it and be bothered by the RBC logo, that's fine, just so long as you realize that.

It's categorically different. You're choosing not to see that, that's fine, just so long as you realize that.

 

[417]

It's categorically different. You're choosing not to see that, that's fine, just so long as you realize that.

If that "category" = location on the jersey.

We agree lol

 

[haseoke39]

If that "category" = location on the jersey.

We agree lol

If RBC was a company built around making something to facilitate the game of hockey being played, and their work was an integral part of the Habs performance on the ice, they'd be in the same boat. I'm interested in the Habs success, and would in fact like to know the craftspeople behind their equipment, training, etc. If there's a few more logos that are directly relevant to appreciating what goes into making hockey players successful, they're not really ads so much as testaments to why the team I care about is as good as they are. It's a fair thing to display. Not necessarily on the jersey, but if the jersey itself is Adidas' contribution, it's only logical to put it there.

That's not an ad, however it might be superficially similar. When I write my name on my possession, it's not an ad for me. For that matter, all language is not advertisement for nouns. An ad is where you're just a bystander handing people money to promote you in a medium you've got nothing to do with.

The fact that this transaction is identical to what all of us do everyday whenever we buy goods or services just reinforces the common-sense notion here. When I buy an Adidas stick, I do not get paid to provide advertising -- in fact, I might deliberately pay to display the mark of a high-quality product. When I buy a refrigerator, Whirlpool does not pay me to display their logo in my kitchen. Identifying a craftsperson on their own creation is not an advertising compact in nature. If it has some incidental value as advertising to the craftsperson, it's either earned by the quality of the product or its equally likely to pose a liability -- because after all, when your fridge breaks down or your stick snaps, you curse Whirlpool or Bauer. RBC doesn't come into play when the Habs lose or the jersey tears. They're not providing any relevant product. You sweet, obvious child.

If RBC made the stick, I'd want RBC on the stick. If RBC ran their training program, I'd want RBC somewhere in the arena. If RBC provided coaching, I'd want RBC acknowledged behind the bench, maybe. And I wouldn't care to see them charged for it, because they earned the acknowledgement.

 

[CorbeauNoir]

...for you...for others, it is a bigger deal...live with it...or ignore it...

I've been anticipating it for years so nothing about it is shocking. But the idea that making a big deal of it is somehow going to make it go away is as much of a fool's pursuit as it was when board ads became a thing.

I have to agree with Oz in this case. You're all over the map and moving goal posts every time you respond. It is an objective fact that the jersey/logo is iconic at a level that is without dispute. It doesn't have to be worldwide. Whether it should be, or shouldn't be, and for what reason, are secondary to at least admitting that one crucial fact. Once you get there, the rest of your points comes down to explaining the reason it is iconic, but you keep trying to dispute this in a convoluted way that mixes everything.

My point with you was that even if I were to take this quasi-religious perspective on team branding at face value, it makes no sense to quantify one as more valuable than another based purely on an advertisement. Personally I just see all of it as an entertaining distraction with the same bread-and-circuses purposes that were already well-known by the time the Romans were masters at exploiting it. Culture is ultimately a very powerful social tool - it's useful, often enjoyable, but still a tool. The very fact that a sports team can be seen as 'iconic' in and of itself is fundamentally a product of that social engineering - it's not organic, it's not grass-roots, you won't die if it's denied to you. It's a company that was artifically written into existence solely to create a return on an investment, and as a bonus provide a nice shiny object to distract the public from larger issues. That investment is fun to watch, but to ascribe any higher purpose to it is naive.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

You're writing a whole lot about the importance of culture for somebody who insists he does not consider it sacrosanct. If you believe it's not sacrosant, there's no reason for you to write anything at all on the subject.

You're a constant barrage of reductionist thought.

I never claimed any degree of importance, but simply stated facts. You have an enormous tendency to jump to bad conclusions. Maybe you're too wound-up about this issue, or have anthogonistic tendencies whenever your arguments are put into doubt, but whatever it is, tu sautes du coq à l'âne beaucoup trop vite. Like in the present, please show me where I hinted or intimated at any form of degree of importance? I stated the raison d'être based on social learning and the very human habit of forming sanctity around it.

Now, believe me or not, but you should because it's for your own benefit, so you might reflect on where you erred; my wife is an ex-globetrotter from a different ethnic background and country than I am. We both profoundly dislike nationalism and conservatism. Personally, I love science, especially anything related to human or animal behavior (same thing, really). I try mightily to be objective and use the knowledge I've acquired to understand things outside of my own ego and desires, controlling for my own biases.

