- 01/03/2012, 03:28AM ET
Marlins Fan said 01/03, 03:28 AM
Talking about corporate sponsorships, of course.
(My apologies to all of you who clicked on this TD hoping it was more of the usual FN drama between any one of a numer of certain members)
Anyway, this is sort of an old issue. For years now we've had to deal with the idiocy of stadiums being named after banks and Bowl Games presented by potato chips. When a MLB manager calls down to the bullpen for a relief pitcher, it's somehow "brought to us by GEICO, who can save us 15% blah blah blah". Every statistic an announcer mentions is brought to us by some clever corporation.
We've dealt with it for years. Hell, most of us have probably even grown numb to it.
But tonight it went too far. Tonight I logged on to ESPN's mobile site on my cell phone, looking to read something about tonight's Rose Bowl game between Oregon and Wisconsin.
I found just such an article, courtesy of the AP. Here's how the article started:
The Oregon Ducks had waited 95 years to win another Rose Bowl presented by Vizio...
Presented by Vizio? Nobody waited 95 years for anything from Vizio!!
Hearing it on TV is bad enough; reading lies about sponsorship is too much!
J-Business said 01/03, 05:38 AM
While you may not agree to the advertisements, it's the main reason why we're even able to watch these games on television and follow the teams on the internet.
Those stadiums that your talking about:
Cost money. Millions
That MLB manager you referenced:
If he wasn't being paid a million a year to coach, he'd be a high school gym teacher.
Instead he's on television calling to the reliever
If you don't like the advertisements, then where do you suppose the money will come from to pay for all of this?
The Rose Bowl itself began as a way to make money for the parade. As it became bigger and took on a life of it's own, the expenses grew.
Ticket money and popcorn sales aren't going to pay for all of it.
While you may cringe when you hear "this game is brought to you by Pepsi", your other option is to go to the school yard and watch some young guys play for fun
That's the trade off. We get to see the product on television, with the best athletes in the world
The sponsors get to show their products in hopes that maybe we'll purchase something
It's how big time sports works
Marlins Fan said 01/03, 11:54 PM
Actually, there is another option besides no sports or a constant stream of corporate garbage. There's a way to have sponsorships WITHOUT having relief pitchers brought to you by somebody.
There's a ton of money to be made in commercials, and trust me... the various TV sports make plenty of dough just off commercial deals alone.
Commercials are a part of TV. We all have to deal with commercials every day. Commercials are NOT the problem.
The problem is all the little stuff, like the Rolaids relief pitchers and so on and so forth. We should be able to watch a game without hearing pitches for products. That's just add-on money. It's not critical as far as keeping sports on TV.
I think people are confusing commercials with all the other stuff. But there's a big difference.
As I said in my opening argument, what really broke the camel's back for me was having to READ something about Vizio presenting the Rose Bowl in an AP article.
For one thing, Vizio HASN'T presented 95 Rose Bowls. That part is just misleading.
Second of all, if Vizio wants to present the Rose Bowl, that's fine, but we shouldn't have to Vizio every time we mention the Rose Bowl.
J-Business said 01/04, 02:13 PM
This is the "cost" of watching the game for FREE
Your other option is to actually pay the ticket price and go to see the game itself
Then you won't have to worry about the small ad on the screen
In today's world, companies are looking at multiple revenue streams and sports leagues have to keep up with players salaries and cost of running a business.
All while the overwhelming majority of fans are watching the games FREE of charge
Maybe a few decades ago, just getting revenue from commercials and ticket sales was enough
However, with the advent of the internet and social media, companies have to try and find various ways to have their product placed for viewers
This is why at one time, youtube was ad free but now you'll see a little icon for an ad come on the screen
The same thing with facebook. It's FREE, but now you'll see ads all over the screen
So while it's true that everyone wants to watch the games for FREE on television and not see an advertisement at the bottom, the reality is:
Who's going to pay for it?
Marlins Fan said 01/04, 10:11 PM
I read an article a while back saying Wimbledon was one of the few sporting events that hasn't completely sold out to major corporations.
The premise was this - although most major sport leagues/teams are selling their soul for a few extra bucks, it is possible and perhaps even likely that less corporate ads would actually translate into more money. Hear me out.
Wimbledon is one of the more popular sporting events the world over. Wimbledon also is for the most part free of obvious advertising. Don't believe me? Tune in next time it comes around... you'll see, there's hardly any ads anywhere.
One thing people love so much about Wimbledon is the tradition of the event. It's been the same for a really long time, and people love that.
It's also doing quite well as far as TV viewership and actual attendance. Wimbledon makes a ton of money, year in and year out, by promoting the SPORT itself and not some bogus companies.
In America, People are selling naming rights to EVERYTHING in order to turn a bigger profit, but the funnt thing is, they just might be even more profitable if they kept their sport sacred instead of turning it into a classless money-grab.
J-Business said 01/05, 08:42 AM
There's a big difference between marketing for a sport played by an individual and one played by teams
Because of so many faces and players, advertisers have to look to market their products that much more
In regards to making money, the NFL is the wealthiest sports league in the world.
One way they make it effective is creative marketing and maximizing profit
I've had the opportunity to live and work in different parts of the world and I've also been able to watch the NBA and NFL
Because those leagues have been able to sell the rights to their games so that fans all over the world can follow their teams
You're saying that in America they're selling the naming rights to everything and that isn't true
Have you seen any English Premier League, Spanish League or any football league in the world?
Their sponsors name is on the front of their jersey and is more prominently placed than the team
Arsenal, one of England's oldest teams plays in Emirates Stadium
There's nothing sacred about sports
Big time sports is a business and costs money
What more do you want?
- Awful Announcing
- Free Darko
- Pro Football Talk
- The Big Lead
- Joe Posnanski
- The Sporting Blog
- Big League Stew
- Bugs and Cranks
- Every day Should Be Saturday
- Mr. Irrelevant
- With Leather
- The Sports Hernia