PDA

View Full Version : players' sponsorship $ and ethics


neptuneslims
May 11th, 2006, 08:54 AM
I know there has been a lot of media coverage in recent years about various big sporting goods/apparel brands using child labour and sweatshops and various unethical practices.

Have any of the top players, many of whom routinely accept millions in sponsorship deals from these companies, ever been directly asked about this? If, for example, Davenport can earn over $10 million from winning tennis matches, does she really need the extra cash from Nike, who to my knowledge, have been accused of using child labour etc? I'm just using Lindsay as an example, not picking on her specifically. Do interviewers ever ask these questions in post-match chats??

If not, why not?

Tennisballova
May 11th, 2006, 09:23 AM
I don't think reporters ever asked such questions to players. I don't know why, but maybe they (reporters) were told beforehand not to mention those issues...

smiler
May 11th, 2006, 10:37 AM
I dont' know, I've also wondered about this. I mean part of me says fair play, they've gotta earn all the money they can (especially lower ranked players) because their career won't last very long. But then on the other hand, it's not like the top players are short of a bob or two, and nike especially has questionable ethics. I wonder if they take this into account when they accept a sponsorship deal?

I don't know what other companies are like :shrug: I think those companies who have good ethics should make a big deal out of it, because I'd feel a lot better knowing someone wasn't exploited to make me a t-shirt.

Meesh
May 11th, 2006, 11:51 AM
I remember in the US there was a college football player that refused to wear the jersey on the field. It caused a stir and then that was it. If you google nike sweatshop you will find all kinds of sites devoted to anti-Nike.
'3rd world employment opportunity' is what Nike calls it by using countries like Cambodia.

AsGoodAsNew
May 11th, 2006, 12:56 PM
The only reason they get paid a fortune to wear outfits no different to what you can get in a supermarket is because people pay big wads of cash to wear them.

Unfortunately I think that until people stop buying these overpriced clothes the ethics issue is falling on deaf ears.

*JR*
May 11th, 2006, 01:11 PM
I dont' know, I've also wondered about this. I mean part of me says fair play, they've gotta earn all the money they can (especially lower ranked players) because their career won't last very long. But then on the other hand, it's not like the top players are short of a bob or two, and nike especially has questionable ethics. I wonder if they take this into account when they accept a sponsorship deal?

I don't know what other companies are like :shrug: I think those companies who have good ethics should make a big deal out of it, because I'd feel a lot better knowing someone wasn't exploited to make me a t-shirt.
Nike isn't the only one, and had 2B dragged kicking and screaming into a pledge of paying LOCAL living wages in these countries, whom the manufacturers "play off against eachother". And then to actually monitor compliance by their subcontractors.

Even with compliance, of course the living wage in poor countries is far lower than in developed ones. And (Nike) only agreed to pay even that based on the living costs of a single adult, not a family. So in effect they're contributing to child labor by causing families to have to send their children to work in other fields, like agriculture for example.

Your last paragraph raises an interesting question, presuming that you meant you prefer to wear t-shirts, etc. that are endorsed by tennis players and other celebrities: WHY? Hell, if someone wants me 2B a "walking billboard", give me the damn stuff for free and call it a trade. Also: lets say you're buying a camera. How the hell does Masha's expensive endorsement make Canon better than rival brands? (Or the old Andre ad campaign for them).

So as Pogo once said: "We have met the enemy and he is us". In other words, if we all just stop indirectly paying athletes for the "privilege" of displaying their names, and stop letting ads by ppl who don't know more than you or I about how brands of whatever compare... those endorsements will disappear of their own dead weight. BTW, has anyone here chosen a Sony-Ericsson cellphone because it bought naming rights to the WTA Tour?

Rollo
May 11th, 2006, 01:15 PM
It's a complex issue too. Yuppie yahoos protest to try and close down the "child sweat-shops", but if they went to the countries involved and protested they'd likely be ripped to pieces for taking away jobs that feed people in desperate need to work.

