Sponsorship

[Moss]

11 minutes ago, Srg said:

It’s kinda what a sponsor is paying for though, in many cases. Sponsorship would be worth less if they don’t get thousands of random people wearing billboards. 

No, it's the players and the club they are sponsoring.

I doubt they care if some random guy down the street has their logo?

 

 

Edited June 28, 2023 by Moss

[Srg]

2 minutes ago, Moss said:

No, it's the players and the team they are sponsoring.

I doubt they care if some random guy down the street has their logo?

 

 

Of course they do. They’re paying for advertising reach. If they reach less people, they’re paying less money. 

It’s like paying for a slot on tv during prime time on ITV or paying for for 2am on some channel no one has ever heard of. 

[Moss]

12 minutes ago, Moss said:

Of course they do. They’re paying for advertising reach. If they reach less people, they’re paying less money. 

It’s like paying for a slot on tv during prime time on ITV or paying for for 2am on some channel no one has ever heard of. 

 

 

 

No, it's the players and the club they're sponsoring.

For their logo to be worn by players on the pitch - and to been see on TV and in the media.

They don't care what your or I wear.

 

Why argue against fans having the choice?

 

 

Edited June 28, 2023 by Moss

[Will Hughes Hair]

13 minutes ago, Srg said:

Of course they do. They’re paying for advertising reach. If they reach less people, they’re paying less money. 

It’s like paying for a slot on tv during prime time on ITV or paying for for 2am on some channel no one has ever heard of. 

Can’t believe Babestation are now doing adverts. Of course, never heard of them myself 😗

[Srg]

28 minutes ago, Moss said:

 

No, it's the players and the club they're sponsoring.

For their logo to be worn by players on the pitch - and to been see on TV and in the media.

They don't care what your or I wear.

 

Why argue against fans having the choice?

 

 

I’m not arguing against it. I’m just telling you facts that advertisers are paying for reach and awareness - and yes I have studied it. 

Now, I can’t tell you how football sponsorship is structured. But logic dictates less eyes = less money. 

Take a hypothetical scenario… your missus might know nothing about football. Might not care, not ever watch it on TV. But when she sees a shirt that you’ve bought with the new Airbnb on it, she might just recall that when booking your next getaway. That’s how it works. 

You’re limiting your reach severely if you’re not having your name on replica shirts. And to do that, I’m sure they’d want financial allowances made in whatever deal they sign. 

[Ram@Lincoln]

Watford are giving supporters the option of the new shirt with or without the sponsor. Perhaps we're doing similar, though as said, this would surely have financial implications on us.

 

[Srg]

Just now, Ram@Lincoln said:

Watford are giving supporters the option of the new shirt with or without the sponsor. Perhaps we're doing similar, though as said, this would surely have financial implications on us.

 

Also note their sponsor is an online Casino. 

[Will Hughes Hair]

4 minutes ago, Srg said:

Also note their sponsor is an online Casino. 

Also note, that as it’s Watford, the strip will look dreadful with or without any logo.

[TigerTedd]

1 hour ago, Moss said:

 

I understand that players will wear large sponsor logos on their shirts.

But fans should have the choice to buy an unsponsored version, if they like.

Personally I think they look better without them - and are they're more wearable in everyday life.

If you don't agree - you can buy one of the sponsored versions - no problem.

 

You know you can just buy a white tshirt with the ram logo on from the ship right? You can wear that in every day life, and it’ll never go out of date.

sponsors can make a shirt iconic. I think back to some of the old kits from the 80s. When I was a kid I didn’t know who sharp or brother or candy was, or why it said it on the front of a kit, but it made those kits iconic for me.

I quite liked 32 red for the fact that they understand a sponsor can make or break a kit. They’ve got a fairly crap square logo that would look rubbish on a kit, but for kits they’ve made a different, very plain text logo that can be colour coded to match the kit. Not many companies do that (looking at you ‘just eat’). 

[Dan_Ram]

50 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

sponsors can make a shirt iconic. I think back to some of the old kits from the 80s. When I was a kid I didn’t know who sharp or brother or candy was, or why it said it on the front of a kit, but it made those kits iconic for me.

To this day, I still have no idea what a Motta is… but agree with you wholeheartedly on the sponsor making certain kits iconic. Fiorientina Nintendo kit was another great. 🤔 The Italians used to get it really right in the 90s.

[Eddie]

On 27/06/2023 at 15:53, Turk Thrust said:

But surely Eddie, no one is deliberately stupid. It’s innate innit

Anybody who believes - or claims to believe - something in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence is being obtuse at best. Perhaps that is a better word, but I honestly have no time for such people.