My favourite moment of the world cup is when there's more rules about advertising than the sport
2d 13h ago by feddit.nl/u/Fontasia in lemmyshitpost from feddit.nl
Context?
No ads for the world cup, so all the corporate branded stadiums are covering up the corporate name
The world cup has tons of ads playing all around the pitch. The branded stadiums just didn't want to pay to be on the sponsors list.
Seems insane that they should have to tbh. They're providing the stadium, you'd think that'd be an even trade.
The actual brand owners are not providing the stadium. Some stadium operator who accepted the brand money for the normal use of that stadium is providing the stadium, and FIFA said they'd require that any branded stadiums remove their corporate sponsorships in order to be considered as a site.
Example of somethibg not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHPArena
Essentially: The stadion is called "Neckarstadion" but while under sponsoring it's being renamed.
Forner 21st century names were:
- MHP-Arena
- Mercedes-Benz Arena
So yeah. It is operated by the local football club but renamed while under sponsoring.
They're not providing the stadium. What, you think random car manufacturer or telecoms operator has a team dedicated to running highly specialised facilities like a stadium? They pay money to have their name on stadium for X years so you and I are "forced" to see and say their name when talking about stadium X. Then that deal changes hands and another company pays for the privilege of forcing their brand on us.
FIFA offers an even bigger deal, so now the stadium covers the first advertiser to comply with the second advertiser.
In the Olympics, this is also the same for equipment the athletes use.
In 2006, the brand Warrior did not pay the Olympic ad fee, thus ice hockey players needed to spray paint the logos on their sticks.
It's all a game for money.
I posted that pre coffee this morning, but yeah, that's basically what I meant
"No ads for the world cup"
Every hydration break
/s
I know that those ads are the broadcasters responsibility, but still funny.
Also I swear I saw Powerade on the side lines
Yeah, I specified further down that I posted this pre caffeine and I meant they didn't pay to be an advertiser
Only World Cup sponsor logos are permitted. Those of the stadium’s regular sponsors are covered.
Maybe its a pride logo that's too DEA for them? Would also like context
I don't have any context either but to me it seems like the physical sign got covered for some reason so now they're cashing in on it on social media. That's just my guess though
Its the Levis stadium sign
Looks like an ad for a Levis brand diaper
More proof this is the dumbest timeline.
I'm still trying to get over the idea of injecting bleach to disenfect your body.
See? This only goes to show that there's STILL NOT ENOUGH RULES ABOUT ADVERTISING THE SPORT
Advertisements in MY shitpost comm?
It’s more likely than you think.
Clever
I'm assuming that Levi's paid buttloads of money to have that sign there, and I'm further assuming that there is something in their legal agreement that allows the sign to be covered at the request/demand of a more special/privileged client?
Yes. Levi's paid a ton of money to have their name and branding associated with the stadium in Santa Clara, where the 49ers play.
And basically the only tenant in the history of American sporting events to have the power to persuade the stadium owners to cut a deal not to use the official names of the stadiums, which the brand sponsors paid lots of money for, was FIFA making it a condition of hosting the World Cup.
The only branding that survived is on Mercedes Benz stadium in Atlanta, because the logo on the roof is, like, load bearing or something and can't safely be covered without damaging the stadium.
Well, it's useless. The point of an advertisement is to get people to their products. Writing Levis there (which might be not possible due to rules) would make it possible to find the brand but this isn't a proper advertisement. How would anybody, who doesn't know Levis find them only with this? Also people who know levis need to do some thinking to get there. I would call it bad advertisement, because it doesn't really trigger interest or curiosity to find the source easily. Not that I find it good that the advertisers are too dumb to do advertisement but this is not doing it'sjob or is at least making in thwory the cost up it takes to be there.
The Levi's sign in the stadium lives there full-time uncovered. FIFA covered it because Levi's isn't on the sponsor list/pay FIFA. Levi's switched their social media profile pic to be a pic of their covered sign, and now we're talking about it.
Free advertising in the end
We're talking about it. I haven't thought of Levi's in years and now they're back in my head. It's successful.
It's a type of guerrilla marketing, the goal was probably for someone to screenshot it and send it on social media (the way it got here). We are the target, not the people on the stadium.
Advertisement is not just about getting new people to know your brand. If that was the case, why would McDonalds do any advertising, do you think theres a single person who hasnt heard of it? Especially for larger brands, advertising keeps your brand alive, it makes people think about it, talk about it, associate other things with your brand. See a giant M somewhere? You think of McDonalds.