In the clash bretween ethics and tennis players purses the money nearly always wins--

They all take illegal gurentees out the wazoo.
Neptuneslims mentioned Nike. I bet the other maufacturers are just as bad.
The Willies (and Tracy Austin,etc)plugged MacDonald's-a health hazard.
Evert and King played in South Africa for big bucks under apartheid.

The entire tour was sponsored for years by a cigarette company.

Paneru
May 11th, 2006, 01:24 PM
The Willies (and Tracy Austin,etc)plugged MacDonald's-a health hazard.
Evert and King played in South Africa for big bucks under apartheid.

The entire tour was sponsored for years by a cigarette company.

Please!

I'm so damn tired of stupid ass people blaming
everyone else for their own issue's. No one forced
you to open your damn mouths either way.

And as far as BJK & Chris, not everyone
is looking to make a social/political statement.

Fact of the matter is you're always gonna be able
to find fault with anyone for anything. No matter
how large or how minute.

Political, social, economical, ect...so long as money is
involved someone can always find away to bemoan
practically anything.

Heavy_Hitter
May 11th, 2006, 01:29 PM
Tennis careers only last for 10 years (ofcourse there's those who make it shorter and those who make it longer). Many of these players have left high school early (ie not finishing, etc). Once their tennis career is over, they may not have a strong base to survive on. Ofcourse there are legends like the Williams sisters and Davenport (and many more) that can survive on their reputation however many secondary players have their futures to worry about. It's difficult for many with University and College education to survive, imagine without high school. Many players need to get as much money, from as many areas, in order to secure their future. Besides, if the companies are willing to pay - it must be worth it. (except Nikes deal with Serena. They go screwed big time :lol: )

This is going to sound harsh/unethical; I don't see why child labour is such a big deal. And why are companies penalized for it? I'm sure many will disagree with me and I'll further explain that and defend myself once I've been sent down the closeline. :lol:

Paneru
May 11th, 2006, 01:37 PM
This is going to sound harsh/unethical; I don't see why child labour is such a big deal. And why are companies penalized for it? I'm sure many will disagree with me and I'll further explain that and defend myself once I've been sent down the closeline. :lol:

Well, I see it as it's always easy to be ethical
and preach it from a soapbox when one is simply
speaking in theory. Speaking in some romantic utopian ideal.

borisy
May 11th, 2006, 01:44 PM
Nike openly accepted the fact that their factories are in poor conditions but they don't do anything about it. There is a documentary in which the CEO refuses to go to see one of their factories in 3rd world countries.

The McDonalds tour was really ugly too. It's a way to change attention - showing look McDonalds is associated with sports whereas in reality you should change the word sports with obesity.

Helen Lawson
May 11th, 2006, 01:50 PM
I know Kathy Lee Gifford, and to a lesser extent Jacqueline Smith, took a lot of heat because their clothing lines were (perhaps still are, can't remember) manufactured in Central American sweatshops. While it would be nice to have players "boycott" these companies for this, it's the whole consumer issue larger than the companies. People don't want to pay for stuff that is manufactured in non-sweat shop conditions because it's too expensive and they don't care; they only care about price.

TonyP
May 11th, 2006, 01:50 PM
NIke, be damned, the tour was sponsored for more than a decade by Virginia Slims. The irony of that is that women players were taking sponsorship money from a company peddling a product very few of them would use, because they knew the product was a health hazard. But they didn't seem to mind recommending that other people use that product.

On those rare occasions when the press ever asked them about it, they would mumble something vague about not actually endorsing the product, or that they didn't think of Virginia Slims as a cigarette company. I guess they thought of it as a charity that just bestowed money on them for no reason whatsoever.

Eventually, of course, cigarette advertising was banned on TV, so they could no longer stand up in front of those big Virginia Slims banners on the back of the court and pretend that they didn't notice it.

What I always wanted to do was to ask Chrissy (who I am a huge fan of, by the way) and Martina and BJ and all of the rest of them:

"What are you gonna tell your kids about tobacco? Are you going to advise your own kids to use cigarettes or not use them, or just duck the whole lung cancer, heart disease, emphazima issue and say, hey, good luck?"