I'll be repeating what I said previously because you obviously missed it, but personally, I think it cheapens the brand. I think they've forfeited parts of their standards, values and traditions that set them apart from lower pro leagues, whose jerseys I always thought were incredibly ugly. Many people are minimalists when it comes to aesthetics and I'm like that. I don't like it when things are crowded.

I'm also getting old, but with that comes more experience and I can see the writing on the wall, although the backlash so far may hopefuly stall any such visual monstrosity from becoming fact in the foreseeable future. Now, while I hate conservatism, I'm no leftist in the modern term. Having read about the science of self-organizing complex systems, chaos theory, I tend to want balance. It's incredible how eye-opening chaos theory is regarding the need for balance, so many salient examples in so many fields, like how all biological populations rise and fall and the intricate balancing acts of pulling and pushing through stages of order and disorder. Anyway, all this to say that there's always a significance to holding onto the past, to some degree. It is inevitable since the past is what brought us to the present. We are what we lived and experienced. EVERYONE gets attached to that and it gets worst as we grow older, unless of course, someone has lived a life of misery and trauma, but I mean, normally with everything else being equal, we are all attached to memorable moments in our lives. It's not sacrosanct for me, I don't think in these terms, but I think it's a lack of respect towards their fans and their own values and considering many have the tendency to cherish it to a higher degree, more bordering on identity anchor, what they did might've been inconsiderate, but that's my whole point, whether you dislike it because it's ugly or because they are fanatics, it seems the Habs considered only one thing.

Oh, also, I previously posted this earlier

"I'd still rather have white boards than live in an Eddy Bernays wetdream."

Hey maybe now you get why I personally dislike it, if you know who Bernays was.

 

[417]

If RBC was a company built around making something to facilitate the game of hockey being played, and their work was an integral part of the Habs performance on the ice, they'd be in the same boat.

Maybe that's in the works? Maybe they're working on a partnership to make hockey more accessible for young kids and their families.

There are tons of ways for both corporate entities to drive this partnership.

I'm interested in the Habs success, and would in fact like to know the craftspeople behind their equipment, training, etc. If there's a few more logos that are directly relevant to appreciating what goes into making hockey players successful, they're not really ads so much as testaments to why the team I care about is as good as they are. It's a fair thing to display. Not necessarily on the jersey, but if the jersey itself is Adidas' contribution, it's only logical to put it there.

That's not an ad, however it might be superficially similar. An ad is where you're just a bystander handing people money to promote you.

So it's essentially the same lol both RBC and Adidas are getting out of it what they want.

Adidas is an apparel manufacturer...that's the service they're providing to the league and in addition to financial compensation, they're also getting a ton of free advertisement revenue for it.

Hmmmmm...other than the apparel manufacturing, seems like they're in the same boat to me.

If RBC made the stick, I'd want RBC on the stick. If RBC ran their training program, I'd want RBC somewhere in the arena. If RBC provided coaching, I'd want RBC acknowledged behind the bench, maybe. And I wouldn't care to see them charged for it.

Who knows what's in store with this partnership, I seriously doubt it ends there.

 

[Frankenheimer]

I've been anticipating it for years so nothing about it is shocking. But the idea that making a big deal of it is somehow going to make it go away is as much of a fool's pursuit as it was when board ads became a thing.


My point with you was that even if I were to take this quasi-religious perspective on team branding at face value, it makes no sense to quantify one as more valuable than another based purely on an advertisement. Personally I just see all of it as an entertaining distraction with the same bread-and-circuses purposes that were already well-known by the time the Romans were masters at exploiting it. Culture is ultimately a very powerful social tool - it's useful, often enjoyable, but still a tool. The very fact that a sports team can be seen as 'iconic' in and of itself is fundamentally a product of that social engineering - it's not organic, it's not grass-roots, you won't die if it's denied to you. It's a company that was artifically written into existence solely to create a return on an investment, and as a bonus provide a nice shiny object to distract the public from larger issues. That investment is fun to watch, but to ascribe any higher purpose to it is naive.

I have to disagree with most of what you're saying, including seeing culture (which has a lot of meanings) as a tool. In some narrow contexts, it could be seen as such (in which someone is using the idea of culture to advance an agenda, such as classifying certain religious activities as cultural). Otherwise, culture is really an elusive term encompassing a set of shared traits (language, practices, values) within a defined population.

