+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Archives (/forum-400.html)
+----- Forum: AACbbs Archives (/forum-418.html)
+------ Forum: Cincinnati Archives (/forum-932.html)
+------ Thread: SOT: UC Licensing (/thread-812621.html)
SOT: UC Licensing - BearcatJerry - 03-16-2017 11:26 AM
This has popped up before so it's worth discussing, I think...
This site came across my FB feed:
https://rockemapparel.com/pages/college
OK, so it's for stupid socks. But predictably, UC isn't one of the options. I used to think that was because UC got over-looked. But over the years I have discovered that it's really UC and their own licensing that prevents UC products like this from being available. We saw this when the "Brian Kelly" t-shirts and towels were being printed up and the University threatened legal action against the unlicensed use of the "C-Paw." And I get that...to a degree at least. The University HAS to protect their brand and trademark.
But what chafes me, as a fan, is that the University ALWAYS seems to cut itself off at the knees. I might actually buy some of this stuff...and thereby increase exposure to the UC Brand...if it were available. And, like I said, it's NOT this one...or even an isolated...occurrence. More often than not, when I see products like this, UC isn't available. tOSU is almost always available. Often UK is (not the socks though). But hardly ever is UC.
It'd be nice if we, as fans, could actually enjoy being fans!
RE: SOT: UC Licensing - bearcatlawjd2 - 03-16-2017 11:46 AM
(03-16-2017 11:26 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote: This has popped up before so it's worth discussing, I think...
This site came across my FB feed:
https://rockemapparel.com/pages/college
OK, so it's for stupid socks. But predictably, UC isn't one of the options. I used to think that was because UC got over-looked. But over the years I have discovered that it's really UC and their own licensing that prevents UC products like this from being available. We saw this when the "Brian Kelly" t-shirts and towels were being printed up and the University threatened legal action against the unlicensed use of the "C-Paw." And I get that...to a degree at least. The University HAS to protect their brand and trademark.
But what chafes me, as a fan, is that the University ALWAYS seems to cut itself off at the knees. I might actually buy some of this stuff...and thereby increase exposure to the UC Brand...if it were available. And, like I said, it's NOT this one...or even an isolated...occurrence. More often than not, when I see products like this, UC isn't available. tOSU is almost always available. Often UK is (not the socks though). But hardly ever is UC.
It'd be nice if we, as fans, could actually enjoy being fans!
UC is part of the CLC while Ohio State is independent in terms of licensing groups. I do know that it is rather difficult to obtain a license to use UC's trademark.
I think UC could do more to get the trademarks out there but you have also have to make sure that it doesn't run afoul of any other licensing deals UC has. The Under Armour contract probably limits what types of UC clothing can be produce by UC's other licensing partners and where it can be sold.
RE: SOT: UC Licensing - BearcatJerry - 03-16-2017 12:06 PM
(03-16-2017 11:46 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:(03-16-2017 11:26 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote: This has popped up before so it's worth discussing, I think...
This site came across my FB feed:
https://rockemapparel.com/pages/college
OK, so it's for stupid socks. But predictably, UC isn't one of the options. I used to think that was because UC got over-looked. But over the years I have discovered that it's really UC and their own licensing that prevents UC products like this from being available. We saw this when the "Brian Kelly" t-shirts and towels were being printed up and the University threatened legal action against the unlicensed use of the "C-Paw." And I get that...to a degree at least. The University HAS to protect their brand and trademark.
But what chafes me, as a fan, is that the University ALWAYS seems to cut itself off at the knees. I might actually buy some of this stuff...and thereby increase exposure to the UC Brand...if it were available. And, like I said, it's NOT this one...or even an isolated...occurrence. More often than not, when I see products like this, UC isn't available. tOSU is almost always available. Often UK is (not the socks though). But hardly ever is UC.
It'd be nice if we, as fans, could actually enjoy being fans!
UC is part of the CLC while Ohio State is independent in terms of licensing groups. I do know that it is rather difficult to obtain a license to use UC's trademark.
I think UC could do more to get the trademarks out there but you have also have to make sure that it doesn't run afoul of any other licensing deals UC has. The Under Armour contract probably limits what types of UC clothing can be produce by UC's other licensing partners and where it can be sold.
I do get the legal and contractual issues. But it just seems very difficult, as a fan, to get UC gear. (Whereas it is almost easy to get other gear...)
RE: SOT: UC Licensing - JackieTreehorn - 03-16-2017 12:22 PM
(03-16-2017 12:06 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:(03-16-2017 11:46 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:(03-16-2017 11:26 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote: This has popped up before so it's worth discussing, I think...
This site came across my FB feed:
https://rockemapparel.com/pages/college
OK, so it's for stupid socks. But predictably, UC isn't one of the options. I used to think that was because UC got over-looked. But over the years I have discovered that it's really UC and their own licensing that prevents UC products like this from being available. We saw this when the "Brian Kelly" t-shirts and towels were being printed up and the University threatened legal action against the unlicensed use of the "C-Paw." And I get that...to a degree at least. The University HAS to protect their brand and trademark.