Paneru
May 11th, 2006, 02:21 PM
I know Kathy Lee Gifford, and to a lesser extent Jacqueline Smith, took a lot of heat because their clothing lines were (perhaps still are, can't remember) manufactured in Central American sweatshops. While it would be nice to have players "boycott" these companies for this, it's the whole consumer issue larger than the companies. People don't want to pay for stuff that is manufactured in non-sweat shop conditions because it's too expensive and they don't care; they only care about price.

Money talks.

The fact of the matter I think is that you can find some shady dealings going on in nearly every facit in whatever goods are obtained, from Ivory Coast children being forced to pick coca beans for our consumption of various types of chocolate to Cambodian children in sweat shops being forced/paid to make clothing.

And while a majority of the blame is placed on manufacturer's it wouldn't continue unless the people themselves wanted to put a stop to it and obviously the majority doesn't. They don't like child labour, but at the same time don't want to give up the luxuries they get because of it. Actions speaking louder than words.

borisy
May 11th, 2006, 02:28 PM
Money talks.

The fact of the matter I think is that you can find some shady dealings going on in nearly every facit in whatever goods are obtained, from Ivory Coast children being forced to pick coca beans for our consumption of various types of chocolate to Cambodian children in sweat shops being forced/paid to make clothing.

And while a majority of the blame is placed on manufacturer's it wouldn't continue unless the people themselves wanted to put a stop to it and obviously the majority doesn't. They don't like child labour, but at the same time don't want to give up the luxuries they get because of it. Actions speaking louder than words.

You're one of the rich ones in Vietnam I guess?

darrinbaker00
May 11th, 2006, 02:41 PM
NIke, be damned, the tour was sponsored for more than a decade by Virginia Slims. The irony of that is that women players were taking sponsorship money from a company peddling a product very few of them would use, because they knew the product was a health hazard. But they didn't seem to mind recommending that other people use that product.

On those rare occasions when the press ever asked them about it, they would mumble something vague about not actually endorsing the product, or that they didn't think of Virginia Slims as a cigarette company. I guess they thought of it as a charity that just bestowed money on them for no reason whatsoever.

Eventually, of course, cigarette advertising was banned on TV, so they could no longer stand up in front of those big Virginia Slims banners on the back of the court and pretend that they didn't notice it.

What I always wanted to do was to ask Chrissy (who I am a huge fan of, by the way) and Martina and BJ and all of the rest of them:

"What are you gonna tell your kids about tobacco? Are you going to advise your own kids to use cigarettes or not use them, or just duck the whole lung cancer, heart disease, emphazima issue and say, hey, good luck?"
They would answer you that without Virginia Slims, the WTA Tour as we know it would not exist, because they were the only ones willing to sponsor a women's professional tennis tour. Please read this:
http://www.tennisfame.com/enshrinees/joseph_cullman.html

It's easy to find fault 35 years after the fact, but the issue was quite simple at the time: either play professional tennis under the Virginia Slims banner, or don't play professional tennis.

Paneru
May 11th, 2006, 02:42 PM
You're one of the rich ones in Vietnam I guess?

Nope.
Just like the flag.

*JR*
May 11th, 2006, 03:22 PM
They would answer you that without Virginia Slims, the WTA Tour as we know it would not exist, because they were the only ones willing to sponsor a women's professional tennis tour. Please read this:
http://www.tennisfame.com/enshrinees/joseph_cullman.html

It's easy to find fault 35 years after the fact, but the issue was quite simple at the time: either play professional tennis under the Virginia Slims banner, or don't play professional tennis.
Maybe not so simple. The early 70's were the time when feminism (then called "women's lib") was @ its peak. If BJK and friends (not counting Chrissie and Martina, teenagers not involved in business decisions of course) had tried harder or a little longer, they might well have found a non-tobacco prime sponsor.
:confused:

Paneru
May 11th, 2006, 03:30 PM
Maybe not so simple. The early 70's were the time when feminism (then called "women's lib") was @ its peak. If BJK and friends (not counting Chrissie and Martina, teenagers not involved in business decisions of course) had tried harder or a little longer, they might well have found a non-tobacco prime sponsor.
:confused:

Which is always easier to say in hindsight
and as a person that was in the midst of it.

