Gothamite Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Why not? It's still an ad, just one for a non-profit. The financial model is different, but the end result is the same - ad on the shirt. Personally, I think this is their way of moving to a sponsor, getting the fanbase beyond the "we're above sponsorships". The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Why not? It's still an ad, just one for a non-profit. The financial model is different, but the end result is the same - ad on the shirt. Personally, I think this is their way of moving to a sponsor, getting the fanbase beyond the "we're above sponsorships".On your first point, its an ad but they actually paid UNICEF, not giving it away for free.And yeah it was to warm up the fans for a sponsorship agreement since they now wear this: "I don't understand where you got this idea so deeply ingrained in your head (that this world) is something that you must impress, cause I couldn't care less"http://keepdcunited.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 That's what I meant when I said the financial model was different. But the end result was the same - an ad across the chest, designed to promote the group advertised. Still counts as a sponsor in my book, just under very unusual circumstances. And didn't Aston Villa do something similar with a children's hospital a couple years back?I'm not up on the latest - does Barcelona have a similar arrangement with the Qatar Foundation, or does the foundation pay for its own advertising? The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 No, Qatar Foundation is paying Barcelona. 200M deal IIRC. Barca has kept UNICEF on the back of their shirt under the numbers, like so: "I don't understand where you got this idea so deeply ingrained in your head (that this world) is something that you must impress, cause I couldn't care less"http://keepdcunited.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintsfan Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 The ad is always bigger than the logo (which is just a patch). Sure the ads make money, but they lose jersey sales. What evidence do you have to support that?he doesn't because it's patently rubbish. Fans want to buy the shirt the players turn out in, sponsor and all. Part of the reason a sponsor will pay big bucks for a shirt sponsorship deal is the advertising of fans wearing shirts as they go about there everyday life. 2011/12 WFL Champions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuffDawg Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 And didn't Aston Villa do something similar with a children's hospital a couple years back?They sure did. They donated the front of the jersey to Acorns Children's Hospice for two seasons; 2008-09 and 2009-10. There comes a point when you don't stand for the constant heartbreak anymore, and walk away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewharrington Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 The ad is always bigger than the logo (which is just a patch). Sure the ads make money, but they lose jersey sales. What evidence do you have to support that?he doesn't because it's patently rubbish. Fans want to buy the shirt the players turn out in, sponsor and all. Part of the reason a sponsor will pay big bucks for a shirt sponsorship deal is the advertising of fans wearing shirts as they go about there everyday life.They probably would sell more jerseys if they offered a sponsorless option, though. They'd gain all those sales from people who just like the way the jersey looks and think that a sponsor ruins the look of the jersey. I still don't have a website, but I have a dribbble now! http://dribbble.com/andyharry [The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the position, strategy or opinions of adidas and/or its brands.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBubba Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 The ad is always bigger than the logo (which is just a patch). Sure the ads make money, but they lose jersey sales. What evidence do you have to support that?he doesn't because it's patently rubbish. Fans want to buy the shirt the players turn out in, sponsor and all. Part of the reason a sponsor will pay big bucks for a shirt sponsorship deal is the advertising of fans wearing shirts as they go about there everyday life.They probably would sell more jerseys if they offered a sponsorless option, though. They'd gain all those sales from people who just like the way the jersey looks and think that a sponsor ruins the look of the jersey. Nobody cares about your humungous-big signature. PotD: 29/1/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy B Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 The ad is always bigger than the logo (which is just a patch). Sure the ads make money, but they lose jersey sales. What evidence do you have to support that?he doesn't because it's patently rubbish. Fans want to buy the shirt the players turn out in, sponsor and all. Part of the reason a sponsor will pay big bucks for a shirt sponsorship deal is the advertising of fans wearing shirts as they go about there everyday life.They probably would sell more jerseys if they offered a sponsorless option, though. They'd gain all those sales from people who just like the way the jersey looks and think that a sponsor ruins the look of the jersey.EvidenceThat's not actual evidence. Plus, the club wouldn't as much from their sponsor deals if they offered a sponsorless jersey option for sale. A company isn't going to pay as much if fans aren't walking around the street with their logo on the club's jersey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bouj Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 The ad is always bigger than the logo (which is just a patch). Sure the ads make money, but they lose jersey sales. What evidence do you have to support that?Uhh...watch any MLS or European soccer gameUhh... How will that tell me that the clubs are losing jersey sales? The top four English clubs sell around a million replica shirts each year; sponsor logos don't seem to have hurt them much.And sponsorship changes actually HELP sales: whenever the shirts change, there is a dedicated segment of fans that want to buy the new one. It's an extension of the 3rd shirt/alternate business model. Go Astros!Go Texans!Go Rockets!Go Javelinas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 Not sure I buy that one; how many sponsor changes are not accompanied by a design change, if only because teams change design so often? The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-kj Posted July 31, 2011 Share Posted July 31, 2011 They probably would sell more jerseys if they offered a sponsorless option, though. They'd gain all those sales from people who just like the way the jersey looks and think that a sponsor ruins the look of the jersey. That strikes me as more speculation, rather than evidence, as evidenced (ha!) by the use of the word "probably". Buy some t-shirts and stuff at KJ Shop! KJ Branded | Behance portfolio POTD 2013-08-22 On 7/14/2012 at 2:20 AM, tajmccall said: When it comes to style, ya'll really should listen to Kev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawk36 Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 The ad is always bigger than the logo (which is just a patch). Sure the ads make money, but they lose jersey sales. What evidence do you have to support that?Uhh...watch any MLS or European soccer gameUhh... How will that tell me that the clubs are losing jersey sales? The top four English clubs sell around a million replica shirts each year; sponsor logos don't seem to have hurt them much.And sponsorship changes actually HELP sales: whenever the shirts change, there is a dedicated segment of fans that want to buy the new one. It's an extension of the 3rd shirt/alternate business model.I find that to be very true. Similar stigma to wearing a player jersey of a player that's been trading and it playing for another team. Some don't care, but many don't want to wear the old player's jersey. Get a new one. Same thing, people don't want to wear the old sponsor on their soccer jersey.I also find the sponsor logo to be a part of the uniform. I'd rather wear a Sounders jersey with XBOX on the front instead of one without the sponsor logo. Again, think of it in terms of other sports, say the NFL. It would be kind of like wearing a numberless NFL jersey. The sponsor is a big part of the overall look of soccer jerseys and people want to look like the team does. Design Hovie Studios Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Personally, I'd buy an Emirates-free Arsenal shirt over the current ones any day. But I understand the financial model of the sport, and that means they don't really bother me. I'd sooner buy one without, but would never let the presence of a sponsor logo keep me from buying a shirt. Except Bimbo. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongoose Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Personally, I'd buy an Emirates-free Arsenal shirt over the current ones any day. But I understand the financial model of the sport, and that means they don't really bother me. I'd sooner buy one without, but would never let the presence of a sponsor logo keep me from buying a shirt. Except Bimbo. I too would prefer to buy a sponsor free soccer jersey over one with a sponsor, and would never let a sponsor on a shirt keep me from buying a shirt, unless the sponsor completely spoils the look of the shirt. It does seem as though most sponsors on soccer uniforms do a good job of going with the uniform, so there are very few cases where a sponsor ruins the look of a uniform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 Yep. Philadelphia Union is about the only one that springs to mind. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBubba Posted August 1, 2011 Share Posted August 1, 2011 I made that comment before I learned that the majority of fans don't mind the sponsors and view them as part of the team/jersey identity, as several of you have said. Now that I know this, I take back what I said. Nobody cares about your humungous-big signature. PotD: 29/1/12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.