Jersey Ads = done deal

[SKYO]

First ad on canucks jersey...


with: #InYoFaceRogers

[Arachnid]

Capitalistic bastards..

Exactly why I love my job!

Slave

[donlever]

First ad on canucks jersey...


with: #InYoFaceRogers

I was thinking more along these lines...

[Topper]

First ad on canucks jersey...


with: #InYoFaceRogers

I was thinking more along these lines...

Droll troll

[Arachnid]

First ad on canucks jersey...


with: #InYoFaceRogers

I was thinking more along these lines...

Pffffffft, you call that trolling?

[ClamRussel]

So they can't look at other revenue opportunities until they're selling out games in the worst markets (where the on ice product is absolute crap). Seems like a reasonable strategy..

Hyperbole? Is that a rational argument? No, it seems reasonable for the NHL to force itself upon markets that could care less about their product. Anchor the team there for decades and keep repeating this mistake year after year because revenue sharing will take care of the losses. Don't move the team to actual hockey markets who will support the team w/o gimmicks. Instead sell ads on the jerseys, sounds like a reasonable business plan.

Well the problem there is that you're assuming this is some sort of weird closed system in which the league can only do one of those things. Why are they turning down a chance to profit from ad revenue? Why move a franchise from one location to the other (when the majority of the time it's been shown that an improved on ice product will alleviate a lot of financial difficulty - certainly in terms of attendance - and relocating won't solve that) when that likely means turning down an expansion fee that will end up in the hundreds of millions?

You might not like the idea of Southern expansion, and there are plenty of struggling franchises down there to bolster your argument on that front, but it doesn't really have anything to do with putting a corporate logo on a hockey jersey, does it?

Just like individual teams don't need rising costs to justify raising their ticket prices, the league doesn't need money-losing franchises to justify adding new revenue streams.

I don't mind the idea of southern expansion as long as it's sustainable. Dallas has done well. Nashville has turned into a surprising market. It's not incredible but sustainable esp considering the style of play they've witnessed for a decade. Florida? It's pathetic. They can't even hit double digits w/ freebies, 2 for 1s and fudging the numbers. Their average reported attendance is 8,900, almost 4,000 less than the 29th team, Carolina. If you see footage in Florida there can't be much more than 5 or 6,000 tops. I'm just saying there's other priorities. Having franchises in markets were they can be successful benefits the entire league due to revenue sharing & spinoff success, merchandising, demand etc.

I'm also not saying the league should benefit from advertising. They already do & it's saturated. They have advertising everywhere. They've got decent tv deals esp thanks to Sportsnet going crazy to outbid CBC & TSN. With a healthier league they'll get a better contract in the States.

The jerseys should be left alone. The success of the league is dependent on the fans and the jerseys/logo/city/identity mean as much to most fans as the players if not more so. Players bounce around & fans get over it, adapt & cheer for whoever wears that uniform. They are the ones who buy the swag. They are the ones who follow the team religiously (ie all of us). Without the rabid fans there is no tv deal because there is no advertising market. A thriving league w/ sold out exciting games = huge tv deals & all the advertising they can sell. Guaranteed that jersey sales will drop somewhat w/ ads on them (if they look anything like the European ones), they certainly won't increase. Who knows what the bottom line would be but I'm sure it's a consideration considering the amount of jerseys teams presently sell. Teams have changed colours/logos in an attempt to increase jersey sales so it's definitely a sizeable source of income. The profit margin must be huge.

You said this thread was an opportunity for me to bash the league. Incorrect. This thread was me saying some things have value on their own and shouldn't be exploited for, essentially, minimum return (at the macro level). By leaving the jerseys alone it's about tradition and class. The European jerseys are tacky and ooze desperation.

Aside from the jerseys, I'm all for the NHL selling all the advertising they can. I think there can be balance. They can be profitable & have dignity. The jerseys are the last semblance of the illusion that the game actually means something besides being simply a generator of revenue. For some owners it's a tool for profit alone, to others it's a racehorse for stature, but to some the quest for the Cup means something more than playoff profit. They are fans themselves, true fans. It would seem we have the latter as owners. I suspect those owners will see the value in leaving the jerseys alone.

