Nhl says no to jersey ads - and $120m windfall

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by polak

How many of those people who have done meth regularly before and say that go back and smoke meth again? Most? I'd say most unless they seek professional help.

Now considering the fact that buying a jersey doesn't kill you...

You're ridiculous. You're trying to argue that 100% of regular jersey buyers will continue to buy jerseys even with ads on them, and you're oblivious to how dumb that is to say.

For sure some people will buy a jersey with ads on it regardless if they say they won't, but for you to continually say that 100% of those nay-sayers will buy jerseys is so hilariously wrong.

If you said some people instead of 100% of people no one would even bat an eye.

[polak]

Originally Posted by habernac

You're comparing buying a jersey to smoking meth?

I was just saying that someone saying they won't do something doesn't mean anything.

I think you'd have to smoke meth to consider buying some jerseys though... Like the Heritage Classic jerseys... or an Oilers jersey.

[polak]

Originally Posted by Hockeyguy15

You're ridiculous. You're trying to argue that 100% of regular jersey buyers will continue to buy jerseys, and you're oblivious to how dumb that is to say.

For sure some people will buy a jersey with ads on it regardless if they say they won't, but for you to continually say that 100% of those nay-sayers will buy jerseys is so hilariously wrong.

If you said some people instead of 100% of people no one would even bat an eye.

I'm saying that, out of people who buy jerseys regularly, there will be no statistically significant decrease in the amount of people buying jerseys should a logo be added.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by polak

I 100% guarantee that EVERY person who already buys NHL Jerseys will eventually continue to do so regardless.

Flames draft McDavid or whatever next hot shot prospect and you're telling me you won't get his jersey because there is an ad on the front?

I call B.S. Every single person will get over it, like every single person has got over advertising on everything else we own.

I 100% guarantee you are wrong about that.

[SixtySix]

Originally Posted by polak

I was just saying that someone saying they won't do something doesn't mean anything.

But polak saying 100% of people will do something is non-negotiable.

[polak]

Also to who ever said that people who buy logo shirts don't have any style, I'm pretty sure anyone who wears a jersey outside of going to watch a game also falls into that category.

Originally Posted by SixtySix

But polak saying 100% of people will do something is non-negotiable.

Correct.

[codynw]

Originally Posted by polak

I'm saying that, out of people who buy jerseys regularly, there will be no statistically significant decrease in the amount of people buying jerseys should a logo be added.

It depends on how they look. Will it be a huge logo front and center? Or something smaller?

If it's the big logo (like the Samsung soccer jersey I posted a page back) I bet sales would take a pretty big hit. If it's something more discreet, then it might not be as big, but I'm sure there would still be a decrease in sales.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by polak

I'm saying that, out of people who buy jerseys regularly, there will be no statistically significant decrease in the amount of people buying jerseys should a logo be added.

No you aren't. You said that 100% of jersey buyers would continue to do so. 100% means "every single person". "No statistically significant decrease" - debatable in and of itself - is not the same thing. You're merely changing from one dumb argument to another that is not better in any statistically significant way.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by polak

I'm saying that, out of people who buy jerseys regularly, there will be no statistically significant decrease in the amount of people buying jerseys should a logo be added.

No, you didn't.

You have said numerous times that EVERY person or 100% of people who buy jerseys regularly and said they wouldn't buy one will still buy one.

[polak]

My claim was based on it being like soccer jerseys and I'm saying that there wouldn't be. We have no evidence to base any of this on except for the fact that this hasn't hurt soccer in any way.

My claim is based on the fact that people who buy multiple jerseys regularly clearly don't wear them cause they think "Oh man I'm gonna look sexy as #### in that". If it's a change like soccer jerseys then eventually, they will all cave and buy them because guess what, it's still their home teams jersey, its still new merch for them to wear and they like buying jerseys.

[codynw]

Or I could keep wearing my awesome retro Kiprusoff jersey and spend the $200+ on something that doesn't have a huge Scotiabank (or whatever) logo on the front.

[troutman]

If this is going to happen, can we accept a faint watermark on the shoulder (visible but not blatant)? Are we willing to go further than that?

[Hockeyguy15]

I guarantee polak is 100% wrong, and will change his argument EVERY time we call him out on it.

[polak]

My argument is 100% correct.

[Poe969]

That doesn't make sense at all. People didn't by the 3rd jersey's because they didn't like them. People will like jersey's with ads on them even less and less people will buy them.

Comparing soccer and hockey doesn't make sense because of so many reasons. It would be like comparing the brand of beer at the dome to the brand of skate laces the visiting team uses.

[Senator Clay Davis]

NHL jerseys with ads would never look like the Euro league jerseys with ads. Many of those euro leagues/teams need that ad money to functionally operate (i.e. pay players and management salaries), hence why they'll sell as many ads as they can. For the NHL, since this would be pure profit move (for most teams anyways), there's a tradeoff to consider: Overload it with ads and you lose jersey sales.

It also wouldn't surprise me if teams like Toronto and Montreal (and the other original 6 teams save Detroit) refuse because they don't need the ad money as much as say Florida or Arizona. I think at most we'll see one ad on the jerseys, likely on the shoulder or chest, and likely from a prominent local or national. How big will it be? Probably will depend on the sponsor.

Also jerseys with ads will open an avenue for those Chinese rip off jerseys to make rip off jerseys without ads. Begging the obvious question: What's worse? Real jerseys with ads or the Chinese rip offs without?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by troutman

If this is going to happen, can we accept a faint watermark on the shoulder (visible but not blatant)? Are we willing to go further than that?

Nope. The Flames putting paid advertising on the jersey in any way = will not buy.

Originally Posted by polak

My argument is 100% correct.

The only thing you are demonstrating is that you are a fool who does not understand basic math.

[BurningYears]

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by troutman

If this is going to happen, can we accept a faint watermark on the shoulder (visible but not blatant)? Are we willing to go further than that?

If the were smart (and/or evil) I could see them offering two jerseys. A standard one with the sponsor logos, and one with a logo-delete...for a higher asking price of course.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by polak

If it's well done like it is on Soccer Jerseys then fine, that's inevitible. Notice how most have a text logo with maybe a small design logo? That I can totally live with.

If it's something stupid like the Golden Arches replacing the flaming C then I might puke...

Not that it matters. They will do it and we're all going to suck it up. No one is going to stop watching hockey cause of ads on jerseys.

Originally Posted by polak

I 100% guarantee that EVERY person who already buys NHL Jerseys will eventually continue to do so regardless.

Flames draft McDavid or whatever next hot shot prospect and you're telling me you won't get his jersey because there is an ad on the front?

I call B.S. Every single person will get over it, like every single person has got over advertising on everything else we own.

Originally Posted by polak

My argument is 100% correct.

Which argument is 100% correct?

Your first one that no one will stop watching hockey because of jerseys with ads on them? Your second one of 100% of people who already buy jerseys will buy a jersey with ads, regardless if they say they won't? Or your latest argument that ads won't statistically make a difference on people purchasing the jerseys?