But what chafes me, as a fan, is that the University ALWAYS seems to cut itself off at the knees. I might actually buy some of this stuff...and thereby increase exposure to the UC Brand...if it were available. And, like I said, it's NOT this one...or even an isolated...occurrence. More often than not, when I see products like this, UC isn't available. tOSU is almost always available. Often UK is (not the socks though). But hardly ever is UC.
It'd be nice if we, as fans, could actually enjoy being fans!
UC is part of the CLC while Ohio State is independent in terms of licensing groups. I do know that it is rather difficult to obtain a license to use UC's trademark.
I think UC could do more to get the trademarks out there but you have also have to make sure that it doesn't run afoul of any other licensing deals UC has. The Under Armour contract probably limits what types of UC clothing can be produce by UC's other licensing partners and where it can be sold.
I do get the legal and contractual issues. But it just seems very difficult, as a fan, to get UC gear. (Whereas it is almost easy to get other gear...)
Very difficult? Really? I see stuff for sale all over the place and on-line.
RE: SOT: UC Licensing - Bearcat1010 - 03-16-2017 12:22 PM
(03-16-2017 12:06 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:(03-16-2017 11:46 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:(03-16-2017 11:26 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote: This has popped up before so it's worth discussing, I think...
This site came across my FB feed:
https://rockemapparel.com/pages/college
OK, so it's for stupid socks. But predictably, UC isn't one of the options. I used to think that was because UC got over-looked. But over the years I have discovered that it's really UC and their own licensing that prevents UC products like this from being available. We saw this when the "Brian Kelly" t-shirts and towels were being printed up and the University threatened legal action against the unlicensed use of the "C-Paw." And I get that...to a degree at least. The University HAS to protect their brand and trademark.
But what chafes me, as a fan, is that the University ALWAYS seems to cut itself off at the knees. I might actually buy some of this stuff...and thereby increase exposure to the UC Brand...if it were available. And, like I said, it's NOT this one...or even an isolated...occurrence. More often than not, when I see products like this, UC isn't available. tOSU is almost always available. Often UK is (not the socks though). But hardly ever is UC.
It'd be nice if we, as fans, could actually enjoy being fans!
UC is part of the CLC while Ohio State is independent in terms of licensing groups. I do know that it is rather difficult to obtain a license to use UC's trademark.
I think UC could do more to get the trademarks out there but you have also have to make sure that it doesn't run afoul of any other licensing deals UC has. The Under Armour contract probably limits what types of UC clothing can be produce by UC's other licensing partners and where it can be sold.
I do get the legal and contractual issues. But it just seems very difficult, as a fan, to get UC gear. (Whereas it is almost easy to get other gear...)
Some of this is a numbers game outside of UC's control. Due to existing agreements etc the cost for licensing can be inflexible. For the socks it may cost $25k for each school's license. That's a big risk if the UC sock market is 500 pairs but limited risk if the OSU sock market is 25,000+ paris.
OSU sells the most stuff so they will always be included in the selection.
RE: SOT: UC Licensing - Bearcats#1 - 03-16-2017 12:31 PM
(03-16-2017 11:26 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote: This has popped up before so it's worth discussing, I think...
This site came across my FB feed:
https://rockemapparel.com/pages/college
OK, so it's for stupid socks. But predictably, UC isn't one of the options. I used to think that was because UC got over-looked. But over the years I have discovered that it's really UC and their own licensing that prevents UC products like this from being available. We saw this when the "Brian Kelly" t-shirts and towels were being printed up and the University threatened legal action against the unlicensed use of the "C-Paw." And I get that...to a degree at least. The University HAS to protect their brand and trademark.
But what chafes me, as a fan, is that the University ALWAYS seems to cut itself off at the knees. I might actually buy some of this stuff...and thereby increase exposure to the UC Brand...if it were available. And, like I said, it's NOT this one...or even an isolated...occurrence. More often than not, when I see products like this, UC isn't available. tOSU is almost always available. Often UK is (not the socks though). But hardly ever is UC.
It'd be nice if we, as fans, could actually enjoy being fans!
You basically gripe about everything.
RE: SOT: UC Licensing - SuperFlyBCat - 03-16-2017 01:17 PM
(03-16-2017 11:46 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:(03-16-2017 11:26 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote: This has popped up before so it's worth discussing, I think...
This site came across my FB feed:
https://rockemapparel.com/pages/college
OK, so it's for stupid socks. But predictably, UC isn't one of the options. I used to think that was because UC got over-looked. But over the years I have discovered that it's really UC and their own licensing that prevents UC products like this from being available. We saw this when the "Brian Kelly" t-shirts and towels were being printed up and the University threatened legal action against the unlicensed use of the "C-Paw." And I get that...to a degree at least. The University HAS to protect their brand and trademark.