They did what they had to do,
period.

borisy
May 11th, 2006, 03:32 PM
Which is always easier to say in hindsight
and as a person that was in the midst of it.

They did what they had to do,
period.

Just shut up. If you're not in Vietnam, make a trip, see people, return and then talk again.

Paneru
May 11th, 2006, 03:34 PM
Just shut up. If you're not in Vietnam, make a trip, see people, return and then talk again.

You don't know shit of where I've been
or what i've seen.

So fuck off bitch!

borisy
May 11th, 2006, 03:38 PM
You don't know shit of where I've been
or what i've seen.

So fuck off bitch!

According to your STUPID logic:

Colonialism is good because who is more powerful should win.

We should destroy the nature and not care about animals because humans are more powerful and they need whatever resources they can use.

We shouldn't worry or talk about anything going on in the world because that's the order and it will never change.

Sad lifestyle.

Paneru
May 11th, 2006, 03:42 PM
According to your STUPID logic:

Colonialism is good because who is more powerful should win.

We should destroy the nature and not care about animals because humans are more powerful and they need whatever resources they can use.

We shouldn't worry or talk about anything going on in the world because that's the order and it will never change.

Sad lifestyle.

It's called living in reality bitch!

Some of us can see both sides of the coin
and can make pro's and con's for both!

Life isn't the utopia we wish it to be.
Their are things in this world that shouldn't be
and are terrible but it doesn't stop them from happening.

And it's great that their are folks that try and change it or would hope
to. And just the same, their are people that agree with them but aren't
willing to forgo certain things they've become acustomed to help that
change along quicker.

With time comes wisdom
and hopefully progression.

So instead of sheerlly condemning the past,
try and learn from it! Hindsight is 50/50.

Read the posts and what is being responded to,
think, and they open your STUPID mouth!

shirgan
May 11th, 2006, 04:01 PM
I think this is one the most interesting threads I have ever read in GM :)

The GM forum is usally so full of crappy idiotic topics...:tape:

Martian Willow
May 11th, 2006, 04:04 PM
Please!

I'm so damn tired of stupid ass people blaming
everyone else for their own issue's. No one forced
you to open your damn mouths either way.

And as far as BJK & Chris, not everyone
is looking to make a social/political statement.

Fact of the matter is you're always gonna be able
to find fault with anyone for anything. No matter
how large or how minute.

Political, social, economical, ect...so long as money is
involved someone can always find away to bemoan
practically anything.

I felt the same way about slavery.

smiler
May 11th, 2006, 04:58 PM
Your last paragraph raises an interesting question, presuming that you meant you prefer to wear t-shirts, etc. that are endorsed by tennis players and other celebrities: WHY? Hell, if someone wants me 2B a "walking billboard", give me the damn stuff for free and call it a trade. Also: lets say you're buying a camera. How the hell does Masha's expensive endorsement make Canon better than rival brands? (Or the old Andre ad campaign for them).

Actually that's not what I meant at all, what I meant is, I'd rather own things that I knew somebody else hadn't been exploited to produce. (Which is pretty much what I said anyway.)

I'm not suggesting that work should be taken away from poorer countries, just that working conditions should be acceptable. What I suggested is that companies who have good ethics should make a big deal of it so we know who they are, like the body shop (untill they sold out to L'oreal :mad: ).

Rollo
May 11th, 2006, 05:37 PM
Maybe not so simple. The early 70's were the time when feminism (then called "women's lib") was @ its peak. If BJK and friends (not counting Chrissie and Martina, teenagers not involved in business decisions of course) had tried harder or a little longer, they might well have found a non-tobacco prime sponsor.
:confused:


Later-yes. But in 1970 Virginia Slims was the only gig in town willing to sponsor a women's only tour. Gladys Heldman, a Texan, owned World Tennis magazine. She pitched the idea to Joe Cullman (another Texan), who ran Virginia Slims.