Other than that, I see no value of examining the debate from the perspective you're proposing. All things cease to have value when looked at from some distant or irrlevant perspective (for example survival). Isn't that what we do when we imagine ourselves as a speck of dust in the universe (at least, that's what I do when I want to gain some perspective).

There's generally a tacit agreement in debates that discussions are taking place within more or less the same scale. Of course, being deprived of the Habs isn't going to kill anyone. Nobody is looking at the question from that perspective. And of course, there are other more important issues in life. Nobody is privileging this issue over those. It's important in debate to keep the debate at more or less the same scale everyone is arguing within or it gets ridiculous. At any point, someone is capable of saying "you're debate about so and so is really dumb when children are starving". Ok, thanks for the reminder, now jog on.

 

[Tripledeke333]

Maybe that's in the works? Maybe they're working on a partnership to make hockey more accessible for young kids and their families.

There are tons of ways for both corporate entities to drive this partnership.



So it's essentially the same lol both RBC and Adidas are getting out of it what they want.

Adidas is an apparel manufacturer...that's the service they're providing to the league and in addition to financial compensation, they're also getting a ton of free advertisement revenue for it.

Hmmmmm...other than the apparel manufacturing, seems like they're in the same boat to me.

Who knows what's in store with this partnership, I seriously doubt it ends there.

When you say who knows where it ends, what do you is gonna happen? So maybe the Habs will give a box to RBC in exchange for more money so the Bell Center becomes more corporate like Toronto?

RBC gives the Habs money, and the Habs give RBC advertising. All future transactions will be variants of that. It’s not like a prominent sports team and a bank are gonna team up to form a new innovative “super corporation”.

 

[The Gr8 Dane]

They are desecrating our holy symbol!!!!!!!! The nerve! Blasphemy!

Now I know how religious people feel! It kinda sucks!

 

[417]

When you say who knows where it ends, what do you is gonna happen? So maybe the Habs will give a box to RBC in exchange for more money so the Bell Center becomes more corporate like Toronto?

RBC gives the Habs money, and the Habs give RBC advertising. All future transactions will be variants of that. It’s not like a prominent sports team and a bank are gonna team up to form a new innovative “super corporation”.

That's for them to figure out but I refuse to believe sticking a logo on a jersey is where it ends.

 

[CorbeauNoir]

You're a constant barrage of reductionist thought.

I never claimed any degree of importance, but simply stated facts. You have an enormous tendency to jump to bad conclusions. Maybe you're too wound-up about this issue, or have anthogonistic tendencies whenever your arguments are put into doubt, but whatever it is, tu sautes du coq à l'âne beaucoup trop vite. Like in the present, please show me where I hinted or intimated at any form of degree of importance? I stated the raison d'être based on social learning and the very human habit of forming sanctity around it.

My friend, you just wrote a thesis-statement length post about something you continue to insist you don't think is important. You're emotionally invested. You're going to great lengths and delving into human history, artistic aesthetics, and your own lived experiences to explain WHY you're emotionally invested. You're inching close to outright gaslighting at this point.

Now, believe me or not, but you should because it's for your own benefit, so you might reflect on where you erred; my wife is an ex-globetrotter from a different ethnic background and country than I am. We both profoundly dislike nationalism and conservatism. Personally, I love science, especially anything related to human or animal behavior (same thing, really). I try mightily to be objective and use the knowledge I've acquired to understand things outside of my own ego and desires, controlling for my own biases.

I'll be repeating what I said previously because you obviously missed it, but personally, I think it cheapens the brand. I think they've forfeited parts of their standards, values and traditions that set them apart from lower pro leagues, whose jerseys I always thought were incredibly ugly.

You're claiming to love behavioural science yet willfully fall for the oldest, most cynical manipulation of human behaviour there is. 'Standards, values, and traditions' were every bit as much a romanticized construct in bushido samurai lore as they are for the Montreal Canadiens hockey franchise. The fact that you call it 'the brand' in the first place is a tacit acknowledgement of this, there's nothing worth wringing one's hands over it being 'cheapened'.

Many people are minimalists when it comes to aesthetics and I'm like that. I don't like it when things are crowded.

Perfectly fine.

