Jersey Ads

[haseoke39]

We should instead be ruefully sighing about how we sleepwalked into a capitalist hellhole of our own making?

Aaauughhh

 

[Jedub]

People talk about silly things all the time. As for the last part basically, yes.

You're a silly person.

There are standards, you just don't like them. The NHL has only as much power as you choose to give it. They certainly aren't going to stop taking our money if we willingly give it to them.

Will this bite the NHL in the ass? Who knows. I doubt there are enough people upset about it to outweigh the added cash flow of the extra ads. And ultimately... that's NHL's bottom line. It is a collective of billionaires after all. Making money is what they do.


I'm not trying to mock anyone here. But you just spent a post listing off all the hard-earned money (assuming) you have spent on the Jets/NHL and then state you aren't a cash cow for them. That's the definition of a cash cow. And giving them money is not going to make them change.

I said I wasn't a cash cow. Literally. I'm not. A cash cow has an actual meaning. I'm not one. I don't have unlimited money, i'm not an investment vehicle. So treating me as if I am a cash cow is insulting. I will support the team, not the endless growth fetish. The jersey and the logo are an important part of the team's community identity and I won't support them turning that into an ad either.

 

[norrisnick]

You're a silly person.

Indubitably

I said I wasn't a cash cow. Literally. I'm not. A cash cow has an actual meaning. I'm not one. I don't have unlimited money, i'm not an investment vehicle. So treating me as if I am a cash cow is insulting. I will support the team, not the endless growth fetish. The jersey and the logo are an important part of the team's community identity and I won't support them turning that into an ad either.

From everything the Jets/NHL has seen, you have been. That doesn't mean it can't change, and it sounds like it is. But if you've fed into basically every major cashflow a team has, what sort of expectation is there from the team that you won't continue to do so? Until you stop? Nothing, unless they have a very robust fan survey/fanbase relations team and you can provide feedback that isn't purely giving them money at every opportunity.

 

[Pip]

Meh I don’t care

 

[Jedub]

Indubitably

From everything the Jets/NHL has seen, you have been. That doesn't mean it can't change, and it sounds like it is. But if you've fed into basically every major cashflow a team has, what sort of expectation is there from the team that you won't continue to do so? Until you stop? Nothing, unless they have a very robust fan survey/fanbase relations team and you can provide feedback that isn't purely giving them money at every opportunity.

What is your point here? I'm not surprised they put ads on jerseys.

 

[norrisnick]

Why do you think I had an expectation that they wouldn't do this?

When did I refer to your expectations?

It's probably phrased poorly, but the expectation I mentioned was the team expecting you to keep giving them money. Because that is what history has shown them.

 

[Jedub]

When did I refer to your expectations?

It's probably phrased poorly, but the expectation I mentioned was the team expecting you to keep giving them money. Because that is what history has shown them.

So what?

 

[norrisnick]

So what?

So nothing apparently.

 

[Jedub]

So nothing apparently.

I'd say so.

 

[Oscar The Grouch]

Amazing that so many people automatically subscribe to the notion that the NHL must continue to grow its revenues over and above inflation.

 

[ElLeetch]

This is the correct approach if you're upset by jersey ads. When I see people writing, "I'm not going to buy a jersey with an ad, I'm going to buy one without an ad", it makes me laugh. Do you really think this would stop teams from placing ads on their jerseys? That would be the best of both worlds for them. They would get the ad revenue from the sponsor and they would still make money from the fan.

exactly. dont feed the system. buy nothing. pirate the game streams.

The NHL has not seen a dollar from me since i walked away from my Season Tickets ~10 years ago.

 

[norrisnick]

Amazing that so many people automatically subscribe to the notion that the NHL must continue to grow its revenues over and above inflation.

It's a collective of billionaires. It's not a notion of they must continue to grow revenues over and above inflation, it's a notion of that's what billionaires do.

 

[ArmadilloThumb]

There's this going assumption here that if you're posting on a hockey board in September, you're an addict to a product, and that it doesn't matter what you say against that product, you're going to consume it.

And yeah, I've been watching NHL hockey for 25 years, through many snits at the league for this and that, but I do honestly think that making the jerseys themselves into ads is likely to greatly reduce my interest in the product, whether I throw a fit about it or not. I'm almost not mad at them for taking the money, but it does lay bare that the product is useless to me. Like watching a game through shitstained glasses, it just might not have the same appeal anymore. And I'm a little stunned they didn't realize that.

I've stopped consuming a lot of media because of ad creep. I never thought it would be this media, but I never thought they'd screw up their core product this badly.

Agree. It's a bad idea to make your most loyal and long standing customers WANT to not watch. That's where I am with jersey ads. It's like being cheated on by your GF. It kills something inside, and you want out. Maybe I will still watch, or maybe I'll explore finding OTHER THINGS to do. If I still watch I may eventually drift over to those other things.

If I do move away from the game, that's a good part of Capitalism, and the league potentially pays a price if enough do. It's their problem, not mine at that point.

I will also forever hate your product if you advertise your product on an hockey jersey. That is also an effective capitalist force - that advertiser may pay a price. Not my problem.