Since smoking Slims cigarettes was seen as being a statement of rebellious it fit the whole image.

Joe funded it and Gladys promoted the tour through her magazine, with Billie Jean as the star.

TonyP
May 11th, 2006, 05:56 PM
The "it was for the greater good" argument only holds water if that good outweighs the bad. Who knows how many women, influenced by women tennis pros, later died of lung cancer or gave birth to children suffering from birth defects because they were smoking cigarettes? Was making women's tennis a paying sport worth that? And how many other instances in the history of sports can you think of where the athlete won't use the product that is the main sponsor?

AsGoodAsNew
May 11th, 2006, 05:57 PM
Tennis careers only last for 10 years (ofcourse there's those who make it shorter and those who make it longer). Many of these players have left high school early (ie not finishing, etc). Once their tennis career is over, they may not have a strong base to survive on. Ofcourse there are legends like the Williams sisters and Davenport (and many more) that can survive on their reputation however many secondary players have their futures to worry about. It's difficult for many with University and College education to survive, imagine without high school. Many players need to get as much money, from as many areas, in order to secure their future. Besides, if the companies are willing to pay - it must be worth it. (except Nikes deal with Serena. They go screwed big time :lol: )

This is going to sound harsh/unethical; I don't see why child labour is such a big deal. And why are companies penalized for it? I'm sure many will disagree with me and I'll further explain that and defend myself once I've been sent down the closeline. :lol:

Not that long ago here in Britain we used to send children up chimneys to clean them. We even hung them for stealing a loaf of bread even if they were starving. Or sent them to Australia, or stuck them in the work houses.

Kids are just too soft these days and have everything handed to them on a plate. Tax payers even have to dish out child benefits to pay for them. Why shouldn't they earn their keep? After all most humans don't need to go to school for 16 years to learn - it's just to keep them off the streets. Much better that they actually learn a skill and get paid for it.

AsGoodAsNew
May 11th, 2006, 06:00 PM
I felt the same way about slavery.
If it wasn't for slavery then many western economies wouldn't be what they are today. And Germany's economic re-birth in the 30s was down to the slave labour of all the non-Arians in the work camps. Who says it pays to be nice?!

shirgan
May 11th, 2006, 06:55 PM
The "it was for the greater good" argument only holds water if that good outweighs the bad. Who knows how many women, influenced by women tennis pros, later died of lung cancer or gave birth to children suffering from birth defects because they were smoking cigarettes? Was making women's tennis a paying sport worth that? And how many other instances in the history of sports can you think of where the athlete won't use the product that is the main sponsor?
Completely agree :yeah:

shirgan
May 11th, 2006, 07:03 PM
Not that long ago here in Britain we used to send children up chimneys to clean them. We even hung them for stealing a loaf of bread even if they were starving. Or sent them to Australia, or stuck them in the work houses.

Kids are just too soft these days and have everything handed to them on a plate. Tax payers even have to dish out child benefits to pay for them. Why shouldn't they earn their keep? After all most humans don't need to go to school for 16 years to learn - it's just to keep them off the streets. Much better that they actually learn a skill and get paid for it.
:eek: :retard:

children are not sufficiently developed physically and mentally to do most jobs, and work long hours.
They are more sensitve to disease and have more complicated emotional needs.
Their understanding of their own needs and of others is more limited.
If one wants them to be able to be contributing members of society when they are adults, one needs to give them the time to sufficiently develop and gradually experiense different situations under the guidance of parents/other adults.
and not send them to fend for themselfs while they don't yet have the tools for it.

