Sports - Animated advertising hoardings, STOP THEM.

Posted by: JamieL on 04 May 2009

Animated advertising hoardings at the side of sports grounds is something that has been spreading, particularly in football (soccer) over the last few years.

I detest them!!!!!!!!!! (and I am being polite in my statement).

Isn't it time that sports fans started to stop the greed of clubs and venues at the expense of the spectacle that we the fans are paying for?

I didn't think they would spread to cricket, but I saw them in the games played in South Africa this winter.

Frankly, if I ever see them at my home ground of Headingley, Yorkshire's home cricket ground, I will take a hammer with me to a game and make my feeling on the subject very clear.

Do others feel that sports should not become like some tacky webpage where you are trying to peer at the game past moving irritations, that prevent you from following the game. How would you feel at a music concert if between tracks, the band played adverts at you? (Whitney Houston fans may already know).

Does anyone know of a group who are fighting this erosion of our enjoyment of sports, or are people interested in getting together to make these money grabbing clubs and venues aware that they are spoiling sports.

I do think that there is an argument that the BBC should not show sports events that have such adverts on show. I do think that these constitute far more than the static hoardings, and are showing animated advertising on a non commercial channel. Targeting the BBC, through such programmes as 'Match of the Day' (I might be out of touch here on football, sorry not a fan) would be the best way to stop this erosion of our enjoyment of sports.

I will now go and sit down in a darkened room, and calm down.

Posted on: 04 May 2009 by av in bc

Who do you think pays for your enjoyment of sports or internet web sites?
if not for advertisers willing to risk millions, a ticket to a any pro sport event
would cost thousands and web sites would have to charge a per visit fee.

having said that, our society spends too much money on sports and entertainers.
we should hold back and spend on something more important than watching
other people having fun.

Posted on: 04 May 2009 by winkyincanada

Advertising is a tax. It feeds money into professional sports and makes them stupidly expensive. It creates nothing but irritation and annoyance. Beyond the function of giving us some basic information as consumers, it is less-than a zero-sum game and a total waste of time and effort. Worse than that, it really annoys the crap out at the same time!

If it was up to me (and it isn't) I'd get rid of it all. A pox on their ponytails.

Posted on: 05 May 2009 by JamieL

quote:
Originally posted by av in bc:
Who do you think pays for your enjoyment of sports or internet web sites?
if not for advertisers willing to risk millions, a ticket to a any pro sport event
would cost thousands and web sites would have to charge a per visit fee.

having said that, our society spends too much money on sports and entertainers.
we should hold back and spend on something more important than watching
other people having fun.

I don't think you have read my post.

"Animated advertising hoardings at the side of sports grounds "

I am talking about the hoardings that are now appearing at the sides of the pitch, right next to the action, which have irritating animations on them.

These are sports grounds that we the customer has paid for tickets to attend, or paid money either through our BBC TV license, or subscriptions such as Sky Sports, which then go to the leagues through their (very lucrative) TV deals.

Posted on: 05 May 2009 by Derek Wright

I would prefer to not have adverts in newspapers but I am not prepared to pay £5 to £10 per copy and not have colour pictures in them.

You have to remember that the newspaper or sport is not the product that is being sold - it is the audience or attendees or viewers or readers that is being sold to the advertisers. If you do not want to be a product do not attend.

Posted on: 05 May 2009 by deadlifter

I agree with jamieL, if it were not for all this advertising the sport`s would not become big money machine`s the common man would be able to attend more and because there would be no big money superstars the focus would be more on skill. and as for the possibility of a news paper costing £5 - £10 it would not happen because you just would not buy one. people will pay what they can afford look at the state of our pub`s. people cannot afford to go out drinking now because of greedy brewery`s and the government so the pub`s are closing at a rapid rate and the same will happen with various sport`s especially in the current climate.

Posted on: 05 May 2009 by JamieL

quote:
Originally posted by Derek Wright:
I would prefer to not have adverts in newspapers but I am not prepared to pay £5 to £10 per copy and not have colour pictures in them.