And for those that blame capitalism you will still have jersey ads under your beloved Socialism. But just one. I will admit the CCCP logo was pretty well blended in on those old red and white tarps.

 

[GhostofTommyBolin]

CCM, Nike, Adidas, etc., have all been advertising on NHL jerseys for decades. The logo has always been visible. Maybe not on the chest, but clearly visible. Never heard anyone complain about Adidas having their logo right by player names on the back.
"DURRRRR! But it's different! DURRRRR!"
It's not different. This is a giant nothingburger.

 

[orby]

CCM, Nike, Adidas, etc., have all been advertising on NHL jerseys for decades. The logo has always been visible. Maybe not on the chest, but clearly visible. Never heard anyone complain about Adidas having their logo right by player names on the back.
"DURRRRR! But it's different! DURRRRR!"
It's not different. This is a giant nothingburger.

Probably because Adidas, CCM, and Nike are the companies that manufacture the equipment, so it's natural that their logos are on it. There is no legitimate non-greed related reason for the logo of an insurance company or sports gambling enterprise to be featured on the equipment.

 

[GhostofTommyBolin]

Probably because Adidas, CCM, and Nike are the companies that manufacture the equipment, so it's natural that their logos are on it. There is no legitimate non-greed related reason for the logo of an insurance company or sports gambling enterprise to be featured on the equipment.

You think those companies don't want more money and aren't greedy? I've got a few bridges for sale if you believe that. Buy more than one, I'll give you a discount.

 

[ArmadilloThumb]

The notion that the jersey manufacturer logo is the same as these ads is ridiculous (I do think the manufacturer logo should be relegated to the rear hem as it used to be).

Its like saying the the word SuperTacks on skates in 1973 was the same thing. Yeah, no.

 

[Johnny Rifle]

Its like saying the the word SuperTacks on skates in 1973 was the same thing. Yeah, no.

Actually today it is, as I believe companies have to pay to have the manufacturer logo allowed on equipment.

 

[orby]

You think those companies don't want more money and aren't greedy? I've got a few bridges for sale if you believe that. Buy more than one, I'll give you a discount.

No, I'm well aware that they are as greedy as any other company. But there is a logical reason why people don't complain about seeing an Adidas logo on a jersey manufactured by Adidas.

 

[norrisnick]

No, I'm well aware that they are as greedy as any other company. But there is a logical reason why people don't complain about seeing an Adidas logo on a jersey manufactured by Adidas.

Because they've been conditioned that manufacturer's marks are acceptable advertisements.

Long ways back I worked for UPS and the inbound/outbound coordinator was talking about the negotiations regarding an order of Mack trucks. UPS wanted to buy them without the big bulldog on the hood and how best to work out that deal. Mack responded that UPS was paying for the bulldog and that the truck was free.

 

[orby]

Because they've been conditioned that manufacturer's marks are acceptable advertisements.

Look, if I had my druthers, the jerseys would just have the team branding and nothing else. I certainly don't need to see the Nike swoosh or whatever everywhere I look during a sports broadcast. I am only saying that it's easy to see why people are more bothered by a bank logo on an NHL jersey than they are by the logo of the jersey's manufacturer.

 

[norrisnick]

Look, if I had my druthers, the jerseys would just have the team branding and nothing else. I certainly don't need to see the Nike swoosh or whatever everywhere I look during a sports broadcast. I am only saying that it's easy to see why people are more bothered by a bank logo on an NHL jersey than they are by the logo of the jersey's manufacturer.

I get that one has a different perception than the other. But both are negotiated financial transactions that result in a company's logo on the sweater that is not that of the team.

And that is the salient point being made here.

This ad is bad.

This ad has been fine for decades.

 

[Boomstick]

I think the best sponsor a team could put on their jersey would be AdBlock
That would be hilarious.

 

[Negan4Coach]

f*** jersey ads and f*** YOU for being okay with them. Its like people who justify a law that tramples on rights by saying “Well you’ll hardly notice and btw it could have been so much worse so just eat your goddamned peas and take it like a champ.”

 

[CF84]

CCM, Nike, Adidas, etc., have all been advertising on NHL jerseys for decades. The logo has always been visible. Maybe not on the chest, but clearly visible. Never heard anyone complain about Adidas having their logo right by player names on the back.
"DURRRRR! But it's different! DURRRRR!"
It's not different. This is a giant nothingburger.

This is exactly what a shill would say.

Adidas is the manufacturer of the jerseys so why wouldn't they have their logo on it? I have Yamaha drums not Yamaha McDonalds drums. There is a crystal clear difference to anyone with common sense. Guitar companies make Gibson Les Pauls and Fender Strats, not Gibson Chrysler TD Canada Trust Les Paul's and Fender Nestlé Lululemon Strats. Those guitars would be far less collectable and would also look like crap.

Adidas makes the jersey and then a team puts their logo on it. Milk and RBC do not have a factories that make the jerseys and selling out to companies like that only stands to dilute the meaning of the team logos and what people cheer for.

You clearly haven't put very much thought into your "DURRRRR's."

The shills are working very hard trying to justify this trash.