I'm also getting old, but with that comes more experience and I can see the writing on the wall, although the backlash so far may hopefuly stall any such visual monstrosity from becoming fact in the foreseeable future. Now, while I hate conservatism, I'm no leftist in the modern term. Having read about the science of self-organizing complex systems, chaos theory, I tend to want balance. It's incredible how eye-opening chaos theory is regarding the need for balance, so many salient examples in so many fields, like how all biological populations rise and fall and the intricate balancing acts of pulling and pushing through stages of order and disorder. Anyway, all this to say that there's always a significance to holding onto the past, to some degree. It is inevitable since the past is what brought us to the present. We are what we lived and experienced. EVERYONE gets attached to that and it gets worst as we grow older, unless of course, someone has lived a life of misery and trauma, but I mean, normally with everything else being equal, we are all attached to memorable moments in our lives. It's not sacrosanct for me, I don't think in these terms, but I think it's a lack of respect towards their fans and their own values and considering many have the tendency to cherish it to a higher degree, more bordering on identity anchor, what they did might've been inconsiderate, but that's my whole point, whether you dislike it because it's ugly or because they are fanatics, it seems the Habs considered only one thing.

See what I mean about absurd levels of emotional investment? Now apparently the patterns of the cosmos need to be made sense of to prove how unimportant you insist this all is. You should write scripts for Terrance Mallick.

What the Habs 'considered' is the exact same thing they considered when they put pen to paper and wrote the team into professional existence over a century ago. No piano-laced TV montage or fan riot is going to make that reality any different tomorrow.

"I'd still rather have white boards than live in an Eddy Bernays wetdream."

If you truly feel that way the internet is the absolute last place you should be. A mere professional sports team would probably unironically kill to have even a fraction of the targeted advertising power you willfully subscribe to every time you choose to open a browser. In any case, if you're unironically channelling a deep emotional connection with a brand (your word), Bernays already sunk his claws into you.

 

[Frankenheimer]

That's for them to figure out but I refuse to believe sticking a logo on a jersey is where it ends.

A concession stand at games selling RBC hotdogs (5$ per transaction). RBC selling Habs merch at the counter. What about free Game Day withdrawals of 500$ of more (with proof of ticket).

The crossover opportunities are limitless.

 

[417]

A concession stand at games selling RBC hotdogs (5$ per transaction). RBC selling Habs merch at the counter. What about free Game Day withdrawals of 500$ of more (with proof of ticket).

The crossover opportunities are limitless.

I know that if i'm the Montreal Canadiens and i'm constantly trying to expand my brand awareness, partnering up with Canada's largest bank, provides opportunities way beyond what you just wrote.

But sure, let's just reduce it to that lol.

Thank God, whose obviously a Habs fan right? for the rookie tournament starting tomorrow lol

 

[Team_Spirit]

Lower bowl is sold out but there still plenty of tickets on sale in the 300s, 400s for the home opener vs Toronto.

 

[JianYang]

No, because you're suggesting that the likes of, say, Liverpool - a team decades older than the Canadiens - has no prominence or meaning based on absolutely nothing other than the presence of a shirt ad. Which is patently absurd.

If that was true teams would do it, there isn't a hard obligation to put an ad on a shirt. Off the top of my head Roma had sponsorship issues for a handful of years and wore brandless uniforms with no ads.

I remember Barcelona only had a unicef ad on their shirts in the past.

I'm not sure how much unicef was paying as a non-profit, but now they have gone over to the corporate side with ads like Qatar airways if I remember correctly.

It's just the evolution of sports. Eventually, all clubs will succumb to the ads no matter if you are a middling club like everton, or a sacred club like Barcelona, or the Habs.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

My friend, you just wrote a thesis-statement length post about something you continue to insist you don't think is important. You're emotionally invested. You're going to great lengths and delving into human history, artistic aesthetics, and your own lived experiences to explain WHY you're emotionally invested. You're inching close to outright gaslighting at this point.

You keep making claims that are false.

Writing about something at lenght doesn't necessarily equate emotional investment. It is again another reduction. You decide that one thing absolutely and automatically equates another when it obviously doesn't, only to serve as sophistry rather than abdicating to the truth.

You don't know what gaslighting is. Everything that I've wrote is aimed directly at your own propositions where you decide what I think based on flimsy causality and overall dingy sophistry. The fact you even suggest this shows you're trolling.

So for the last time, where did I say it's important?

You're claiming to love behavioural science yet willfully fall for the oldest, most cynical manipulation of human behaviour there is. 'Standards, values, and traditions' were every bit as much a romanticized construct in bushido samurai lore as they are for the Montreal Canadiens hockey franchise. The fact that you call it 'the brand' in the first place is a tacict acknowledgement of this, there's nothing worth wringing one's hands over it being 'cheapened'.

i don't fall for anything. That's simply you again deciding to use a reduction and deny the very nature of normal attachment to memory.

