First of all, I get it Philly Union. I do.
And on the surface, actually getting Bimbo to sponsor your jersey is a coup. It’s probably a pretty lucrative deal and the Bimbo brand carries weight…some places.
However, Bimbo as a sponsor of important clubs does not extend into the conscience of most fans in the United States. Coupled with what the jargonistic word itself means to those that dwell in the fifty and it’s a double whammy.
First, as we spoke about in our Portland-Seattle post a few months back, it’s imperative to always partner with a strong brand. The best way to build a brand is to associate it with a stronger brand. (Why do you think online you see all those, “As seen on CNBC” or similar icons?)
Bimbo, while a major company, and perhaps a strong brand south of the border obviously does not carry the same value here. In fact, the “Bimbo” moniker is largely emblazoned on bread products in Mexico whereas in the states, on Wonder bread, the “Bimbo” moniker is nearly if not completely non-existent.
Secondly, and I say this part tongue-in-cheek and certainly loosely, this has a whiff of what Volkswagen encountered in their bid to target the Hispanic market. I’m saying the Bimbo-Union association is in the same realm–it’s not spot on.
Is it offensive for the jersey of an upstanding soccer club with great grassroots success and backing, and with a good part of that grassroots backing–women, to have a jersey sponsor that references what it does? I’m on the fence, but leaning toward tumbling over into “yes.”
For the non-soccer goers who will see a female Philly Union fan wearing the jersey, you’re inviting ridicule.
…why do you think Barcelona sponsored charities for so long on their kit–oops bad example.
Note: One note that I just included in the comments: I’m not talking about marketing or not marketing to the Hispanic demographic. I’m talking about not alienating any demographic.