Mascots as Commercial Vehicles

Submitted by Blazefire on

We've all seen the ESPN commercials featuring college mascots. ESPN Race for the Heisman (Sponsored by Nissan), etc.

However, just a moment ago, while perusing EDSBS, I came across an ad that led me to these videos. (Playlist Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpaQ0B_u17E&index=2&list=PLbsTzthpl0yk74L9-mTS2JzUlv0Z2UNri)

These were the first time I can remember ever seeing a college mascot in a commercial that wasn't at least ostensibly advertising the broadcast network in question. This is just an outright advertisement for Reeces' Puffs cereal.

We all know that companies would love to get college athletes in their ads if they could. Companies would've been champing at the bit to get Denard and his smile to eat their cereal on TV and flash that winning smile. Both because of their name factor and school allegiance. Regardless of your feelings on that, they currently can't, because then the NCAA, who has no problems benefiting from sponsorship, would stop them from playing any further.

I'm just wondering what your take on this is. Is it acceptable for schools to use what is ostemsibly the "12th Man/6th Man" in ads, and profit from that where the athletes are not permitted to do so? Without exception, University Mascots are "played" by students at University events, sometimes a student athlete in their own right (often a gymnast). Who currently plays Goldy? Would the NCAA have a problem if that studen were on scholarship and was inside the Goldy costume for this commercial? He wouldn't be using his own likeness - but at the same time, the school and company are profiting off of the character he represents. Is this any different than Michigan just happening to sell thousands of "16" jersies?

Moreover, is this why Dave Brandon was pushing for a Mascot? Another potential revenue stream for the university?

justingoblue

August 31st, 2015 at 8:41 PM ^

Admittedly I haven't given this a lot of thought, but what's the distinction between this and licensing apparel rights or trademarks to multinationals, or tweeting M + Chobani or any of the other ways companies like Reeces get into the college branding landscape?

Blazefire

August 31st, 2015 at 8:57 PM ^

Yes, but they try to use that argument to sell jersies. "We're not selling Denard jersies. Lots of people have worn #16!" It rings hollow, and the NCAA has not been overly supportive of it. I just wonder if, because we can't see the guy's head, it makes a difference.

I think the NCAA would've had a problem with it if a "University Spokesman" in a #16 Jersy had come out and said, "Remember, #16 wants you to eat Reece's Puffs!" while Denard was here.

mgoblue0970

September 1st, 2015 at 12:40 AM ^

Your argument would make sense if the NCAA wasn't a hypocrite.  FOr example, the name tapes have to be removed from game worn jerseys per NCAA rules so the university isn't making money off the student athlete.

Blueblood2991

August 31st, 2015 at 8:48 PM ^

Kind of comparing apples to oranges. A mascot is owned by the university, much like the Block M is.  If you start splitting hairs like that, you could argue that students are not allowed to wear any shirts with the block M because it could lead to profit.  You are comparing a trademarked symbol to an individual's likeness.

Esterhaus

August 31st, 2015 at 9:27 PM ^

 
It is the protectable asset, not the actor, in the case of University Mascots. At least for legal fiction purposes the characters' roles are so tightly scripted and their personalities concealed, typically (cf Notre Dame "Irishperson"),that no performance right obtains.
 
Zero doubt the student actors release and assign whatever rights they may have held. Whether this is desireable or otherwise is personal opinion. Compare with NFL cheerleaders and ask yourself how many newly adolescent boys are ... [grabbing images at the very least] to the cheerleaders actual appearances and performances - nevermind. 
 
You can waive your rights, all of them, by agreement is the nutshell. Wish to perform, sign on the dotted line or else. Plenty of replacements - actually a secure role for illegal aliens - to be had.

The Mad Hatter

August 31st, 2015 at 9:43 PM ^

Was pushing for a mascot because Dave Brandon is a demon sent from the 7th circle of hell by the ghost of Woody Hayes to destroy Michigan football.

Luckily, Bo intervened.

Clarence Boddicker

August 31st, 2015 at 9:59 PM ^

The university owns the costume and the coyright. Anyone the university permits can put on the suit. I'd be surprised the mascots on ESPN were actually played by students. They could just get some unpaid intern to wear it under hot lights for hours rather than fly kids in from Madison or Atlanta or Eugene and...pay them.