darrinbaker00
May 11th, 2006, 07:12 PM
Maybe not so simple. The early 70's were the time when feminism (then called "women's lib") was @ its peak. If BJK and friends (not counting Chrissie and Martina, teenagers not involved in business decisions of course) had tried harder or a little longer, they might well have found a non-tobacco prime sponsor.
:confused:
What makes you think they didn't try harder? There were people within the game who didn't think a women's pro tour would be successsful (Arthur Ashe said women's tennis "wouldn't draw flies"), so I'd be willing to bet Philip Morris was the only corporation to put their money where Billie Jean King's mouth was. Believe me, I'm as anti-tobacco as a human being can get (my mother was a loyal Virginia Slims customer for 30 years, and she died of lung cancer in 1998), but all known evidence points to Philip Morris being the only corporation willing to underwrite a women's professional tennis tour.

*JR*
May 11th, 2006, 08:56 PM
Actually that's not what I meant at all, what I meant is, I'd rather own things that I knew somebody else hadn't been exploited to produce. (Which is pretty much what I said anyway.)

I'm not suggesting that work should be taken away from poorer countries, just that working conditions should be acceptable. What I suggested is that companies who have good ethics should make a big deal of it so we know who they are, like the body shop (until they sold out to L'oreal :mad: ).
OK, thanks for clarifying that. Now let me ask everyone a question (again) that nobody ITT has yet answered: Why would you give a FF in your own shopping decisions what products and services a celebrity (or organization like the WTA, individual tournament, etc.) with no special expertise regarding whatever are paid for sponsorships by?
:confused:

-- Are Agassi and Sharapova camera developers?
-- Does sponsoring the WTA make Sony-Ericsson phones better?
-- Do the W/S make that chain of burger joints better? (And do you think they actually eat there? - no jokes about how Serena looks like she does, please). :p
-- Does sponsoring the Carson tournament make JPMorgan-Chase a better bank & brokerage house?

Etc. etc. etc.

darrinbaker00
May 11th, 2006, 09:46 PM
-- Are Agassi and Sharapova camera developers?
-- Does sponsoring the WTA make Sony-Ericsson phones better?
-- Do the W/S make that chain of burger joints better? (And do you think they actually eat there? - no jokes about how Serena looks like she does, please). :p
-- Does sponsoring the Carson tournament make JPMorgan-Chase a better bank & brokerage house?

Etc. etc. etc.
Of course not (although I do believe that Venus and Serena do still eat at Mickey D's every now and then), but if people weren't influenced by celebrity endorsements, companies wouldn't be paying celebrities millions of dollars to endorse their products. For instance, Nike charges $110 for a pair of Serena Shox tennis shoes, but only $50 for a pair of Citycourt II's. Both models are made in the same factory by the same workers, so they probably cost the same amount to produce. Why, then, does one model retail for more than twice as much as the other? Because it has Serena Williams' name on it, that's why. You know how the game is played.

*JR*
May 11th, 2006, 10:07 PM
Of course not (although I do believe that Venus and Serena do still eat at Mickey D's every now and then), but if people weren't influenced by celebrity endorsements, companies wouldn't be paying celebrities millions of dollars to endorse their products. For instance, Nike charges $110 for a pair of Serena Shox tennis shoes, but only $50 for a pair of Citycourt II's. Both models are made in the same factory by the same workers, so they probably cost the same amount to produce. Why, then, does one model retail for more than twice as much as the other? Because it has Serena Williams' name on it, that's why. You know how the game is played.
"Name merchandise" (like the example you gave, Air Jordans, etc.) undoubtedly works, as stupid as I personally find it. But, Darrin:

1) If you're buying insurance, will Pacific Life's sponsorship of IW influence your choice of company?

2) If you're buying a luxury car, will Acura's name on the Carlsbad tournament mean anything 2U?

3) Re. a camera, will Canon's "Power Shot" ad campaign with Masha?

4) If you're opening a bank account, will you lean towards Chase because they sponsor Carson?

5) (Presuming you follow the NBA) will Washington playing in the MCI Center make you more likely to choose them for long distance telephone service?

