Kings experiment with Jersey sponsorships

[Bricklayer]

I personally want to wear a jersey of my team and not some kind of advertising pillar for Fly Emirates (sponsor of my scoccer team) or some other big company.
But fighting against commercialization in sports is a fight against windmills and solely something for little left wing idealists like myself.
The NBA does a pretty decent job until now to balance the monetary interests of owners and players with the interest of the fans to watch an exciting product. A few logos on the jerseys won't change that over night.
But I totally understand the die hard purists, who don't want something else on the jersey other than the actual NBA and franchise logos.

Assuming those patches are just sewed on, it wouldn't be there for long. In fact I might bring some little scissors and cut it off right in the store and leave it with them to make a point.

By the time its gets as far as soccer though, and the basic jersey itself doesn't even say Kings, but is just some company's t-shirt basically, well....never was a jersey wearer anyway.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Saw the new ads on the sideline by each team's bench.

 

[Iced Espresso]

Don't buy the jerseys than. Only way to voice your disapproval as a fan. When the majority of the fanbase starts to boycot the jerseys with advertising it might lead to the owners thinking twice about sponsorships.
But coming from a European scoccer background I wouldn't get my hopes up, if I were you. Most of the fans will buy the jerseys nonetheless. They simply don't care about the advertising and in a few years it will be a absolutely normal part of the jersey, allowing the owners and players to make even more money.

From my understanding jersey sales are "tallied" together and shared with the league.

So if let's say the Lakers for example sell the most jerseys, but have no logo, the rest of the league would be able to capitalize on that while selling their advertisement space to whoever they wanted.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

I will never purchase a jersey with any advertisement on it other than the manufacturer and the NBA logos. The size of that tertiary logo is ridiculous considering that manufacturer and NBA logos aren't even close.

 

[Sac.1989]

glad to see that its somewhat of a local sac organisation who we have as sponsor

 

[The Hammer]

The brand is actually aesthetically and gastronomically aligned with the team. It's a decent partnership if you ask me. Almonds are pretty neat. And they're totally central valley. This is the kind of sponsorship that can work.

If something like Gatorade or Toyota were on the jersey, it would feel alien and like a takeover. This feels like a regional pride thing. It's a smart play. I'd say the same thing about the corporate naming rights for the arena. This has Granger's finger prints all over it.

 

[The Hammer]

I will never purchase a jersey with any advertisement on it other than the manufacturer and the NBA logos. The size of that tertiary logo is ridiculous considering that manufacturer and NBA logos aren't even close.

That's a quaint sentiment but the jersey itself before any "branding" is already an advertisement.

 

[The Hammer]

On another note... this is going to make retro jerseys all that much cooler, and I've got no problem with that.

I actually don't mind, and accept the business side of sports, and can accept ads on jerseys. Don't really care to be honest. But then again I'm just a corporate sellout myself, so hate me all you want.

 

[Fear the Putin]

Did I already mention nom, nom, nom?

 

[KingsFanSince85]

That's a quaint sentiment but the jersey itself before any "branding" is already an advertisement.

Right. Of something I endorse and/or subscribe to.

If I purchase a pair of Levi's jeans, I fully expect the Levi's logo to be on it. But I'm not purchasing a pair that has additional branding or advertising on it that has no connection whatsoever.

Blue Diamond (or any other sponsor) didn't produce and manufacture the jersey nor are the Kings under their umbrella. I support the Kings and the NBA. I'm not totally wild about the Nike or Addidas or whatever logo, but it's acceptable since they made it. Also, those logos are quite small and barely noticeable.

This is completely different.

 

[VF21]

That's a quaint sentiment but the jersey itself before any "branding" is already an advertisement.

So true. What is the purchase of a jersey other than the ultimate support of a brand?

 

[KingsFanSince85]

So true. What is the purchase of a jersey other than the ultimate support of a brand?

But that's simplifying and missing the point.

I'll go purchase and wear a Blue Almond shirt if I want to support their product and/or what they stand for.

