http://www.si.com/nhl/2014/11/06/nhl-coo-john-collins-jersey-advertisements-are-coming
Well I now know what sports jersey I am NOT going to buy
NHL COO John Collins: "Jersey advertisements ARE coming"
- Thread starter soxhop411
- Start date
Here's an interesting article on pro sports licensing.
http://licensedsports.blogspot.com/2012/03/insiders-guide-to-world-of-licensed.html
Let's assume this guy's facts and assumptions are correct: there are $2b in retail sales of licensed NHL products annually, wholesale prices average roughly half the retail price, and the league gets a 12% royalty on wholesale -- that's $120mm in revenue for the league, or about $4mm per team.
People would buy a lot fewer replica shirts if they had a corporate name instead of a team logo. They would buy fewer other clothing items too, and I think sales of non-clothing items such as coffee mugs, mouse pads, playing cards and so forth would suffer as well. But I don't think licensed sales would go anywhere close to zero, so if the league could truly get sponsors to shell out $120mm to put their logos on game shirts in place of team logos, the league will end up ahead unless fans get so upset that ticket sales or TV ratings suffer (edit: but see below re: the "free advertising" that licensing affords).
The problem, I think, is getting companies to risk the potential for fan backlash. Corporate logos on team shirts is a tradition in Europe (and in U.S. auto racing), but fans will react badly to it in traditional North American team sports, at least initially. If you replaced the hub-and-spokes "B" on the Bruins' shirts with the Acme Corporation's logo, would sales of Acme products increase by enough to offset the fans who would (formally or informally) boycott Acme because of the ad placement? That risk is big enough that I don't think any business will pay enough for an established, big-market team like the Bruins to take the hit to licensing revenue (even leaving aside any emotional attachments or respect for traditions that owners or front-office types might feel).
There is also the fact that licensing is advertising by other means -- every time you see a fan wearing a Bruins' hat or shirt, you're seeing an ad. Clubs would be giving up a lot of free advertising, the value of which is difficult to quantify. I don't think "free advertising" is worth enough to persuade teams not to do a team that otherwise makes perfect business sense, but it's a factor that argues in favor of erring on the side of tradition if the financials don't blow them away.
If it happens, I think it will happen piecemeal, with newer and/or recently relocated franchises being the first to take the plunge.
http://licensedsports.blogspot.com/2012/03/insiders-guide-to-world-of-licensed.html
Let's assume this guy's facts and assumptions are correct: there are $2b in retail sales of licensed NHL products annually, wholesale prices average roughly half the retail price, and the league gets a 12% royalty on wholesale -- that's $120mm in revenue for the league, or about $4mm per team.
People would buy a lot fewer replica shirts if they had a corporate name instead of a team logo. They would buy fewer other clothing items too, and I think sales of non-clothing items such as coffee mugs, mouse pads, playing cards and so forth would suffer as well. But I don't think licensed sales would go anywhere close to zero, so if the league could truly get sponsors to shell out $120mm to put their logos on game shirts in place of team logos, the league will end up ahead unless fans get so upset that ticket sales or TV ratings suffer (edit: but see below re: the "free advertising" that licensing affords).
The problem, I think, is getting companies to risk the potential for fan backlash. Corporate logos on team shirts is a tradition in Europe (and in U.S. auto racing), but fans will react badly to it in traditional North American team sports, at least initially. If you replaced the hub-and-spokes "B" on the Bruins' shirts with the Acme Corporation's logo, would sales of Acme products increase by enough to offset the fans who would (formally or informally) boycott Acme because of the ad placement? That risk is big enough that I don't think any business will pay enough for an established, big-market team like the Bruins to take the hit to licensing revenue (even leaving aside any emotional attachments or respect for traditions that owners or front-office types might feel).
There is also the fact that licensing is advertising by other means -- every time you see a fan wearing a Bruins' hat or shirt, you're seeing an ad. Clubs would be giving up a lot of free advertising, the value of which is difficult to quantify. I don't think "free advertising" is worth enough to persuade teams not to do a team that otherwise makes perfect business sense, but it's a factor that argues in favor of erring on the side of tradition if the financials don't blow them away.
If it happens, I think it will happen piecemeal, with newer and/or recently relocated franchises being the first to take the plunge.
If its done the way big time european futbol does it, it'll barely register with me.
Of course, this is America so if they go full NASCAR with it, it'll look as farcical and awful as those abominations tonyandpals posted above.
Of course, this is America so if they go full NASCAR with it, it'll look as farcical and awful as those abominations tonyandpals posted above.
They can keep the commercial breaks if they get rid of the digital ads on the glassAndrew said:
I'm pissed I missed Collins when he came to Michigan a couple weeks ago since he's been a great driving force for the league I love. That said, I can't imagine him doing advocating anything overly tacky. He's arguably the most important NHL employee right now and, if anything, it's going to be a minor ad that we were my notice. I have to hope that there'd be enough North Americsn backlash to turn into basically any Euro team's jerseys.
I imagine it will be something like the AHL. Most AHL teams have a small sponsors logo on the shoulder or the front of the jersey. They also have the sponsor logo on the helmets, which will eventually come to the NHL as well.
I always regarded the NASCAR sponsorships, and related logo size, as a hierarchy. "Jimmy Daytona" drives the M&M's car as M&M's wrote the biggest check relative to the team's financial needs. So, these funds keep the team operational, on a team by team basis.
Then the lesser checks from other companies would merit the less prominent logos on their car/apparel.
So, how would that work for the NHL? Do the teams solicit these ads or does the NHL? National or local? Will we root for the Sullivan's Tires Bruins? The Boston Bruins as Presented by Bob's Furniture Store?
Yuck.
Edit: Poo grammar.
Then the lesser checks from other companies would merit the less prominent logos on their car/apparel.
So, how would that work for the NHL? Do the teams solicit these ads or does the NHL? National or local? Will we root for the Sullivan's Tires Bruins? The Boston Bruins as Presented by Bob's Furniture Store?
Yuck.
Edit: Poo grammar.
Shoot, MLB has had players wearing advertisements in the regular season and you don't see that sport disappearing
