monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"
Jersey Ads | Page 16 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
  • Xenforo Cloud upgraded our forum to XenForo version 2.3.4. This update has created styling issues to our current templates, this is just a temporary look. We will continue to work on clearing up these issues for the next few days and restore the site to it's more familiar look, but please report any other issues you may experience so we can look into. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

Jersey Ads

RBC probably isn't going to shell out a boatload of money for a subtle advertisement. My guess is that it's a substantial amount, otherwise it would be odd for a team that's a top 5 revenue generator to resort to jersey ads when it's not even mandatory.
top 3 generator, if not 1st. 10 million a year. big bucks. i'm nor even sure it's for away jerseys either.
 
Be a lot more palatable if they were on the shoulder instead of smack dab on the front.
agreed. but for the amount of cash RBC is giving the habs, they were given a choice and of course, choice front right
 
Bettman in 2014:

"I'm in no rush to put advertising on our sweaters," Bettman told reporters. "I like the history and tradition and the way they look. I've repeatedly said we wouldn't be the first and you'd probably have to bring me kicking and screaming."


Bettman in 2017:

"The fact of the matter is we take great pride in our sweaters. We think they're the best in all of sports, and (adding jersey ads) is not something we're running off to do. We think what we have is special. We talk about history and tradition and how special hockey jerseys are," he said.
"You'll say, 'Well, you did it in the World Cup.' The fact of the matter is the World Cup jerseys aren't like NHL team jerseys."



Bettman regarding revenue in 2022:


NHL commissioner Gary Bettman says the league will generate record revenues of more than $5.2 billion this season. And that total may be conservative.




"Kicking and screaming." Sure thing Gary.
 
You can't compare it with football. For starters, we don't have TV ad breaks... Two 45 minute halves of uninterrupted play.

Personally, I think this is a travesty and a stain on the leagues heritage. TV ad breaks, replays sponsored by companies, in arena powerplay sponsorship announcements, helmet ads, jersey patches. Gross.

Where does it end?

Yeah, I mean I understand all these arguments. I agree the nature of association football not permitting commercial breaks outside of halftime is the big one.
 
Bettman in 2014:

"I'm in no rush to put advertising on our sweaters," Bettman told reporters. "I like the history and tradition and the way they look. I've repeatedly said we wouldn't be the first and you'd probably have to bring me kicking and screaming."


Bettman in 2017:

"The fact of the matter is we take great pride in our sweaters. We think they're the best in all of sports, and (adding jersey ads) is not something we're running off to do. We think what we have is special. We talk about history and tradition and how special hockey jerseys are," he said.
"You'll say, 'Well, you did it in the World Cup.' The fact of the matter is the World Cup jerseys aren't like NHL team jerseys."



Bettman regarding revenue in 2022:

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman says the league will generate record revenues of more than $5.2 billion this season. And that total may be conservative.




"Kicking and screaming." Sure thing Gary.
Grinning and cheering more likely.
 
You can't compare it with football. For starters, we don't have TV ad breaks... Two 45 minute halves of uninterrupted play.

Personally, I think this is a travesty and a stain on the leagues heritage. TV ad breaks, replays sponsored by companies, in arena powerplay sponsorship announcements, helmet ads, jersey patches. Gross.

Where does it end?
6tvb24.jpg
 
No. It should be taken from you and a dog park named after you.

And before you get all worked up, you will never have this problem so maybe you should ask yourself why you’d fight against it.
Not a very good argument tbh. Just because something i don't or won't have, doesn't mean I should want to take it away from others.

Bettman in 2014:

"I'm in no rush to put advertising on our sweaters," Bettman told reporters. "I like the history and tradition and the way they look. I've repeatedly said we wouldn't be the first and you'd probably have to bring me kicking and screaming."


Bettman in 2017:

"The fact of the matter is we take great pride in our sweaters. We think they're the best in all of sports, and (adding jersey ads) is not something we're running off to do. We think what we have is special. We talk about history and tradition and how special hockey jerseys are," he said.
"You'll say, 'Well, you did it in the World Cup.' The fact of the matter is the World Cup jerseys aren't like NHL team jerseys."