When you purchase a vehicle, you're obviously advertising the manufacturer of said vehicle if you don't remove the branding (which next to nobody ever does), but do you want advertisements for other products you don't care about or endorse painted all over it?

 

[Spike]

But that's simplifying and missing the point.

I'll go purchase and wear a Blue Almond shirt if I want to support their product and/or what they stand for.

When you purchase a vehicle, you're obviously advertising the manufacturer of said vehicle if you don't remove the branding (which next to nobody ever does), but do you want advertisements for other products you don't care about or endorse painted all over it?

Like dealership stickers?

 

[whozit]

Like dealership stickers?

Ouch.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Like dealership stickers?

I dunno. I've never purchased a vehicle that had a dealership sticker on it. Not exactly paint either, is it?

I don't imagine it's too hard to demand they remove it before you drive off the lot, though.

 

[Bricklayer]

I dunno. I've never purchased a vehicle that had a dealership sticker on it. Not exactly paint either, is it?

I don't imagine it's too hard to demand they remove it before you drive off the lot, though.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

But which Colonel is that? Norm MacDonald?

 

[The Hammer]

Right. Of something I endorse and/or subscribe to.

If I purchase a pair of Levi's jeans, I fully expect the Levi's logo to be on it. But I'm not purchasing a pair that has additional branding or advertising on it that has no connection whatsoever.

Blue Diamond (or any other sponsor) didn't produce and manufacture the jersey nor are the Kings under their umbrella. I support the Kings and the NBA. I'm not totally wild about the Nike or Addidas or whatever logo, but it's acceptable since they made it. Also, those logos are quite small and barely noticeable.

This is completely different.

Sure, and I guess you can make that argument from a "jersey as clothing" perspective... I personally hate all logos and branding on clothes, and NEVER wear any of it. I do have a Kings hat (see pic), so I think I'd be disappointed if you could no longer purchase ad free gear. So I get why that's upsetting to people who like to buy Jerseys. However, from a player perspective... you are already a brand promoter, and you're being paid to do so... so by contract you are already agreeing to let them use your person as adspace, so branding on the uniform just doesn't strike me as "impure" or anything at all like that. Now, aesthetically, I'm not really a fan of it, but I'm not going to make a beef out of that. I think it will actually make the older, pre-ad jerseys seem even cooler, which is fine with me, because my tastes are more classic anyway. I remember being outraged when teams started changing their logos and unis all the time. I thought it was blasphemous. Can you imagine the Celtics Steelers changing their uniform?!?! Minor tweaks are one thing. But teams like the Jazz, the Pelicans, the Marlins... I mean I don't even know what their colors ARE anymore! And it violates a core principle in marketing: Brand is everything.

 

[The Hammer]

But that's simplifying and missing the point.

I'll go purchase and wear a Blue Almond shirt if I want to support their product and/or what they stand for.

When you purchase a vehicle, you're obviously advertising the manufacturer of said vehicle if you don't remove the branding (which next to nobody ever does), but do you want advertisements for other products you don't care about or endorse painted all over it?

The difference to me here is just the degree of emotional connection to the brand. Most consumer brands (because being a "consumer" isn't cool anymore... it used to be though) are not something you particularly care to promote... but the whole point of sports fandom is advertising your loyalty to the brand. You can see this with old car guys. I'm a "Ford" guy, "Chevy" guy, "Dodge man"... it's literally like allegiance to a team, because of the emotional connection, and that was all created by ad campaigns. Occasionally a consumer brand will break through nowadays to that level of coolness/loyalty... Vans are kind of like that. And of course fashion clothing lines can be. You buy it FOR the brand display.

 

[Spike]

I dunno. I've never purchased a vehicle that had a dealership sticker on it. Not exactly paint either, is it?

I don't imagine it's too hard to demand they remove it before you drive off the lot, though.

Those things are a pain in the ass to remove. Luckily, my wife got her Honda Fit right as it was rolling off the truck, so they didn't have time to put their decal on it (and yes, they'll remove it if you ask).