The Knicks, whose uniforms were ad-free last season, just announced that they’ve sold space on their jerseys this season to an entertainment company that just happens to be owned by the team’s owner (one of the most loathed men in NYC).
The new advertisement will make its on-court debut when the Knicks begin their regular season tomorrow, Oct. 25.
The team’s last uni advertisement, worn in the 2021-22 season, was for a web-design company.
Awful news. Now I’m worried about the Rangers.
*Closes full page ad that automatically opens when I click link to article*
*Scrolls past header ad and mutes auto-play ad*
*Reads article in tiny sliver of cell phone screen not covered by ads*
“Ewww, terrible jersey ad.”
So you don’t want Uni Watch to exist?
This resolves your issue:
link
Here, John, read this: link
I’m very familiar with the site and your thought on ads, been a reader for >10 years. Your take is that there are places ads don’t belong. My take is that you’ve probably reached that point here. On this or any other site, I’m of the opinion ads shouldn’t consume more of the page than the content.
We can disagree. It’s your work and I’m providing an unsolicited opinion.
The difference, John, is that I’ve provided an easy way for you to eliminate the ads: Sign up for Uni Watch Plus.
Of course, if you’d rather consume my content for free as you’ve been doing for the past 10+ years, that’s up to you (getting something for nothing is a pretty sweet deal, after all). But if you see the ads on the site as a problem, it’s not like you don’t have an easy solution at your fingertips.
It’s called cognitive dissonance. They just can’t see it.
To be clear, I don’t have issues with the ads on your site (as told by my continued readership). The critique was about your ridicule of ads elsewhere.
You can rationalize any way you want but you and the Knicks (or the Nuggets or whichever team’s featured next) represent entities that have had to look for new sources of revenue as the landscapes of your given fields have changed. Neither (in my opinion) change my experience with the entity. And scale (as referenced in another reply) doesn’t exactly move me. I’m similarly unmoved by CNN’s ads or my nieces little league team having an orthodontist’s office on their caps.
My joke and “issue” (and I’d submit the more dystopian of the two situations) would be with one of you getting ad revenue through the creation of content being critical of ad revenue.
But hey, let’s just devolve to “if you don’t like it, don’t read it.” Yet another thing you may have in common with Dolan
Comparing me to Dolan — now that’s low!
You are conveniently ignoring (a) that this website gives away its content FOR FREE and (b) that I provide my readers with an easy way to avoid the ads. If you feel those are distinctions without a difference, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
You seem to be saying, “You engage in capitalism; therefore you lose the ability to critique any aspect of capitalism.” This is like saying, “You eat food; therefore you can’t say lima beans are yucky,” or “You breathe air; therefore you can’t complain about air pollution.” The reality is that capitalism, like food and air, is not an all or nothing proposition — it’s a spectrum. There’s good, and there’s bad. It’s entirely possible to engage with the good while bemoaning the bad.
If you still think I’m being intellectually inconsistent, well, I can’t help what you think. Let’s now please move on. Thanks.
Estimated wealth
James Dolan: $2 billion
Paul Lukas: Significantly less
Effect of crushing inflation+decreased online revenue:
James Dolan: Practically nothing
Paul Lukas: Significantly more
Hope this helps.
To be fair, this website is little more than an aggregator of pictures and others’ reporting. Any original content is warehoused behind the Substak paywall.
Oh, come now — surely we can do better than “warehoused”!
Warehouse is being generous, since warehoused goods end up being widely distributed! Being serious, I get that you’re hustling with different revenue modalities, but I think you’re focusing on the wrong thing (trying to extract every penny from every page view and every UniWatch groupie). You would generate more value below the line by increasing the top of your funnel through high quality original reporting that’s available to the general public. This site just aggregates links/images with light idiosyncratic commentary. For instance, in my view, you need to be the one breaking news about new uniforms, not just linking to those that do.
Why aren’t these types of sponsorship deals frowned upon in North American sports? I think I know the answer, but I’d be interested to hear other perspectives.
In European soccer, Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations require clubs to earn more than the spend in an attempt to ensure long-term sustainability. One way teams seek to cook the books is by having lucrative “sponsorship” deals that are signed with companies owned by the club’s owners. This is at best frowned upon by fans (especially of other teams), and at worst can be punished by the governing bodies, as may be the case with Manchester City’s ongoing dispute.
There’s just something about advertising deals with companies owned by team owners that doesn’t sit right with me.
Well the salary cap takes care of those issues for the NBA and NHL, along with pretty much no one caring that the sports teams make money in North America.
Not like this really matters, but what’s with the placement of Mr. Yuk? I thought his purpose was to cover the offending cash grab.
This year I’ve been using Mr. Yuk for the featured photo that appears on the home page and on social media. Putting him on the team’s mascot (or, in this case, on the Knicks City Dancers, since the Knicks don’t have a mascot). Gets the point across while still conveying the basic information/news/etc.
OK fair enough
I found it interesting that you used Knick cheerleaders for the “main page click here” photo. I know this site doesn’t (at least to my knowledge) evaluate/comment on cheer or dance uniforms. But, it got me wondering. If organizations make the official player uniforms have advertisements, why don’t they force these ads on the cheer team as well? Yes, I know that players are more likely to be a household name or a “brand” under the brand. I also know they are more likely to receive the close-ups during the game. It is surprising that corporate greed has not extended to the cheer teams. After all, the cheer team does go on the court during time outs and is usually featured in several “and we’re back from the break” camera shots. It seems like everything else has an ad slapped onto it (scorer’s table, shot clock, scoreboards, player uniforms, etc.).
If the cheer teams already do have ads and I didn’t notice, sorry. I don’t know if that means their ads “don’t work” because I am not aware, or if I do not give the cheer teams enough credit and simply dismiss them because “I am there to watch a game.”
Please excuse the poor grammar. This was a quick “stream of consciousness” post.
I usually use the costumed mascot, but the Knicks don’t have a mascot, so I went with their dancers.
I thought the Knicks mascot was celebrity row. Haha.
awfully done ad that makes you appreciate the Wizards ad.
Nuggets just got a new patch as well. Time to put Mr Yuk over Rocky I guess…
link
Might want to find out more about the patch, because their teaser showed some gold coins as their road jersey patch. Then again, it’s an ad patch, so you might not want to focus on it much!
Don’t blame the advertisers.
Don’t blame the owners.
Don’t blame the organizations.
Don’t blame the cable companies.
It’s 100% on the fans. The fans show up, hand over their money, and that is on them / us. Professional sports owe nothing to anyone. They are there to make money that is it.
And the more money the fans hand over, the opportunity for others to get their share.
I feel this site is missing revenue opportunities, and if there were more targeted ads, that will allow this site to easily net higher cashflow and still deliver content at a premium.