BBTV Posted Monday at 04:55 PM Share Posted Monday at 04:55 PM 2 hours ago, spartacat_12 said: they do their best to make the logos fit with the rest of the uniform. They're small, single layered patches that match the teams' colours. They're meant to be subtle and not distract from the rest of the uniform. Yes, Nike really did their best... It's hardly noticeable. I'll argue that Nike is worse, because it literally competes against the teams brand by putting its logo front and center with the team's logo or word mark. If they wanted to do "their best" (as if they're forced to do anything), then keeping it on the sleeve cuff or maybe where the MLB log is would be better, albeit worth less money. 3 1 Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacat_12 Posted Monday at 07:38 PM Share Posted Monday at 07:38 PM 2 hours ago, BBTV said: I'll argue that Nike is worse, because it literally competes against the teams brand by putting its logo front and center with the team's logo or word mark. If they wanted to do "their best" (as if they're forced to do anything), then keeping it on the sleeve cuff or maybe where the MLB log is would be better, albeit worth less money. Complaining about the Nike logo is one thing, but I can't take your comment seriously if you're actually saying that a 2 inch swoosh in a team's primary colour is worse than a giant sleeve patch that's designed to stick out from every other element of the jersey. Also, the sleeve ads are the only reason the swoosh got moved to the front of the jersey in the first place. This whole take just feels like some hipster, contrarian, "I hated ads before it was cool" mentality. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted Monday at 08:14 PM Share Posted Monday at 08:14 PM 30 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said: This whole take just feels like some hipster, contrarian, "I hated ads before it was cool" mentality. Summarily dismissing valid arguments is not a good way to have a discussion on a message board. If you don't take my opinion seriously, I couldn't care less. But being dismissive - especially about a topic that's been hot here for nearly two decades - is lame. They both suck. I'd probably choose 3rd-party Nike over some 4th-party sleeve ad, but it's inarguable that the Nike logo is intentionally placed in a way so that it's visible along with the team's proprietary mark, meaning that the team's own mark isn't even the only thing on the front of their jersey, and impacts the front facing (i.e. the most important) visual of the jersey. 2 1 Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartacat_12 Posted Monday at 08:57 PM Share Posted Monday at 08:57 PM 36 minutes ago, BBTV said: Summarily dismissing valid arguments is not a good way to have a discussion on a message board. If you don't take my opinion seriously, I couldn't care less. But being dismissive - especially about a topic that's been hot here for nearly two decades - is lame. They both suck. I'd probably choose 3rd-party Nike over some 4th-party sleeve ad, but it's inarguable that the Nike logo is intentionally placed in a way so that it's visible along with the team's proprietary mark, meaning that the team's own mark isn't even the only thing on the front of their jersey, and impacts the front facing (i.e. the most important) visual of the jersey. I'm just tired of all the hyperbole around the manufacturer marks. I've been around these boards for a long time, and I didn't see nearly as many complaints about Nike/Adidas/Reebok logos popping up on jerseys until actual ads started being added to the jerseys. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sec19Row53 Posted Monday at 09:18 PM Share Posted Monday at 09:18 PM 16 minutes ago, spartacat_12 said: I'm just tired of all the hyperbole around the manufacturer marks. I've been around these boards for a long time, and I didn't see nearly as many complaints about Nike/Adidas/Reebok logos popping up on jerseys until actual ads started being added to the jerseys. Maybe - but that doesn't make that complaining wrong. An ad is an ad. There were certainly complaints about ads showing up on caps as well as on the front of baseball jerseys. Frankly, there have been plenty of complaints directed toward Nike regarding their color choices on football jerseys (Seattle's green, Tennessee's red, Indianapolis' black come to mind immediately). If you want misdirected complaining, you could direct that at people who think that the ads should be re-colored to match the jersey color. That's not how you find an ad in a company's style guide. 2 Quote It's where I sit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FriedPickles Posted Monday at 09:30 PM Share Posted Monday at 09:30 PM my only question, is how the nike logo showing up on a uniform they created is an "Ad" unless they actually aren't manufacutring the uniforms. Like is it an "ad" when fruit of the loom has their logo on the back of underwear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sec19Row53 Posted Monday at 09:37 PM Share Posted Monday at 09:37 PM 5 minutes ago, FriedPickles said: my only question, is how the nike logo showing up on a uniform they created is an "Ad" unless they actually aren't manufacutring the uniforms. Like is it an "ad" when fruit of the loom has their logo on the back of underwear? Have you noticed that FRUIT OF THE LOOM in all CAPS is now printed on the waistband on the outside of underwear? That's so it's visible. Only us nerds know that Nike isn't the manufacturer. 1 Quote It's where I sit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny the Sheeb Posted Monday at 10:01 PM Share Posted Monday at 10:01 PM This argument is the equivalent of debating whether it's better to eat your own puke or someone else's. Can we just agree both suck and leave it at that? 3 Quote "The guns have fallen silent. The stars have aligned. The great wait is over. Come see. It will not be televised." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted Monday at 11:36 PM Share Posted Monday at 11:36 PM 1 hour ago, FriedPickles said: my only question, is how the nike logo showing up on a uniform they created is an "Ad" unless they actually aren't manufacutring the uniforms. Like is it an "ad" when fruit of the loom has their logo on the back of underwear? Nike is paying MLB money to put their swoosh on the front of the jersey. That's an advertisement by any definition. MLB has one price for the sleeve, a higher price for the chest, etc. Same with all of the leagues. That's valuable space, and the "supplier" has no inherent rights to put their logo anywhere that's being used for commercial purposes. It's not dissimilar to when there were exclusive sneaker deals, and if you weren't wearing the company (Nike?), you had to tape over the logo and literally draw the swoosh because Nike was paying to have their and only their logo shown, regardless of what you were actually wearing (it may have been Adidas, I don't remember exactly, but it was a thing.) 1 Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M59 Posted Monday at 11:54 PM Share Posted Monday at 11:54 PM 14 minutes ago, BBTV said: Nike is paying MLB money to put their swoosh on the front of the jersey. That's an advertisement by any definition. MLB has one price for the sleeve, a higher price for the chest, etc. Same with all of the leagues. That's valuable space, and the "supplier" has no inherent rights to put their logo anywhere that's being used for commercial purposes. I have to wonder if the movement of the Nike logo from the sleeve to the chest wasn't in part because the sleeves were going to be sold exclusively to the jersey advertisers. Given that ridiculous "handedness" rule, I couldn't see the Nike logo jumping from sleeve to sleeve so as not to clash with the sleeve ads. I wonder how the sleeve patch companies are tracking the "value" of these ads. My guess is 1% of viewers will buy something from these advertisers, 2% will swear never to buy from these advertisers and 97% DGAF. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old School Fool Posted Tuesday at 12:26 AM Share Posted Tuesday at 12:26 AM 3 hours ago, Sec19Row53 said: Maybe - but that doesn't make that complaining wrong. An ad is an ad. There were certainly complaints about ads showing up on caps as well as on the front of baseball jerseys. Frankly, there have been plenty of complaints directed toward Nike regarding their color choices on football jerseys (Seattle's green, Tennessee's red, Indianapolis' black come to mind immediately). If you want misdirected complaining, you could direct that at people who think that the ads should be re-colored to match the jersey color. That's not how you find an ad in a company's style guide. Worth noting that the Indianapolis Colts having a black swoosh on their jersey was just an excuse for black to be a team color and get them a black helmet. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tBBP Posted Tuesday at 04:20 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 04:20 PM 23 hours ago, BBTV said: It's hardly noticeable. I'll argue that Nike is worse, because it literally competes against the teams brand by putting its logo front and center with the team's logo or word mark. If they wanted to do "their best" (as if they're forced to do anything), then keeping it on the sleeve cuff or maybe where the MLB log is would be better, albeit worth less money. Total aside, but I think the worst thing about these new jerseys the past four or five years is how paper-thin that fabric is... 1 Quote *Disclaimer: I am not an authoritative expert on stuff...I just do a lot of reading and research and keep in close connect with a bunch of people who are authoritative experts on stuff. || dribbble || Behance || Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted Tuesday at 04:45 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 04:45 PM 24 minutes ago, tBBP said: Total aside, but I think the worst thing about these new jerseys the past four or five years is how paper-thin that fabric is... I didn’t think they had changed up until this year. Quote "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M59 Posted Tuesday at 04:58 PM Share Posted Tuesday at 04:58 PM 11 minutes ago, BBTV said: I didn’t think they had changed up until this year. It hadn't. The only thing that changed from Majestic's introduction of Flex Base until this year was swapping (and moving) the manufacturer's logos. I miss Majestic so bloody much. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Partycrasher Posted 23 hours ago Share Posted 23 hours ago it's really nice to know that if I want to see any of my teams win another championship without looking like the front fender of a stock car, I either have to put my faith in the goddamn Jets or hope the Isles can pull a miracle Cup run out of their asses before Lou croaks. like, I don't even have the option of huffing the "well at least the Mets and Yanks' ad patches are color-matched" copium anymore thanks to this malignant tumor getting slapped onto the batting helmets. there need to be laws against this sort of thing. dead serious. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Admiral Posted 2 hours ago Share Posted 2 hours ago On 9/16/2024 at 4:18 PM, Sec19Row53 said: If you want misdirected complaining, you could direct that at people who think that the ads should be re-colored to match the jersey color. That's not how you find an ad in a company's style guide. It's not quite the same, but the NHL did make a change around the late '90s to where the background on board ads had to be white. No brand colors changed, but the full white background around the boards significantly improved the signal-to-noise ratio of the rink. If anything, it was to the sponsors' advantage to get away from all the big colored rectangles: 1 Quote ♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.