I like it ;)
I like it ;)
would botehr me.
Eli Lilly would have been appropriate a few years ago...
I hate this. It's like the car dealerships who put their name all over your new car. You're basically paying them to advertise for them. If I get a jersey, it is to support my favorite team or player, not freaking McDonald's or Samsung.
Also, I hate soccer jerseys, and agree that it works in the WNBA because few people care that much.
I wouldn't mind as much if the revenue from the advertising went directly to lowering ticket prices. Of course, that will never happen.
For once, it would be nice to see some of this new revenue, whether it be via uniform patches or television contracts, be used as a benefit to us, the fans.
I guess I'd be able to deal with a small logo in lieu of the Jerry West NBA logo, but I this has potential to be severely overdone.
Which leads me to wonder: what team will overdo this the most?
Ah i think itll be funny. Hopefully the bobcats are sponspored by Bob's nickel and dime store because no one else wants to.
Which is worse, being a fan of the Indiana Pacers sponsored by Pepsi or being a fan of the Las Vegas Pacers?
If the NBA was making money, like the NFL, I'd be a little more upset by it. But with the financial restraints that most teams have, anything that can increase revenue, without jacking up prices for the consumer is a good idea by me.
I would prefer not to have sponsorship logos on the jerseys, but it's not going to ruin the game for me.
I don't see what the big deal is. I mean, we should advertise everywhere because we can, am I right?
If your pipe dream is that courtsides should be cheaper than an iMax movie then you don't understand the economics of the situation at all. Let's assume for the moment that your max price was $50, that 1/5 of the tickets were $50 and the rest went down evenly from there to $40, $30, $20, and $10.
Let's call capacity 18,000 for ease of calculation. 3600*$50 + 3600*$40+$3600*$30+3600*$20+3600*$10 = $540,000 per game. Assume the home team keeps the whole gate (again, for ease of calculation and so we count only the home games) and that is $540,000 * 41 = $22.1M. Payroll FOR THE PLAYERS is a MINIMUM of $48.3M, meaning you have to make up AT LEAST $26M (that would be over $500,000 PER GAME) from premium suites, sponsorships, advertising, TV, and any revenue sharing just to put a team on the floor, not counting coaches and support staff salaries, training equipment, travel expenses, and so forth. This doesn't even touch building maintenance (if the pipe dream includes that the city cuts off all funding for the Fieldhouse and the Pacers), building support staff, sales and marketing staff, broadcasting teams, etc.
I can pretty much guarantee you a team playing in the Indianapolis market isn't getting $26M per season from sponsors and advertising, even if the jerseys looked like the team was called the Geico Geckos.
Can Memphis finally rename themselves the Express, as they've wanted to do all along?
There's enough advertising in the NBA as it is.
Can't speak for anyone else, but for me advertising is less tolerable when you're already paying for a product in the first place. Authentic jerseys are well over $100 dollars now, I gotta deal with ads on them too? It's like when you pay $15 to go to an IMAX movie and then before the previews even start they show you 5 minutes of Coca Cola and car commercials. I can deal with patches on the players' jerseys I guess but it would be pretty insulting if they also put the patches on the jerseys I'm paying premium $$$ for.
I understand the NBA has to make money but for me this is not the way to do it - it's right up there with selling the naming rights to your stadium. It really cheapens your brand.
I hate it too, but it was all inevitable, and I bet all major sports will have advertising on their uni's within 5-10 years, I think they were all waiting to not be the first league to impliment it. Now they can all look at the NBA and say they started it.
Basketball doesn't really have any of those reasons, there are tons of sponsorship and advertising opportunities already being used (the court itself often has ads on/around it for example), which to me makes the uniform thing appear a bit more crass and desperate-looking. JMHO
Who knows, if they don't get it right there is a small possibility of a backlash. Remember a few years back when they tried to introduce a new basketball and the players and fans hated how it?
EDIT: also I hate how people feel this is "inevitable." Is it inevitable that every square inch of everything that can be sold to the highest bidder will eventually have an ad stuck on it? What kind of depressing thought would that be? What does that say about our values and our culture. Just sayin.
In some cases, like the Super Bowl, prices are based on scarcity. That means they aren't being priced in any relation to the costs, they are priced based on the buyer's perceived value. It would take pretty high prices before the cost of a Super Bowl ticket makes a difference in the sale of tickets - this would be an "inelastic" good, one where demand does not change significantly based on price. So, for this sort of good, your view would be correct.
In other cases, like video games, I'd venture to say that price has a much greater effect on demand - in other words, those goods are "elastic". I would bet that product placement/advertising revenue does a great deal to hold down the increase in prices in order to make sure demand is maximized. Costs still go up because inflation exists, but the base price would be more if it wasn't for the infusion of additional revenue. For this sort of good, your view is likely incorrect.
Pacer tickets fall into something of a gray area, because it is hard to tell if the lack of demand is due to ticket pricing or the perceived quality of the good provided. In any event, though, there is not a whole lot of room to reduce ticket prices further due to the cost structure and the current money losing situation of the team. For additional revenue to come anywhere close to having an effect on ticket prices, it would have to be relatively large compared to the cost of running the team. If it is not, then it is better served going toward those costs ALREADY not covered by the current ticket sales rather than being used to essentially have no increase in overall revenue by subtracting a portion from current income that - at best - would keep losses at the same level. There is no evidence to suggest at all that such revenue would simply line anyone's pockets ("make the rich richer") with no regard to the current bottom line of the team.