Beginning of the End: NBA owners approve ads on uniforms

[Thomas]

Ladies and gentlemen, your 2018 NBA champions !

 

[pepis21]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand Cesarano said:

Now think of David Beckham. What word do you see? Perhaps "Sharp", perhaps "Herbalife". Think of Thierry Henry. You're now seeing "O2".  Kobe just retired.  Whenever we think of him, we'll see the word "Lakers".  But, after Kevin Durant and Steph Curry retire, our memories of those players will be polluted by the presence of the names of the companies that ultimately buy advertising space on their teams' jerseys.

 

Maybe, but when I'm thinking about Becks I think mostly about Man United, when I'm thinking about Henry I think mostly about Arsenal so It doesn't matter what word is written on a jersey and you too dramatizes.

[The Giant Pacific Octopus]

Can't wait so see Bell and Rogers and Molson ads all over Montreal Canadiens jerseys, when the NHL decides to go this route.

[BBTV]

1 hour ago, Viola73 said:

Hate to break it to you but everything about a uniform today is basically an ad. The name of the team or the city is an ad. The logo of the jersey manufacture is an ad. The league logo on the jersey is an ad. Even the name of the player and their number can be considered an ad. Lets just wait and see what these things look like before we start jumping off a bridge.

 

You're not totally wrong, but you're missing the point. 

 

The uniform should represent a single brand - in the case of sports, the team that's wearing it. 

 

Is it an ad? Sure - once uniforms became more than just simply ways to distinguish teams on a field from each other and started having logos and hen eventually be for sale to public, they became ads - however the ad is for one specific brand and is part of something much bigger. 

 

Now you have another totally separate brand encroaching on the very thing that represents the team's brand. It's not even like they're side-by-side - it's right on top of it. "Logo Creep" is one way to describe that - however I think that's more applicable for cases like a small manufacturer logo on a product that's supposed to be for something else.

 

This is a whole other ball game. A ball game in which the fans lose. 

 

 

[Thomas]

[BlackBolt3]

The not-so-bad-but-still-kinda-sucks fact is that the ads won't appear on most retail jerseys. But there is something very sleazy about this whole thing.

[AstroCree]

In 20 years it won't be the New York Knicks. They'll be the NEW YORK CHASE BANK.

[AstroCree]

We're not too far from everyone else jumping bandwagon and looking like this. I can't even tell the name of the basketball and hockey teams.

[Sykotyk]

The reason soccer does it is two-fold: the small, more impoverished countries did it simply as a means to bring in enough revenue to stay afloat. The larger clubs did it because, well, they're doing it so why can't we do it?

 

But, the primary reason is the lack of regular commercial breaks in telecasts. Soccer and baseball both created the 'ads surrounding the field' concept. Now, you have high-def ribbon boards sitting right around the sidelines and goal lines to hopefully catch a glimpse of a TV camera, not to mention those in the stadium seeing it. For a TV camera panning around the field, the obvious location for an add was right on the player's chest or best.

 

It's funny that Soccer's inability to have commercials stems from their stern belief that the head official controls the clock, yet the manner they control it seems entirely arbitrary.  I've been to games with a myriad of stoppages in a half and only see +1 added, while I've seen a half fly by with no goals and suddenly we have +3 or +4 and even then the official goes beyond that despite no real reason. Or, when you see the official blow the whistle RIGHT WHEN the clock hits +3 when that's what was shown on the handheld sign. It's too arbitrary for me.

 

Modern technology, they could wirelessly track the official's watch to the stadium/telecast and everyone could see exactly when the official is stopping time. And also know exactly when the game ends. And for those that don't like it, change the rule: game can't end until change of possession to allow those last second rushes up the field to go until conclusion.

[Tracy MidGrady]

Teams will not look like that

[pepis21]

15 minutes ago, insert name said:

We're not too far from everyone else jumping bandwagon and looking like this. I can't even tell the name of the basketball and hockey teams.

 

C'mon this is Lietuvos Rytas Vilnius , you've got team name on a jersey.

[mcj882000]

I think people who defend ads on uniforms by pointing to minor leagues, leagues in other countries, or soccer, miss a couple of things. For one, yeah, minor & European leagues put ads on jerseys 'cause by and large, they probably do actually need that extra money. I really don't think any of the Big 4 out here are in such a spot that they can legitimately say that (without getting laughed at, anyways).

And as for pro soccer, there's kind of a trade-off there: while they do put ads on jerseys, they also have few-to-no commercials. Again, do you really think any of the Big 4 are willing to make a sacrifice like that?

[Alex Houston]

Don't get why this is necessary at all. I'm a puritan when it comes to ads on jerseys. This might be one of the tipping points that starts to get me to wean off sports for a while. Quite honestly, I would resent any companies who would choose to do this. Sports leagues aren't hurting for money and like Gothamite said, different teams will just end getting more money. 

Really no win here. 

[Kevin W.]

18 minutes ago, Tracy MidGrady said:

Teams will not look like that

No, they won't. Teams in smaller leagues, like in Europe, do that because they don't have the same revenue streams that US teams do. Hell, even the WNBA has only one on the front of its jerseys.

 

They will be limited in scope.

[Sport]

I say this as someone who makes a living in the advertising industry - unless you own an NBA franchise or you own another professional sports franchise that is inevitably going to adopt uniforms ads how can you support this? Major league teams have so many revenue streams that jersey ads are one they can afford to do without in order to maintain the appearance of professionalism, respectability, and overall just an aesthetically clean look. What's the connection between all of those pictures above? They're minor leagues. The established aesthetic is ads = bush. I'd rather that not enter the big 4 North American sports although I've know it was coming. It's cheap and tasteless.  

