There are 162 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

NAMED: Levi's® Stadium thread

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 !!
Originally posted by Johnster:
Originally posted by NickSh49:
Originally posted by Johnster:
Originally posted by BayAreaNinersFan:
f**king horrible. Man, that's kinda depressing

Just be happy that it wasn't the Gap...

Naw the Gap has no money to waste right now. They're bleeding financially.


No I understood what you were saying... was just adding my 2¢.

I take a couple months off from the Zone and everyone's suddenly a smart ass.
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.
[ Edited by NickSh49 on May 8, 2013 at 2:46 PM ]
Originally posted by NickSh49:
Originally posted by Johnster:
Originally posted by NickSh49:
Originally posted by Johnster:
Originally posted by BayAreaNinersFan:
f**king horrible. Man, that's kinda depressing

Just be happy that it wasn't the Gap...

Naw the Gap has no money to waste right now. They're bleeding financially.


No I understood what you were saying... was just adding my 2�.

I take a couple months off from the Zone and everyone's suddenly a smart ass.

Originally posted by Johnster:
Originally posted by NickSh49:
Originally posted by Johnster:
Originally posted by NickSh49:
Originally posted by Johnster:
Originally posted by BayAreaNinersFan:
f**king horrible. Man, that's kinda depressing

Just be happy that it wasn't the Gap...

Naw the Gap has no money to waste right now. They're bleeding financially.


No I understood what you were saying... was just adding my 2�.

I take a couple months off from the Zone and everyone's suddenly a smart ass.


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.
THEE gayest shti ever.
We should just call it "Your Butt"
San Francisco A55 Wranglers
I have to admit I wasn't a fan to start, but its growing on me.

I like the link between the original '49ers and Levi.
Originally posted by Marvin49:
I have to admit I wasn't a fan to start, but its growing on me.

I like the link between the original '49ers and Levi.

this
Not sure why so many people are upset. Its just a corporate sponsor.

Not a bad one either. Can't get much more American then Levis.
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.

At the very most someone like Florio, Kawakami, or Cohn will write an article stirring the pot.

And if asked about it, the 49ers will respond with:

Originally posted by Marvin49:
I have to admit I wasn't a fan to start, but its growing on me.

I like the link between the original '49ers and Levi.

Agreed. I think many were hoping for a glitzy tech brand instead of a steady old school brand. The paring is just too natural for me to find any fault with it.
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.
Search Podcast Draft Forum Commentary News Shop Home