Basically, you'll say about anything, in very Schopenhauer-ish fashion, to continue your charade. I stated my dislike has more to do with its ugliness, yet you decide to ignore this and make it about falling for symbols. It's really not that and it has nothing to do with the logo either. What I said had to do with life experiences and social learning. Most of social learning happens when we're young. Wanting balance to not forgetting the past is nothing like your pathetic attempt to paint me.

So seeing that you are uninterested debating honestly, without the constant use of spin and reductions to further your immature trolling, I will spare myself from more of the same and skip the rest of your garbage.

 

[Frankenheimer]

I know that if i'm the Montreal Canadiens and i'm constantly trying to expand my brand awareness, partnering up with Canada's largest bank, provides opportunities way beyond what you just wrote.

But sure, let's just reduce it to that lol.

Thank God, whose obviously a Habs fan right? for the rookie tournament starting tomorrow lol

Can you expand on these opportunities beyond the Habs getting a chunk of cash and RBC promoting their stupid bank? Naming the arena the Bell Center didn't result in a puck phone.

The Habs have a lot of sponsors and there's isn't some magical sports-telecom-mortage-chicken wing conglomerate that's come about. I can't think of two more distant sectors to be honest.

But if you come up with something, let us know.

 

[417]

Can you expand on these opportunities beyond the Habs getting a chunk of cash and RBC promoting their stupid bank? Naming the arena the Bell Center didn't result in a puck phone.

Why? what's the point of me expanding on that lol use your imagination.

I'm positive they've already looked at, considered and put into action several initiatives. Why would I sit here and propose those initiatives, its not my job.

I'm just a bit perplexed as to why you think the largest Bank in Canada and one of the most profitable teams in North American sports would simple end their association at putting a logo on their jersey.

Be real for a second man lol

The Habs have a lot of sponsors and there's isn't some magical sports-telecom-mortage-chicken wing conglomerate that's come about. I can't think of two more distant sectors to be honest.

But if you come up with something, let us know.

yeah...if I come up with something, first thing i'm gonna do is post it here lol

 

[Team_Spirit]

Even Vegas found a way to make it blend

 

[Frankenheimer]

Why? what's the point of me expanding on that lol use your imagination.

I'm positive they've already looked at, considered and put into action several initiatives. Why would I sit here and propose those initiatives, its not my job.

I'm just a bit perplexed as to why you think the largest Bank in Canada and one of the most profitable teams in North American sports would simple end their association at putting a logo on their jersey.

Be real for a second man lol

yeah...if I come up with something, first thing i'm gonna do is post it here lol

I see... So you got nothing. Sometimes it's just as simple as it seems. A straight cash for advertisement exchange. Big companies make blunders as well (new coke anyone?). And if you can't come up with even one initiative beyond sticking more RBC logos on Habs merch, that's pretty much what it is, ad placement sold to the highest bidder.

Honestly, if you were asked to make a list of potential Habs sponsors (before you knew about this one), where would have RBC figured? Even BMO would have been one degree closer to something resembling a natural fit (BMO sponsors the Impact, and contains Montreal in its name). RBC is as hollow and empty as you can get, no local connection, no sports connection, no nothing.

And that is obvious also when you think about the unveiling. Nick Suzuki as captain everyone ! And also, here is our shitty looking jersey.

 

[DueDiligence]

f*** RBC.

Why? They just made the offer. Habs ownership said yes.

 

[Bombshell11]

Who ever is arguing in favour of ads on the jersey is a toothpick. Please don't entertain them and keep your sanity. Dumb people aint worth your time

Why? They just made the offer. Habs ownership said yes.

Banks made a boat load of money during the pandemic and they have the audacity to make an offer like this.

If you dont see the problem, you're part of the problem

 

[DueDiligence]

If RBC made the stick, I'd want RBC on the stick. If RBC ran their training program, I'd want RBC somewhere in the arena. If RBC provided coaching, I'd want RBC acknowledged behind the bench, maybe. And I wouldn't care to see them charged for it, because they earned the acknowledgement

Maybe RBC lent Geoff Molson the money to buy back the team. Then they would get to put their logo "everywhere".

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Even Vegas found a way to make it blend

At least that's much better and subtle.