Obviously we could all come up with such examples. And IMO, those companies (if already household names, unlike Gemworth Financial lets say) are largely burning their stockholder's money with these "naming rights".

darrinbaker00
May 11th, 2006, 10:34 PM
"Name merchandise" (like the example you gave, Air Jordans, etc.) undoubtedly works, as stupid as I personally find it. But, Darrin:

1) If you're buying insurance, will Pacific Life's sponsorship of IW influence your choice of company?

2) If you're buying a luxury car, will Acura's name on the Carlsbad tournament mean anything 2U?

3) Re. a camera, will Canon's "Power Shot" ad campaign with Masha?

4) If you're opening a bank account, will you lean towards Chase because they sponsor Carson?

5) (Presuming you follow the NBA) will Washington playing in the MCI Center make you more likely to choose them for long distance telephone service?

Obviously we could all come up with such examples. And IMO, those companies (if already household names, unlike Gemworth Financial lets say) are largely burning their stockholder's money with these "naming rights".
My answer to all five of your questions is no, and you know just as well as I do that those companies didn't get to be as big as they are by throwing money away. If they weren't 100 percent positive that putting their name and logo on a building, athlete or sports entity like the WTA Tour wouldn't turn a profit for them, they wouldn't do it.

Jum_p_Over
May 11th, 2006, 10:50 PM
Its definately something players should take into considerations especially if they have strong beliefs about it

*JR*
May 11th, 2006, 11:01 PM
My answer to all five of your questions is no, and you know just as well as I do that those companies didn't get to be as big as they are by throwing money away. If they weren't 100 percent positive that putting their name and logo on a building, athlete or sports entity like the WTA Tour wouldn't turn a profit for them, they wouldn't do it.
There are many dumb ads put on TV by big companies. (The surest sign of it is when you're quite entertained by a commercial, but what company it was for quickly slips your mind. In fact, the late ad agency legend David Ogilvy would often blast ppl in his own profession for this). So yes, huge companies can and do "burn money". (For a good example, do a Google search on "New Coke", an expensive 80's marketing disaster, that led to the old formula quickly returning as "Coke Classic"). IMO, "naming rights" (except where related to whatever, like STP logos on racecars) are a classic example of marketing folks burning money.

smiler
May 11th, 2006, 11:08 PM
There are many dumb ads put on TV by big companies. (The surest sign of it is when you're quite entertained by a commercial, but what company it was for quickly slips your mind. In fact, the late ad agency legend David Ogilvy would often blast ppl in his own profession for this). So yes, huge companies can and do "burn money". (For a good example, do a Google search on "New Coke", an expensive 80's marketing disaster, that led to the old formula quickly returning as "Coke Classic"). IMO, "naming rights" (except where related to whatever, like STP logos on racecars) are a classic example of marketing folks burning money.

:rolleyes: I think you've missed the point of this thread.

drake3781
May 11th, 2006, 11:09 PM
marking this thread.

darrinbaker00
May 11th, 2006, 11:09 PM
There are many dumb ads put on TV by big companies. (The surest sign of it is when you're quite entertained by a commercial, but what company it was for quickly slips your mind. In fact, the late ad agency legend David Ogilvy would often blast ppl in his own profession for this). So yes, huge companies can and do "burn money". (For a good example, do a Google search on "New Coke", an expensive 80's marketing disaster, that led to the old formula quickly returning as "Coke Classic"). IMO, "naming rights" (except where related to whatever, like STP logos on racecars) are a classic example of marketing folks burning money.
Believe me, as a Coca-Cola addict, I'm well aware of the New Coke fiasco, but that's the exception, not the rule.

*JR*
May 11th, 2006, 11:25 PM
:rolleyes: I think you've missed the point of this thread.
I've bitched about the sweatshop issue here going back to my old ID 3 years ago, when Melanie Lively, if anyone remembers her, was the only other poster who seemed to give a flying fuck about the issue besides me! (Not only did most posters just want to talk about the styles, but some engaged in this "my fave gets more $$$ in endorsements than yours does", like they were getting a cut).