Personally, I feel like the best way for fencing to get more exposure is to remove the restrictions on advertising on the uniform. Fencers should have uniforms covered head to toe with various company brandings. This would actually bring in some outside money to fencing, and it would be advertising that would be designed to reach an outside audience. It would make it much easier for people to identify who the fencers are, and the best fencers would become associated with their sponsors.
Think of Lance Armstrong and his USPS run. It got the name out there, but more than just that, amateur cyclists were paying a premium to buy USPS logo jerseys. Perhaps fencing could even get a few controversial sponsors and get even more publicity.
Sponsor money would help fencing on TV far more than visor masks or wireless fencing or any of those other weird things the FIE is doing/planning on doing to make it appeal more.
I was thinking about starting this discussion a little earlier, but honestly with all the various Lexan polls, 50 Miami threads and 100 World Championship thread/articles the place has been a little crowded...
I recently crawled through the USFA tax filings and noticed an incredibly small part of the budget was spent on advertising. The amounts bounced a little from year to year, but were usually around 5,000usd/year.
How strange!
An organization with a claimed purpose of promoting a sport only spends 5,000usd/year on advertising?
Then I thought back a little. Last year, we saw fencing on the Conan O'Brian show, the Letterman top-10, a few morning shows, a few cable TV programs... I've seen quotes from top US fencers on ESPN.com. There have been several commercials for non-fencing products that included fencers.
Our sport is enjoying increased visability.
Having/maintaining a stable of top competitive athletes IS a form of advertising.
---------------------------------- Quick note:Lance Armstrong is only famous because the Tour de France is famous. Cycling is not particularly famous outside of that event. Most people would not be able to tell you the name of Armstrong's current sponsor, and I'll fewer even know that he changed sponsors.
-----------------------------------
PPS. Yes, fencing could make money from sponsorship.
YOU can start today.
Events can have sponsors, strips can have sponsors, clubs can have sponsors, team buses can have sponsors, uniforms aren't the only thing that can be sponsored.
Go find sponsors.
I'm guessing there aren't many corporate sponsors lurking here on F.net.
__________________ Quit touchin' me, ya freak
F.Net Rule #1: E. L. E. (everybody love everybody)
He switched from the US postal team to the discovery channel.
__________________
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. And from this side only! The flight of a half-man, half-bird. Dinosaurs nuzzling their young in pastures where strip malls should be. Cookies on dowels. All those moment, lost in time. Gone, like eggs off a hooker's stomach. Time to die" -Phil Ken Sebben
---------------------------------- Quick note:Lance Armstrong is only famous because the Tour de France is famous. Cycling is not particularly famous outside of that event. Most people would not be able to tell you the name of Armstrong's current sponsor, and I'll fewer even know that he changed sponsors.
-----------------------------------
That's true, but the point I was trying to make with that was more that a company unrelated to the sport can sponsor to get their name out, and the sports stars will become associated with their sponsorship. It's not that it makes someone famous, but it will not somehow "cheapen" the sport.
Quote:
YOU can start today.
Events can have sponsors, strips can have sponsors, clubs can have sponsors, team buses can have sponsors, uniforms aren't the only thing that can be sponsored.
Go find sponsors.
I'm guessing there aren't many corporate sponsors lurking here on F.net.
Uniform sponsoring helps make individual athletes more identifiable on the strip. Further more, as a small side note, I appreciate your sentiment that I can start today, and perhaps I will try in a few years, but right now I cannot have any sponsorship or else I lose my NCAA eligibility.
I would say Lance became famous because he was an American with the opportunity to take first in a major international event. Note the other cycling races did not become as well known in the US, because he doesn't compete in them.
When I read the thread title I thought you meant advertising fencing on TV like those French did. I don't think that's a bad idea at all... At least it lets everyone know/reminds everyone that this sport exists. Doesn't matter how much money they spent on testing out new proposals and crap... nobody's gonna watch fencing if nobody knows about it
__________________
A synonym is a word you use when you can't spell the word you first thought of.
Then I thought back a little. Last year, we saw fencing on the Conan O'Brian show, the Letterman top-10, a few morning shows, a few cable TV programs... I've seen quotes from top US fencers on ESPN.com. There have been several commercials for non-fencing products that included fencers.
