Ads on jerseys..

[ZBBM]

It's not just MLSE lost revenue that's a lever here.  A boycott of advertisers on jerseys, e.g.

FWIW I contribute very little to the MLSE bottom line too.  Probably as little as anyone I would guess.  Most fans could actually pinch their revenue w/o much loss of the fan experience.  Internet streaming (ahem) for one.  Heck, on the feeds I was watching last year they even blacked out the commercials.  It's a total freeload.

I'm not underestimating how hard it would be to get a critical mass to push back on jersey ads, and if most people don't care then of course not.  But it could be done.

 

[Kin]

It's not just MLSE lost revenue that's a lever here.  A boycott of advertisers on jerseys, e.g.

Which, again, only has punch if someone is really going to follow through on it. Which, again, if it's something you feel that strongly about then best of luck. However it strikes me as unlikely that most folk would stop going to Timmys or decide to not buy the right car for them based on jersey ads. 

But, and I think this is what I was getting at, all this reluctance to say you'd follow the team any less is exactly why the NHL is free to flirt with the concept in the first place. Being so dedicated to the team that even them doing something that seemingly offends you so wouldn't stop you from following them shows how ultimately toothless that would be.

 

[ZBBM]

Toothless?  Not at all.  Most fans do contribute to their bottom line.  If I'm one of those persons and I object to ads and I act on that by buying less merchandise, going to a different coffee shop, start watching pirate streams etc., AND I let them know why (critical step), then it's got plenty of teeth.

 

[Kin]

Toothless?  Not at all.  Most fans do contribute to their bottom line.  If I'm one of those persons and I object to ads and I act on that by buying less merchandise, going to a different coffee shop, start watching pirate streams etc., AND I let them know why (critical step), then it's got plenty of teeth.

Not really. Because what if they start cracking down on streams(which they have, it's not what it was)? So long as the actual product is one you refuse to give up they still effectively have you over a barrel even if they haven't monetized it as efficiently as possible.

Otherwise you're not really giving them incentive to change, you're just giving them incentive to figure out how to make money off the ways you're still consuming what they're selling.

 

[louisstamos]

Technically speaking, I think all the current NHL jerseys have ads on them already, as they have the RBK (or is it Nike?) logo on them.  But, I guess since they make the jerseys, nobody really complains about that...

 

[Arn]

I watch this every week:

I reckon I could cope with a little patch on an NHL jersey

 

[Leaflifer]

I don't think it would curb jersey sales in the long run. I see quite a few people who wear clothing because it has an ad on it.

 

[nutman]

well I guess I am old school, and but one of a few on here who cares enough about one of the treasures in my life to be messed with by the new gen of money grabbing clowns to put it nicely. It would be like putting ads on the flag. I could not accept them ruining the blue and white any more then the red and white leaf. they better nip this stupid idea in the bud.

 

[Kin]

The "old school" in hockey didn't need to advertise on jerseys because they were constantly screwing over players.

Maybe read up on Ted Lindsay if you think this generation of owners is "money grabbing".

 

[hockeyfan1]

This is something I've stated before, and I'll state it again, I don't mind some minor advertising on a jersey.  However, I wouldn't want the players to become practically skating advertisements as the jerseys that are worn in Europe -- ex. The Spengler Cup -- make the players look.  Too much cramming makes these jerseys appear slightly clownish and in a sense 'unprofessional'.

Should the NHL choose to adopt a similar pattern to follow, be it for the league itself or even for international events, it should do so in a rational and subtle way that suits the jersey's look and even enhances it, in a non-offensive, non-overloaded limited way.

 

[Kin]

I don't think it would curb jersey sales in the long run. I see quite a few people who wear clothing because it has an ad on it.

Also, even if people were resistant to buying jerseys with ads on them there would be nothing stopping a team from having ads on the team's jerseys but no ads on the ones they sell to fans.

 

[Kaberle15]

It will happen at some point in time. See Soccer teams around the world...

Hopefully it will take a lot of time to it.

 

[Zee]

I wouldn't like it but it wouldn't push me away as a fan.  If all these years of futility couldn't do it, a few ads won't.

 

[nutman]

Give them an inch and they will take a mile.. so.. unless the NHL sets a bar, lets say three small ones, it should never be allowed. Tor may never do much more then a small classy ad , but a poor team may cover a jersey from front to back to make all the money they can.

 

[Bates]

I will never own a jersey with advertising in it and will never buy one if they go this route!!!


Disclaimer:  I don't own a jersey and have never bought one.

 

[Bullfrog]

Isn't buying a jersey with a Maple Leafs logo on it just advertising for the Maple Leafs?

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Isn't buying a jersey with a Maple Leafs logo on it just advertising for the Maple Leafs?

Or the Adidas/Nike/Reebok logo on them. Those companies don't spend millions of dollars on jersey rights because they're big fans of culture and history. Jerseys have been a giant revenue-machine for a very, very long time.

There's a reason we get a new Team Canada jersey for essentially every international tournament.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

I will say this, we're 3 pages into this thread and so far nobody has smugly chimed in that they're supposed to be called sweaters, not jerseys. Props to everyone for that.

 

[Kin]

I will say this, we're 3 pages into this thread and so far nobody has smugly chimed in that they're supposed to be called sweaters, not jerseys. Props to everyone for that.

I never got that. They used to be called sweaters because they were sweaters. Now they're not. I'm going to call a lightweight, sweat wicking, thin polyester garment a sweater?

 

[ZBBM]

I will say this, we're 3 pages into this thread and so far nobody has smugly chimed in that they're supposed to be called sweaters, not jerseys. Props to everyone for that.

I never got that. They used to be called sweaters because they were sweaters. Now they're not. I'm going to call a lightweight, sweat wicking, thin polyester garment a sweater?

Yeah, you are, buddy.  Gotta draw a line somewhere.