The Senators, whose jerseys were ad-free last season, announced yesterday that they’ve sold space on their home jersey to a bank. The advertisement will make its on-ice debut on Saturday, when the team has its home opener against the Flyers.
The Sens have previously whored out their home and road helmets, so the road jersey is the team’s only ad-free oasis, at least for now.
(My thanks to Phil for bringing this news to my attention.)
Brady Tkachuk looks super enthused about the ad, doesn’t he?
/sarcasm
So, when the Montreal Canadiens play in Ottawa, CIBC’s logo will be on both Ottawa’s sweaters and Montreal’s helmets. Oy…
I read your article about why your ads are different than ads on uniforms. I think the premise is rather weak. Basically, you’re saying that because it’s ancillary income, it is therefore wrong? So in the same vain, should is it wrong that they sell tickets because they could easily get by on TV revenue alone? Is it wrong for Apple to sell computers because they could easily get by on just phones? I don’t understand why it not being their primary revenue source makes it morally wrong for them to do it.
I happen to disagree with ads but for a different reason. I don’t think it is in the teams’ best interests. They are watering down their brands. But that has nothing to do with it not being their primary revenue source and it doesn’t make it morally wrong.
Are we really comparing multi-billion dollar sports leagues with a blog about a niche subject?
I’m glad we’re both opposed to uni ads, Jonathan, for whatever reasons.
Just to be clear, the gist of the article you’re referring to isn’t so much about making a case against uni ads. (I’ve made that case much more extensively in lots and lots of other articles.) Rather, it’s about explaining that a case against uni ads is not inconsistent with having ads on this website.
Honda is a brand…they apply an H on the car. They don’t sale off the other small corner of the trunk to let’s say Blue Shield Health. So for example the team identity is the brand as in Pittsburgh Penguins. It’s brand identity and adding something to that brand that doesn’t have anything to do with that brand is not the same as ad space on a website.
I work for a major corp (airline) and we have our name of the company on our shirt sleeve. The brand. Our company did not sale off the blank space on the other sleeve. That would confuse our identity of the brand if we had a Dunkin’ Donuts logo opposite our brand. Now we advertise on TV YouTube etc to promote that brand.
Side note, I wear at times a Pittsburgh Penguins hat, I’m from Pittsburgh, growing up hockey was my favorite sport. Not as much now. That’s okay. I wouldn’t have got that hat if it had an ad patch on it. I also removed (blacked) out the 47’ logo.
This is not going away. So rather than roll our eyes over the next team who decides to capitalize on a revenue stream, it would be nice if we just turned our attention to the aesthetics of the patch.
At least this one is a non-intrusive color, and not overbearing. As patches go, it is pretty modest and I don’t think it will sick out on ice.
Yeah, it doesn’t stick out as much as, say, the green TD patch on the black Canucks third, or the GIANT FREAKING SACK OF CONCRETE on Atlanta’s sleeves (and yes, I will never stop yelling about that particular obnoxious patch).
I dislike jersey/helmet ads solely on the fact that they are aesthetically displeasing, & work against the team’s look. I don’t think it’s a more complicated issue than that.