Bettman regarding revenue in 2022:

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman says the league will generate record revenues of more than $5.2 billion this season. And that total may be conservative.




"Kicking and screaming." Sure thing Gary.
Well he wasn't wrong...they weren't the first.
 
Not gonna lie, I hope there is enough negative reaction that they take the ads off and keep them off. Hockey sweaters look like trash with ads.
Theres only a few things fans can do though. Flood companies with calls, tweets, etc saying that we will take business elsewhere. Spam NHL media about how bad it looks and is. Throw tons of ad patches onto the ice? Im tired of all the ads and this is the line in the sand where fans must make a stand
 
I'm talking about NHL fans. The average "regular" NHL fan does not spend any time on hockey forums.
I know what you mean. But as we have been told here on numerous times, NHL is the weakest and lowest of the 4 leagues.
If you watch the NHL you cant be just an casual. Like someone who just watches it to be cool, like the NBA for instance.

No, NHL fans are committed, and i am sure 90% are against these ads. And they sure as hell aren't going outta their way to buy or support a company because they now appear on their team jersey.
'
Besides, ads are now everywhere.
way too many, i believe they become less and less impactful they more people are bombarded with them.

Why do NBA "Sponsors" abandon their deals? they see no growth in revenue
 
and what about the other teams you hate .... then that company/product will be connected to that?

then you might start to avoid said product / company....... how about that !?
I'm in the "Don't care that much" camp, but you raise a good point. Does a brand suffer from negative association when seen on a rival jersey? The entire point of these ads is to generate a positive connection between the logo and the team, so wouldn't we have the opposite reaction when we see a brand plastered on a hated team's jersey? That's a lot more personal than arena names and board ads, which are neutral.

You'd think sponsors have accounted for this with other sport jerseys over the years. Or maybe not. Marketing departments typically focus on basic target market data. Analyzing reactions of rival fans is beyond what most of them can do, and are willing to do.
 
I'm in the "Don't care that much" camp, but you raise a good point. Does a brand suffer from negative association when seen on a rival jersey? The entire point of these ads is to generate a positive connection between the logo and the team, so wouldn't we have the opposite reaction when we see a brand plastered on a hated team's jersey? That's a lot more personal than arena names and board ads, which are neutral.

You'd think sponsors have accounted for this with other sport jerseys over the years. Or maybe not. Marketing departments typically focus on basic target market data. Analyzing reactions of rival fans is beyond what most of them can do, and are willing to do.

I think it's more about us seeing their logo/brand more, either positive or negative.
 
Why do NBA "Sponsors" abandon their deals? they see no growth in revenue
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, because there are still jersey ads on NBA jerseys.

Also I don't think your assertion that there is no growth in revenue holds any water:

As the league has found out, there’s been an additive influx of revenue even beyond initial expectations. The original pilot program was given a three-year test period slated to end in 2020, and less than two seasons in, at the April 2019 Board of Governors meeting, the Jersey Patch Program was indefinitely extended.
 
I think it's more about us seeing their logo/brand more, either positive or negative.

You're right, the more exposure, the better. Usually.

Marketing departments are made up of clever, hardworking folks who've been repeating the same formula for a century: More exposure = more awareness = more credibility. Yes, there's exposure they'll avoid, but that's usually because of moral or contractual conflicts.

Having your logo placed on a hockey jersey sounds like a straightforward win. The sponsor will be bonded to a beloved sports jersey. However, I doubt anyone in the sponsor's marketing departments is calculating the rebound effect of their logo being looked at with hatred by fans of rival teams. It's a unique negative association, one you won't find in a branding guideline. I doubt they've even measured the effect; I don't even know if you can.
 
You're right, the more exposure, the better. Usually.

Marketing departments are made up of clever, hardworking folks who've been repeating the same formula for a century: More exposure = more awareness = more credibility. Yes, there's exposure they'll avoid, but that's usually because of moral or contractual conflicts.