 

 

- "It's a free market economy and teams should try to earn as much as possible"

Yes and I'm all for the free-market economy which is why I hope this move dips their jersey sales to the point where ads aren't profitable. I very much doubt this will happen because 90% of people don't care like we do, but that's what I'm hoping for.

To expand on this though: I outfitted Key Arena, Centurylink Field, Husky Stadium and the Moda Center in Portland and I worked for the agency that helped name the Golden1 Center in Sacramento. Places where there are ads in a sports venue: playing surface, walls, naming rights, programs, souvenir cups, give-away promotions, LED bands, permanent scoreboard fixtures, permanent signage, sponsoring in-game events like the thing where a kid has to throw a ball through a thing, literally playing commercials on the jumbotron, sponsoring the kiss-cam, sponsoring the half time interview, sponsoring the half-time show, sponsoring the pad the mascot lands on when he does his dunk stunt, sponsoring the chairs the players sit on, sponsoring the different levels in the arena, etc. It goes on and on.

 

As a person in advertising I am just fine with those revenue streams feeding me and my family thank you. To say the teams need another source of revenue through advertising is absurd. If you think this additional source of revenue will benefit the fans in the form of lower ticket prices you are a giant naive idiot. If you think jersey ads will result in fewer ads elsewhere you are a giant naive idiot. It's for the guys who own the teams and the mega corporations and that's it. The rest of us are just stuck with more visual pollution. 

 

- "the teams and players are already ads in and of themselves"

yes sports are a business, but they're one of the few businesses that are supported with fandom. The disconnect between supporting a local sports team like the Chicago Bulls, and rooting for say, Post to sell more cereal is enormous. Sports are just different and the uniforms are representative of more than just a product. Concerts and tours are also sponsored by massive corporations, but it wouldn't be cool if you went to see a band and every member of the band was wearing a McDonald's tshirt. Same thing. 

 

- "it's not that big of a deal"

It's a big deal. Even if limited to a single ad, the ad is small, matches the team's uniform in color and style (which will happen more rarely than not), and isn't intrusive, it will still make the uniform look worse simply by its presence. If something's presence can't improve upon its absence then aesthetically speaking it shouldn't be on the uniform. 

 

It's a big deal now because you give 1.5" today and in 30 years we're watching The Coca-Cola Bulls. This happened in soccer. It will happen here. As a fan of sports aesthetics, aesthetics on their own, and a member of this forum, how can you possibly take this stance that it's not a big deal?

 

- "soccer and nascar do it and those sports still look okay."

Soccer, Nascar, european hockey/basketball et al all look terrible and their aesthetics would be vastly improved if they were to remove advertising. 

 

 

[2001mark]

I'm betting more than a few will be international brandings... inviting money from anywhere the NBA thinks it wants more buzz.

 

It'll be interesting if jersey sales decline for a few years.  They'll surely pick up again once the generation who only knows ads doesn't care.

[Sport]

Just now, CRichardson said:

No, they won't. Teams in smaller leagues, like in Europe, do that because they don't have the same revenue streams that US teams do. Hell, even the WNBA has only one on the front of its jerseys.

 

They will be limited in scope.

They were limited in scope before and that scope was broken. Their scope was they weren't allowed on the uniforms. Now they've crossed a serious threshold that was the hardest barrier to break. Now that they have jersey ads it'll be easier to increase the size than it was to get them on the uniforms. In a few years the owners vote to increase the size. In a decade they vote to increase the size again. In a decade they vote to increase the size again. Before you know it jersey ads as are as large or bigger than the team's logos. 

 

That's not an unrealistic future to portend. 

[OnWis97]

11 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

It's a big deal now because you give 1.5" today and in 30 years we're watching The Coca-Cola Bulls. This happened in soccer. It will happen here. As a fan of sports aesthetics, aesthetics on their own, and a member of this forum, how can you possibly take this stance that it's not a big deal?

 

Suggesting that this is not possible is just naive.  Fans will give them this inch (and a half) and eventually, they'll take more.  

 

The thing that really bugs me is that the teams can generate a $4 to $6 million a year.  How big of a drop in the bucket is that vs. the rest of the advertising revenue?  And to do that they are watering their own image; sharing it with some other company.  Now when fans look at the Nuggets, they are going to think to some extent about Pepsi.  For $4-$6 million a year, half of which they'll be sharing with players, they are going to water down their brand.  Teams can save that by not signing JJ Barea.  

 

Smarter people than I have probably figured out that there is no way this watering down/sharing will cost a team $4M per year...but I still question whether it's worth it.

[FiddySicks]

There are three things that would make this at least tolerable to me. 

 

1. It's kept only to the 2.5 X 2.5 inch patch

2. It's kept in mostly unobtrusive places (empty shoulder, rear of jersey where the NBA logo is now, ect)

3. They use local companies (EX: Coca Cola for the Hawks, Oracle for the Warriors, AAA for the Magic, ect) 

 

 

I mean, this sucks, but meh. It was bound to happen sooner or later. 

 

 

But, if they ever decide to ditch the team wordmarks for sponsorships, it becomes a HUGE issue. The minute you see things like this, it's all over. 

 

[VDizzle12]

Hopefully there is a drop in jersey sales and NBA changes it's mind. Didn't the league/adidas push for sleeved jerseys to help boost struggling jersey sales? Doesn't seem like a great idea to hurt sales even more.

 

I don't really have any interest in buying a Cavs jersey with an ad on it. Hopefully other fans feel the same way.

 

It also comes down to which logos are placed on the jerseys. Do we really want logos for Chesapeake Energy, Smoothie King, Sleep Train, Talking Stick Resort, Vivint Smart Home, or whatever ridiculous companies would be willing to pay for it. Smaller icon driven logos (Microsoft, Pepsi, Coke, Apple, Chevy, Ford, etc might not look terrible.