But what chafes me, as a fan, is that the University ALWAYS seems to cut itself off at the knees. I might actually buy some of this stuff...and thereby increase exposure to the UC Brand...if it were available. And, like I said, it's NOT this one...or even an isolated...occurrence. More often than not, when I see products like this, UC isn't available. tOSU is almost always available. Often UK is (not the socks though). But hardly ever is UC.
It'd be nice if we, as fans, could actually enjoy being fans!
UC is part of the CLC while Ohio State is independent in terms of licensing groups. I do know that it is rather difficult to obtain a license to use UC's trademark.
I think UC could do more to get the trademarks out there but you have also have to make sure that it doesn't run afoul of any other licensing deals UC has. The Under Armour contract probably limits what types of UC clothing can be produce by UC's other licensing partners and where it can be sold.
I always assumed that any manufacturer/retailer can sell official UC gear as long as they are in line with CLC. https://www.clc.com/CLC-Services.aspx
RE: SOT: UC Licensing - OKIcat - 03-16-2017 01:53 PM
My feeling: UC does an excellent job overall with licensing. They make a conscious effort to target licensed clothing at various price points. So you'll see some UC sportswear at large discount stores such as Meijer's; better brands in sports specialty stores where UA thrives and finally some premium priced retro lines and pro shop brands that command higher margins. Most all of it is in retail stores in the immediate region or online for everyone these days.
I do agree with BearcatJerry that there are certain products that you'll see for OSU and not UC. OSU is probably top five in licensed merchandise sales nationally; UC is top 50. So there are certain items; novelties, food items, etc. that are in limited distribution by the manufacturers' choice. You may only see those for NFL teams and a small selection of NCAA teams. Their inventory is simplified because of limited customization and they have a high degree of confidence that there are enough fans for the biggest brands that their risk is minimized.
RE: SOT: UC Licensing - rath v2.0 - 03-16-2017 02:29 PM
It comes down to whether the company seeking the license for that product line is interested based on the numbers and $$. Each category of product has a different blend of the percentage that goes back up the line per unit sold. These percentages differ for each bucket from school to school based on the underlying agreements in play. Often, there are multiple layers of agreements to navigate. NCAA D-1, conference, individual school...There are even different rules and limitations for the use of the C-Paw versus other UC branding. NCAA licensing can be pretty complex stuff. Moreso than pro licensing from my experience.
RE: SOT: UC Licensing - SuperFlyBCat - 03-16-2017 03:52 PM
(03-16-2017 02:29 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote: It comes down to whether the company seeking the license for that product line is interested based on the numbers and $$. Each category of product has a different blend of the percentage that goes back up the line per unit sold. These percentages differ for each bucket from school to school based on the underlying agreements in play. Often, there are multiple layers of agreements to navigate. NCAA D-1, conference, individual school...There are even different rules and limitations for the use of the C-Paw versus other UC branding. NCAA licensing can be pretty complex stuff. Moreso than pro licensing from my experience.
There is a lawyer/firm in Indy (Fishers), and the guy won a landmark case regarding personal likeness imaging (you fill in the blanks) of famous people. A relative of a famous person sued companies using the famous person likeness although the person had died years and years ago. Anyway that is his practice. As an example if I started Eisenhower IPA, with tanks and planes and Ike on the beer cans marketing etc., .....if there are any Eisenhower relatives around they might be able sue and get a cut or simply put me out of business. A better example might be Elvis, or Babe Ruth.
RE: SOT: UC Licensing - Fubar - 03-19-2017 11:04 AM
I was part of the keep Kelly group that UC threatened. Was a humbling experience concerning supporting UC. I've also asked every where I've gone where I see other logo stuff like Macy's college watches, logo jackets in department stores, grill supplies with logos, etc why they have schools but not UC. It started out me trying to make a point, but over the years unrelated businesses had the same answer over and over. UC licensing is impossible to work with. Other schools not so much. After hearing that a dozen times from entirely different businesses I got the point.
RE: SOT: UC Licensing - rath v2.0 - 03-19-2017 11:09 AM
Its not exactly licensing....you need a manufacturing and marketing company that wants to sell that product.
Start with the manufacturers who pay the licensing fees for the stuff you want to see. Get them to want to make the UC stuff and gamble it can be sold at market rates in volume and I am betting CLC will be happy to oblige.
RE: SOT: UC Licensing - Fubar - 03-19-2017 11:11 AM
Macy's specifically asked UC for the ability to make UC logo watches along with U.K., OSU, X etc they they were going to make and said after a long run around just couldn't deal with it anymore and made everyone but us. They were going to take the manufacturing chance themselves. Not the only time I've heard this.
RE: SOT: UC Licensing - rath v2.0 - 03-19-2017 12:19 PM
Its not Macy's that needs to ask unless they want to negotiate their own manufacturing licensing agreement (which would be a mess for them). Its the company that has the licensing agreement that makes them and that sells them to Macy's as the retailer that needs to go to CLC. And if they have that agreement already, they have the right to make them (often exclusively).
Macy's can ask someone....just not UC, really. UC is effectively a third party in the transaction. All schools who work with a CLC, Fermata or IMG in the licensing business work like this.