Originally posted by Rascal:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
Originally posted by NickSh49:
Originally posted by Rascal:
Originally posted by NickSh49:
That is so wrong it's hilarious.
If you've been working in advertising for over 20 years, you'd know it's not even CLOSE to a PR nightmare. It's just a couple of endorsements. Subway sponsors RG3 & Justin Tuck, and they're in the same division. Gillette sponsors a ton of athletes like Matt Ryan, Ray Rice, & Clay Matthews (and that's not even counting Old Spice, with is a Proctor & Gamble company, which also owns Gillette), and they sponsor the Patriots' field as well.
Your response is a ridiculous take on a non-issue. Who in the media is going to "kill it?" They ask one question at a press conference and it's over.
MEDIA - "Any take on Levi's sponsoring both the 49ers and Seahawks quarterback Russell Wilson?"
LEVI'S - "As a brand, we try to place endorsements with athletes that represent the values we have as a company. We feel both Russell Wilson and the San Francisco 49ers hold true to those values, and we are honored to be affiliated with both parties."
Done. But yes, I'm sure they'll be scrambling to explain this to the media.
LOL. I am sorry, you are making me laugh.
OK, so in your opinion, there is absolutely no conflict of interest right ?
So, based on your media answer, I suppose Levi's should carry on airing the Russell Wilson spot then ?
And what about on the part of the 9ers ? What if there was an uproar from the 9ers fans upon finding out Russell Wilson is in fact a spokeperson for the Levi's brand ?
And by the way what if and when the media decides to make a story out of this ? Would you for one be happy if you see headlines plastered across the media "49ers' New Stadium Partner Levi's Sponsors Divisional Rival Seattle Seahawks QB Russell Wilson" ?
I don't know whether you remember Boris Becker, the tennis player ? He was sponsored by Ford and was caught speeding in a Porsche. It turned into a PR nightmare once local news turned international.
Oh well, if you think is hunky dory, then be it.
To me, there is a conflict of interest here, unless Levi's decides to drop Russell Wilson as a spokesperson for the brand now, it will be highly inappropriate.
Is like if Manchester United sells Old Trafford's naming rights to Levi's and yet Levi's sponsors the lead striker of Chelsea. That will never happen !!
Yes, there is absolutely no conflict of interest, per my previous explanation, though I doubt you will see the Wilson spot air during anything but a Seahawks game regardless.
I tend to agree. Nike sponsores how many athletes from different teams? Under Armor?
No conflict.
No, that is not the same. When you sponsor individual athletes, they are just exactly that, individual sports personalities. You are not sponsoring their teams. The problem here is the naming rights of the 49ers stadium pertains to the San Francisco 49ers, the team/franchise as a whole. Once you cross into the competing team level, then there is a conflict of interest. It is not like Russell Wilson and Colin Kaepernick happen to be wearing Nike for example. There is a distinct difference between individuals and teams.
No there isn't. Where is your evidence for this? Why is it never an issue when Clay Matthews or any Gillette/P&G sponsored athlete plays at Gillette Stadium?
YOU are assuming there will be a conflict of interest. There is no precedent for this. You have no evidence. You're just typing out assumptions to back up your pending "PR nightmare." Your words, not mine.
EDIT: In addition, you don't think the 49ers don't already know Wilson did the ad? C'mon man, I'm sure they did their homework. Can't believe we're still debating this.
[ Edited by NickSh49 on May 8, 2013 at 3:19 PM ]