You have to remember that the newspaper or sport is not the product that is being sold - it is the audience or attendees or viewers or readers that is being sold to the advertisers. If you do not want to be a product do not attend.

I am happy to accept placards/hoardings that do not move, and the adverts/logos that are marked on sports fields. I am happy with stands, posters, etc. around the pitches, and the tournaments names being from sponsors. I am happy with animated adverts on scoreboards.

My complaint is very specific, because of these animated hoardings at the side of pitches, it is making the game difficult to follow, especially on TV, because as the ball or player moves, a flashing/moving image distracts the eye from the action, and therefore the sport becomes secondary in vision.

When advertising is not spoiling the game, I am happy to accept it. When it degrades the game into something unwatchable, then I will stop watching the game, and if others do so, then they will lose their target audience (both the advertisers and sport).

Perhaps this is a generational thing, those younger than me who have grown up being bombarded by moving images in their peripheral vision are perhaps immune to this irritation.

To take the newspaper analogy, if right in the middle of a paragraph of news there was an advert in bold text, it would make the paragraph unreadable. Adverts on opposing pages are acceptable, you can look at them, and then read the news.

I hope that helps make my objection clearer. I feel these hoardings are passing an acceptable point by being on part of the playing area, on within inches, and in direct line of vision of the play.

Posted on: 05 May 2009 by Derek Wright

I agree re newspapers - they would disappear if advertising was banned in them - ditto for most non essential activities.

If you do not like modern effective advertising at the big cricket grounds go support the local village team on Sunday afternoons instead.

I would have thought some animation at the ground in the adverts would have made the visit to the ground to be interesting.

Posted on: 05 May 2009 by tonym

I agree with you Jamie - those moving logos drive me mad!

Perhaps certain folk are more susceptible than others to the effect but I find it incredibly distracting, often rendering the event unwatchable to me.

Still, I'm an old fart so perhaps that's why.

Posted on: 05 May 2009 by nap-ster

quote:
Originally posted by JamieL:

I hope that helps make my objection clearer. I feel these hoardings are passing an acceptable point by being on part of the playing area, on within inches, and in direct line of vision of the play.

The thing is at soccer grounds the hoardings are down below pitch height. The players don't get distracted, only the viewers.

Posted on: 05 May 2009 by Bob McC

I'd rather hoardings around the pitch, animated or not, than adverts on the bloody pitch in the grass, as we now get at cricket matches.

Posted on: 05 May 2009 by JamieL

quote:
Originally posted by nap-ster:
quote:
Originally posted by JamieL:

I hope that helps make my objection clearer. I feel these hoardings are passing an acceptable point by being on part of the playing area, on within inches, and in direct line of vision of the play.

The thing is at soccer grounds the hoardings are down below pitch height. The players don't get distracted, only the viewers.

"only the viewers", i.e.. those who are supposed to be being entertained by the event, and without who the event would not take place, or be an amateur event.

Bob: Perhaps it is my job which often requires me to spot distractions on TV images, so when they happen I am probably overly annoyed by them. I don't mind the static images on the pitch that much, but in a perfect world they would not be there, just the odd tree on the pitch at Canterbury (I hope no-one thinks of hanging sponsorships from the new one planted recently).

Derek: I am happy for banners, animated adverts on the score boards, and all that. It is just the pitch edge animated hoardings are like someone waving a hand to distract you just when the action is happening. I might even accept them there in cricket if they only animated between overs.

I must admit though, a Sunday local game is something I really should go and support, and there is a very good ground I pass and keep thinking I should attend. I will make the effort, I am sure it would be a lovely way to pass an afternoon. Hopefully surrounded by other old curmudgeons like me.

Posted on: 05 May 2009 by av in bc

they are a necessary evil and a sign of progress.
people are no longer affected with just a poster or static image.

don't the players wear logos on their jerseys during soccer games over there anyway.

i see them at some hockey games here and they are a little annoying and distracting
but is that not the the point, to notice them, good or bad.

anyway i can't imagine how pro sports could survive in this day and age without corporate sponsorship,
any level of sport for that matter. moving billboards are just the latest thing.