Nothing is a necessity, the league could become a non-profit and start giving away tickets at cost too.. but you, me, and everyone else knows that things don't work that way. The NHL and its franchises will continue to act as profit-seeking entities and will make decisions based on that - and this is no different.

Is that another rational argument? But why not, they already give away boatloads of tickets for free and part of 2for1 deals w/ hotdogs+beer in some markets and touch up totals in others. Where's the profit in that?

Please don't confuse marketing promotions with the fundamental aims of the league and its franchises; framing ticket giveaways as proof that these teams don't care about profit is a profoundly misguided interpretation of the facts.

The Panthers and Coyotes need to bend over backwards to fill up their arenas to anywhere near the level a winning team in the same market would.. that has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with the fact that on aggregate, the league could add to their bottom line by putting ads on their jerseys.

Exactly why they shouldn't be in those markets but you're only half right. The Coyotes have had winning & competitive seasons & they still have to resort to gimmicks & giveaways. Moving those teams into healthy markets would make the league more profitable. That's the point, instant revenue generation and so it's about them getting their ducks in a row. Priorities. There's other ways to get the advertising dollars.

[dbr]

I don't mind the idea of southern expansion as long as it's sustainable. Dallas has done well. Nashville has turned into a surprising market. It's not incredible but sustainable esp considering the style of play they've witnessed for a decade. Florida? It's pathetic. They can't even hit double digits w/ freebies, 2 for 1s and fudging the numbers. Their average reported attendance is 8,900, almost 4,000 less than the 29th team, Carolina. If you see footage in Florida there can't be much more than 5 or 6,000 tops. I'm just saying there's other priorities. Having franchises in markets were they can be successful benefits the entire league due to revenue sharing & spinoff success, merchandising, demand etc.

That's not really correct though. Regardless of what the arena looks like midway through the third period on a Thursday night where the home team is losing to the Blue Jackets or whatever, they are averaging about 9000 per game - last year, with the freebies and promotions and yada yada they were reporting close to 14000 per game. You can bash them for the freebies or you can bash them for the abysmal numbers right now but when you combine them it looks like you don't have your facts straight.

And to reiterate, nothing about the situations in Sunrise or Glendale mean that the NHL can't also look at other revenue opportunities - nor does it directly drive them to do so, for that matter.

I'm also not saying the league should benefit from advertising. They already do & it's saturated. They have advertising everywhere. They've got decent tv deals esp thanks to Sportsnet going crazy to outbid CBC & TSN. With a healthier league they'll get a better contract in the States.

They've already got a 10 year deal with NBC sports paying them $200m a year, which was widely viewed as a huge victory for the league (this was signed three years ago btw)... but it still not even double the revenue number we're talking about here, I might add.

(And "saturated" is a subjective term in this context.. its meaning can change and, like everything else, will change.)

The jerseys should be left alone. The success of the league is dependent on the fans and the jerseys/logo/city/identity mean as much to most fans as the players if not more so. Players bounce around & fans get over it, adapt & cheer for whoever wears that uniform. They are the ones who buy the swag. They are the ones who follow the team religiously (ie all of us). Without the rabid fans there is no tv deal because there is no advertising market. A thriving league w/ sold out exciting games = huge tv deals & all the advertising they can sell. Guaranteed that jersey sales will drop somewhat w/ ads on them (if they look anything like the European ones), they certainly won't increase. Who knows what the bottom line would be but I'm sure it's a consideration considering the amount of jerseys teams presently sell. Teams have changed colours/logos in an attempt to increase jersey sales so it's definitely a sizeable source of income. The profit margin must be huge.

Like I said earlier, if a jersey doesn't get bought from a team store or NHL.com, the league (and its franchises) really only make the licensing fee from that sale, even if that's $100 per jersey it'd take a loss of 1.2m jerseys per year to eat up that ad revenue.

Anyway nearly none of this is substantiated in any way so I'm not going to get into comparing speculative accounts of what would happen to jersey sales or attendance or the on ice product if the league put ads on their jerseys.

Speaking specifically to jerseys, if you look at the Premier league a lot of teams make nearly as much money selling ads on their jerseys as they do selling the right to manufacture and sell them.

