Head-Fi.org › Forums › Head-Fi Network & Industry News › Beats banned at World Cup 2014 by.....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Beats banned at World Cup 2014 by.....

post #1 of 10
Thread Starter 

.... The one and only :)

 

Short story because Sony is sponsoring the World Cup 2014

Whats next?

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-beats-headphones-are-banned-from-the-world-cup/

post #2 of 10

There's no story:

 

The World cup is only possible thanks to the Sponsors, whether their product is good or bad (Budweiser I'm looking at you) participants have to use what they get and wearing something else is almost offensive to some extend for those who are actually paying for the event itself.

Beats were banned during the London Olympics for the same reason, in fact any other brand or product going against sponsors was without a doubt banned as well.  

Neymar didn't use their headphones because he wanted: How much money you think Beats paid Neymar and his dad for the TV ads and to be seen wearing Beats everywhere during the world cup? 

 

Even if a product doesn't go against their sponsors, no team is allowed to wear any visible brand during the games, practices and press conferences. To give you an example: How many player do you see wearing sunglasses? (which are far more useful than headphones) Is FIFA against ray-ban or Oakley?


Edited by squallkiercosa - 6/20/14 at 6:58am
post #3 of 10
This is no reflection on Beats. Just as Coca-Cola and Pepsi or Visa and MasterCard sponsor different events. So it ends up you can only buy WC tickets with visa

Nice try though.

Also I keep saying Beats deserve props for what they have done. You do not have to like their sound but it led to traditional headphone manufacturers reassessing their portable on-ear style offerings
post #4 of 10
Quote:

Originally Posted by squallkiercosa View Post

 

Neymar didn't use their headphones because he wanted: How much money you think Beats paid Neymar and his dad for the TV ads and to be seen wearing Beats everywhere during the world cup? 

 

Quoting this because it needs to be quoted. Most of these celebrities are photographed wearing beats because they're paid to do so - they're sponsored. You'll never know what they really use in their own time. I'm pretty sure LeBron James could afford a top-end speaker system in his private gym if he wanted to.

 

Regarding this CBS non-story;

Conflict of interest between event/corporate sponsors and personal sponsors for athletes has been going on for years. Some companies have a gentlemans agreement running, simply because the show must go on - like Nike or Puma sponsored players in an Adidas sponsored event. That's not always set in stone for all segments, though. You'd never see a Monster Energy sponsored rider riding a GP bike with Red Bull livery on it, for example, nor would you see a Tissot sponsored driver in a Tag Heuer sponsored F1 car.

 

There's a bigger chance that Apple/Beats actually paid CBS to do this write-up in order to get more people onto that Youtube video, hence giving further exposure to Beats and generating more sales. Guerilla Anything 101 - Sneak, Surround, Smother.


Edited by kurochin - 6/20/14 at 8:44am
post #5 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurochin View Post
 

 

Quoting this because it needs to be quoted. Most of these celebrities are photographed wearing beats because they're paid to do so - they're sponsored. You'll never know what they really use in their own time. I'm pretty sure LeBron James could afford a top-end speaker system in his private gym if he wanted to.

 

Regarding this CBS non-story;

Conflict of interest between event/corporate sponsors and personal sponsors for athletes has been going on for years. Some companies have a gentlemans agreement running, simply because the show must go on - like Nike or Puma sponsored players in an Adidas sponsored event. That's not always set in stone for all segments, though. You'd never see a Monster Energy sponsored rider riding a GP bike with Red Bull livery on it, for example, nor would you see a Tissot sponsored driver in a Tag Heuer sponsored F1 car.

 

There's a bigger chance that Apple/Beats actually paid CBS to do this write-up in order to get more people onto that Youtube video, hence giving further exposure to Beats and generating more sales. Guerilla Anything 101 - Sneak, Surround, Smother.

 

Sounds more Beats than it does Apple, honestly.

post #6 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Silent Xaxal View Post
 

Sounds more Beats than it does Apple, honestly.

 

True. Apple was never keen on celebrity endorsements. This was probably all Beats comissioned months before the sale to Apple. Btw, I think the actual Youtube ad is quite good, guerilla or not. Full props to them.

post #7 of 10




Seriously, I mean Beets have never hurt anyone. Ya, they can stain cloths and some folks just don't like vegetables but why ban them from the World Cup?mad.gif
post #8 of 10
Reading the linked article it's saying the beats ban is a win for beats nonetheless - SONY must be pretty pi**ed -lol biggrin.gif

As for celebs getting paid to wear beats - if they feature in a beats ad, then clearly they are getting paid for it, but when you stars paparazzi pics wearing beats - aren't these just their personal cans? Sure they may have been gifted to them by dre who knows paparazzi pics featuring celebs with his cans is free and powerful marketing, but just because a celeb has millions in the bank doesn't necessarily mean they would only use beats unless they were getting paid.

Some people (actually a freakin lot of people) buy beats as a personal choice, well heeled or not wink.gif
post #9 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb3723 View Post

Some people (actually a freakin lot of people) buy beats as a personal choice, well heeled or not wink.gif

I discovered the celebrity endorsements after I got my first pair of Beats, actually. I was drawn in by the fancy stand at the electronics section of a department store when I got the original Studios. Sure, they had terrible ANC, but I personally liked the folding design, and the artificially enhanced bass they're infamous for. Knowing myself, I could easily disable the ANC, so I took a chance and bought it. 

 

One of the most versatile sets in my collection, and easily my most used one, too!

post #10 of 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb3723 View Post

Reading the linked article it's saying the beats ban is a win for beats nonetheless - SONY must be pretty pi**ed -lol biggrin.gif

As for celebs getting paid to wear beats - if they feature in a beats ad, then clearly they are getting paid for it, but when you stars paparazzi pics wearing beats - aren't these just their personal cans? Sure they may have been gifted to them by dre who knows paparazzi pics featuring celebs with his cans is free and powerful marketing, but just because a celeb has millions in the bank doesn't necessarily mean they would only use beats unless they were getting paid.

Some people (actually a freakin lot of people) buy beats as a personal choice, well heeled or not wink.gif

 

I'm sure some of the celebrities may actually like Beats, and I'm sure some of them are paid to wear them. As prevalent as the paparazzi is, as well as regular people with camera phones, celebs can be videoed/photographed at anytime. I think its a savvy business move to pay people to wear a product anytime they're out.

 

Of the celebs who wear Beats outside of commercials, I wonder how many of them are audiophiles? Like, aside from the obvious people, how many musicians do you see wearing Beats headsets or in-ears out in the public? Obviously they can afford much more expensive, better sounding headsets, so like you said, I'm sure it's personal preference...Or just trendy.

 

*Note* Not a Beats bash, just a question...I've owned two pairs of Beats products and I like them for what they are.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Head-Fi Network & Industry News
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Head-Fi Network & Industry News › Beats banned at World Cup 2014 by.....