Our sport is enjoying increased visability.
This is the difference between paid media (advertising) and earned media (public relations). If the USFA's Cindy Bent Findlay is responsible for garnering the coverage you cite (including the article recently appearing in US News & World Report), then she's doing an admirable job. $5,000 in advertising won't buy anything meaningful on a large scale.
HA! I'm trying to guess who's the guy with the Trojan ad.
Anyway, it doesn't seem like such a bad idea. I could easily imagine it happening... if fencing gets its name out first. Athens was a great first step becuase the US did so well, but fencing is still not going to get sponsors as long as people still say, "oh, fencing" as if it were an exotic fruit.
__________________ "What, really? I thought that song was just about a dragon who lived by the sea and frolicked in the autumn mist in a land called Honah Lee."
I don't think it would look as hideous as that picture. Each fencer would have ONE (maybe two) sponsors, so our uniforms wouldn't look like a jigsaw puzzle of ads.
I don't think it would look as hideous as that picture. Each fencer would have ONE (maybe two) sponsors, so our uniforms wouldn't look like a jigsaw puzzle of ads.
But that's just the point he's making!
Quote:
Originally Posted by prototoast
Fencers should have uniforms covered head to toe with various company brandings.
Sponsor labels are allowed on our kit today and it looks "ok". I say ok 'cause most of the better germans (I mention germans in particular 'cause they're the ones I've specifically noticed) have lots of Mercedes-Benz etc. etc. patches on their kit.
I personally think the current rules about sponsor marketing on kit is fine. I do not want to allow more patches etc. That's just my personal opinion.
Why not just dump all the advertising on the shirt you wear underneath? It's not regulated, and there's plenty of exposure time at least at the venue if not on TV. You can put all the logos you want on there. If the sponsor demmands air time then just make sure you do your interview with your jacket and lame off.
__________________
You have two opponents, the one standing on the strip, and the one standing to the side of it.
I don't think it would look as hideous as that picture. Each fencer would have ONE (maybe two) sponsors, so our uniforms wouldn't look like a jigsaw puzzle of ads.
Even if you take off all but two on either of the fencers, it still doesn't look very good. And who's to say that fencers will have small ads, or only a few? More ads mean more money for them. If I was a world class fencer who could get sponsors, I'd cover myself in ads.
Look at NASCAR and cycling. Personally, I think that those sports are both somewhat ruined by the excessive advertising on the uniforms. (or the car).
I think that a small patch on the back arm wouldn't hurt anyone, but my point is that this should be very strcitly regulated if we want fencing to have a good image.
Even if you take off all but two on either of the fencers, it still doesn't look very good. And who's to say that fencers will have small ads, or only a few? More ads mean more money for them. If I was a world class fencer who could get sponsors, I'd cover myself in ads.
Look at NASCAR and cycling. Personally, I think that those sports are both somewhat ruined by the excessive advertising on the uniforms. (or the car).
I think that a small patch on the back arm wouldn't hurt anyone, but my point is that this should be very strcitly regulated if we want fencing to have a good image.
Why is it such a bad thing. Even if you consider them to be horribly ugly (not necessarily true, but we'll just assume it is), how does it in any way affect the sport? What happens on the strip will stay the same. Cycling isn't any different because they're wearing advertisements. This will just increase the money paid into fencing, and most importantly, it is a form of advertising that will reach out to more than just fencers.
Why is it such a bad thing. Even if you consider them to be horribly ugly (not necessarily true, but we'll just assume it is), how does it in any way affect the sport? What happens on the strip will stay the same. Cycling isn't any different because they're wearing advertisements. This will just increase the money paid into fencing, and most importantly, it is a form of advertising that will reach out to more than just fencers.
I don't think we need to ruin our image in order to get money, so why should we? Sure, we could have a sport wherein good fencers wear a ton of advertisements, but it would be ugly, and the gains would be negligible. Would it get fencing on TV? I doubt it; the same fencing that stations find unattractive now wouldn't change with advertisements. Would it attract new fencers to the sport? If anything, I'd think it would repel people. Who wants to become a great fencer so they can wear a bunch of ads on their uniform?
Linear Mode