You said this thread was an opportunity for me to bash the league. Incorrect. This thread was me saying some things have value on their own and shouldn't be exploited for, essentially, minimum return (at the macro level). By leaving the jerseys alone it's about tradition and class. The European jerseys are tacky and ooze desperation.

But that's also subjective. Hockey is a minor sport over in Europe but plenty of other leagues there seem to have little trouble selling jerseys with prominently placed ads.. do the people buying millions of Man Utd and Chelsea and FCB and Real Madrid jerseys find them tacky and desperate?

If ads turned up on jerseys today, in a decade do you really think some 12 year old kid would turn down a hockey jersey with a logo on the top right, an ad for TD in the middle and McDavid (or whatever) on the back?

This is a league that lost a season and was apparently ready to lose another to improve their bottom line, I don't think they're going to blink at what the old guard (of the peanut gallery) have to say about their shiny new $100m+/year revenue stream.

Aside from the jerseys, I'm all for the NHL selling all the advertising they can. I think there can be balance. They can be profitable & have dignity. The jerseys are the last semblance of the illusion that the game actually means something besides being simply a generator of revenue. For some owners it's a tool for profit alone, to others it's a racehorse for stature, but to some the quest for the Cup means something more than playoff profit. They are fans themselves, true fans. It would seem we have the latter as owners. I suspect those owners will see the value in leaving the jerseys alone.

Dignity?! I don't attend games anymore, but when I did having ads screamed at me over the loud speakers at every stoppage in play, flashing on the scoreboard and ring and staircases and boards and ice surface, on the tickets themselves, and tattooed on the eyelids of the Aramark wage slaves serving up $8 cups of piss beer didn't exactly say "dignity" to me.

And yes, jerseys are the last "semblance of the illusion" so why cling to it so hard? It's an illusion, give it up. Having Microsoft or Ford or fucking BC Ferries or whatever on a jersey doesn't suddenly fundamentally alter the nature of the sport or make you unable to cheer for your favourite team - unless you have some kind of bizarre hang up over the pretense that the business running the league aren't in it for the profit (on some level, at least), focused entirely on the "integrity" of a shirt (made by CCM Reebok Adidas, part of your proud hockey heritage).

Exactly why they shouldn't be in those markets but you're only half right. The Coyotes have had winning & competitive seasons & they still have to resort to gimmicks & giveaways. Moving those teams into healthy markets would make the league more profitable. That's the point, instant revenue generation and so it's about them getting their ducks in a row. Priorities. There's other ways to get the advertising dollars.

Oh come on. The Coyotes are in a peculiarly bad situation being stuck out in Glendale, but at any rate despite some modest success under Dave Tippet this is a loser franchise, on their way to a 10th season (in the last 13) outside the playoff picture, with one second round appearance ever.

Anyway as entertaining as it is talking about why two of the worst teams in hockey would have far higher attendance, it's just a pointless red herring when it comes to the subject at hand.

You know what's nearly as easy as fixing the financial problems of a couple of the leagues worst franchises, and more profitable to boot? Fixing those same problems AND selling ads on jerseys.

[ClamRussel]

That's not really correct though. Regardless of what the arena looks like midway through the third period on a Thursday night where the home team is losing to the Blue Jackets or whatever, they are averaging about 9000 per game - last year, with the freebies and promotions and yada yada they were reporting close to 14000 per game. You can bash them for the freebies or you can bash them for the abysmal numbers right now but when you combine them it looks like you don't have your facts straight.

My facts are straight, those numbers are Florifabricated. They still are embellished this year, that's just how bad things have gotten. It's an embarrassment to the league and a deterrent to TV & advertisers.

Pre-season, start of the game (stupid scheduling by the team but still...)


Regular season, mid-game vs. Ottawa. Reported attendance=7,311....I agree w/ Garrioch, can't be much more than 311 there.



Another shot of that regular season game vs. Ottawa in progress.


How about we end this quoting/arguing every little point. All I said was the NHL has bigger issues that should be addressed first, they need to get their ducks in a row. I never said they shouldn't pursue advertising in the meantime, go for it. Leave it off the freaking uniforms, it's tacky beyond belief, not unlike billboards. We appear to see this differently. Or do we??? Your point is a tad mixed in that you claim to be against all the corporate orgy that the NHL has become, and have resided to the fact (suppressed feelings of guilt?) ...yet you argue every point I've made & sound like a lobbyist for the advertising interest. ...or do you just want me to join the dark side?