Having your logo placed on a hockey jersey sounds like a straightforward win. The sponsor will be bonded to a beloved sports jersey. However, I doubt anyone in the sponsor's marketing departments is calculating the rebound effect of their logo being looked at with hatred by fans of rival teams. It's a unique negative association, one you won't find in a branding guideline. I doubt they've even measured the effect; I don't even know if you can.

Do you think the general conscious reaction of hockey fans (mostly disgust or dislike) could outweigh any subconscious brand placement value?

I am genuinely less likely to use any services that have ad space on my favourite teams jersey.

I don't think I'm alone in that, and I'll still feel that way in 5 years when I see the ad and think back to when it was ad-free.

I guess I'm wondering if these marketing agencies underestimated the conscious negative reaction of general fans, or overestimated the effect of subconscious brand placement and association.
 
Do you think the general conscious reaction of hockey fans (mostly disgust or dislike) could outweigh any subconscious brand placement value?

I am genuinely less likely to use any services that have ad space on my favourite teams jersey.

I don't think I'm alone in that, and I'll still feel that way in 5 years when I see the ad and think back to when it was ad-free.

I guess I'm wondering if these marketing agencies underestimated the conscious negative reaction of general fans, or overestimated the effect of subconscious brand placement and association.
You're asking a great question. I work in marketing – most of what's done follows the same templates they've been using forever: logo exposure = positive brand awareness. I seriously doubt the jersey sponsors conducted research to measure fan reaction.

Remember, a jersey ad isn't digital marketing, where you can easily track who's seen it, read it, responded to it. This is old-school marketing. The only way to gather data on how people feel about a logo on their favourite jersey is to ask them directly, which is much more time consuming and expensive. No way does a sponsor's internal marketing division have the tools or budget to do this.

Can sponsors get this kind of info from specialized marketing companies? Here's a sports marketing company explaining the advantages and disadvantages of this exact kind of branding. Note they don't touch the subject of fans disliking ads, or possible backlash reactions by rival fans. Why should they? Their goal is to tell sponsors ads are a great thing.
 
Last edited:
You can't compare it with football. For starters, we don't have TV ad breaks... Two 45 minute halves of uninterrupted play.

Personally, I think this is a travesty and a stain on the leagues heritage. TV ad breaks, replays sponsored by companies, in arena powerplay sponsorship announcements, helmet ads, jersey patches. Gross.

Where does it end?
We have the tv timeout and every league does it now sans IIHL whether the the game is actually televised or not.
At, or around the 10 minute mark of every period, the game now takes a 2 minute timeout so stations can advertise. It becomes a real problem for the station if the play continue uninterrupted or, God forbid, something exciting is happening in the game around that time.
---
So far with Bettman, we've had on ice advertisements, on glass digital ads, helmet ads, ads on the trapezoids now (trapezoids being his invention), and now sweater ads. Are the teams hurting for money these days? $600 million cable/streaming contract says no.
---
When I visited London there was a Rugby championship going on at the Millennial Dome. My buddy showing us around had to correct me that O[sup]2[/sup] wasn't the name of the team or who they represented just because the large logo for it was on the front of the Jerseys.
 
We have the tv timeout and every league does it now sans IIHL whether the the game is actually televised or not.
At, or around the 10 minute mark of every period, the game now takes a 2 minute timeout so stations can advertise. It becomes a real problem for the station if the play continue uninterrupted or, God forbid, something exciting is happening in the game around that time.
---
So far with Bettman, we've had on ice advertisements, on glass digital ads, helmet ads, ads on the trapezoids now (trapezoids being his invention), and now sweater ads. Are the teams hurting for money these days? $600 million cable/streaming contract says no.
---
When I visited London there was a Rugby championship going on at the Millennial Dome. My buddy showing us around had to correct me that O[sup]2[/sup] wasn't the name of the team or who they represented just because the large logo for it was on the front of the Jerseys.

It's not about "hurting for revenue". What it's about with for profit organizations is continually finding revenue growth. It's one of the traditional metrics used to determine the health of a business.

It's an end of an era, but we all knew this day was coming unless we have our heads buried in the sand.

The increased exposure to advertisement is not just a bettman thing, it's a pro sports thing.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top
-->->