[Topper]

How about we end this quoting/arguing every little point.

ahhhh words of the defeated.......

[ClamRussel]

How about we end this quoting/arguing every little point.

ahhhh words of the defeated.......

Enter troll, exit contribution.

[BurningBeard]

Clam, you're doing a really good job arguing the point that Florida needs to do anything it can to get more money, including covering hockey players head to toe in advertising.

[ClamRussel]

Clam, you're doing a really good job arguing the point that Florida needs to do anything it can to get more money, including covering hockey players head to toe in advertising.

Why worry when they've got revenue sharing to bail them out? They do serve a purpose though in helping to keep the salary cap under control.

[Topper]

Clam, you're doing a really good job arguing the point that Florida needs to do anything it can to get more money, including covering hockey players head to toe in advertising.

A very good job of creating paper tigers for his argument that dbr has been crushing to pulp so Clam can keep recycling them because his only real opposition to the ads is that he doesn't think they will be very pretty.

[dbr]

That's not really correct though. Regardless of what the arena looks like midway through the third period on a Thursday night where the home team is losing to the Blue Jackets or whatever, they are averaging about 9000 per game - last year, with the freebies and promotions and yada yada they were reporting close to 14000 per game. You can bash them for the freebies or you can bash them for the abysmal numbers right now but when you combine them it looks like you don't have your facts straight.

My facts are straight, those numbers are Florifabricated. They still are embellished this year, that's just how bad things have gotten.

Okay so your facts (for the sake of argument) are straight, they just have zero application to the discussion at hand.
Florida is a terrible market and therefore the league should not look to expand advertising revenues.

It's an embarrassment to the league and a deterrent to TV & advertisers.

Really? Every league has stinker games, it's not like they're forcing NBC to show Panthers/Sens on national television in primetime.. so how does it "deter" broadcasters?

The thing about TV and advertisers is, you sell them the league (or specific franchises) as a whole and they take the package deal.. Scotiabank or Rogers or whoever aren't going to pull their sponsorship from the Senators because they played in that game with the awful attendance; they'll be sold a deal covering an entire season or multiple seasons and they'll buy in knowing that when the Senators are broadcast nationally in Canada or playing to a respectable crowd in Ottawa or Montreal or Toronto or Boston or New York or wherever else, that there are tens of thousands more eyes on their logo.

How about we end this quoting/arguing every little point.

I'll be done with this soon enough, I think.

All I said was the NHL has bigger issues that should be addressed first, they need to get their ducks in a row. I never said they shouldn't pursue advertising in the meantime, go for it. Leave it off the freaking uniforms, it's tacky beyond belief, not unlike billboards.

(I apologize if I'm conflating "your arguments" with "things you said for some reason other than forming an argument" but) your arguments been based mostly around falsehoods ("the league has an attendance problem they aren't addressing," or when that couldn't be substantiated, "okay well attendance is improving but the league should not have any problem franchises before/instead of adding jersey advertising because they can't do both") or your own aesthetic values which.. I mean surely you can appreciate that those aren't universal.

We appear to see this differently. Or do we??? Your point is a tad mixed in that you claim to be against all the corporate orgy that the NHL has become, and have resided to the fact (suppressed feelings of guilt?) ...yet you argue every point I've made & sound like a lobbyist for the advertising interest. ...or do you just want me to join the dark side?

My point isn't mixed at all; the league doesn't get a lot of my business already, selling ad space on jerseys isn't going to help them get my money but that doesn't mean that I think it's going to hurt them overall or that I think jersey ads mark some fundamental change in course for the business, or that the jerseys themselves are (in your words) sacrosanct.

I don't have to like every single trapping of the league's pursuit of profit, but understanding it means that as we move further away from the game/league/business I knew when I was younger, I don't have to be bogged down by some idealized notion of what it was or maintain any illusions about what it is.

[donlever]

I'll be done with this soon enough, I think.

Rumours of the above continue to rear their ugly head (which is not to suggest that I am not enjoying the back and forth).

So what, this thread is to you what crack is (allegedly) to Rob Ford?