The semiotics of the NHL’s 2015 Stanley Cup Final “Name” TV spot
A discussion board post from one of my elective classes called “Living In A Consumer Society” exploring the semiotics of the NHL’s branding through the lens of its 2015 Stanley Cup Final ad entitled “Name.”
For this week’s discussion board, I’d like to explore the semiotics of the National Hockey League’s (NHL) 2015 Stanley Cup Final TV spot entitled “Name.”
If you’re a follower of the NHL, odds are this is one of the more memorable TV spots you’ve seen created by the League in the last couple of decades. Its entire start-to-finish presentation embodies the spirit of the Stanley Cup Playoffs as hockey fans know it. Hence, this is why many fans say it induces goosebumps during and after its airing. But before I dive into the semiotics of this TV spot, as in its fractal value, potential hemorrhaging of meaning, and all that other good stuff, I think I need to take some time to explore the NHL’s social, political, and economic situation leading to this TV spot’s creation. Consider it a background, if you will.
The background
The NHL was at a crossroads in the 2014–15 season. The League’s biggest profit-generating demographic up until that point was 30–60ish-year-old conservative white males.
After the 2004 lockout, the on-ice product started to change noticeably. Of course, this wasn’t to the liking of the 30–60ish-year-old male demographic. The simple answer to why the older demographic didn’t like how the on-ice product changed was that they viewed it as a “weakening of the game.”
The main complaint of the demographic was the strict enforcement of the “instigator rule,” which essentially penalized tough guys or goons for sticking up for their star players when somebody from the opposing team would get the funny idea to take a run at them. This stricter policy on the “third man in” eventually led to the near-extinction of fighting in the game and, therein, the role of the enforcer. The game quickly became more about skill and poise and less about physicality. This created an environment for the Sidney Crosbys and Alex Ovechkins of the world to slowly but surely take over the game and help market it to a younger demographic that didn’t like the physical aspect of hockey but loved seeing guys like Crosby utilize his offensive skills.
Yet, the older demographic argued that before 2004, there were fewer injuries with enforcers in the NHL to police the “unwritten rules” of the game. This demographic liked how things used to be and wasn’t ready for a change. If you think about it, that makes sense when you factor in that most of the people were watching Hockey Night In Canada every Saturday night and listening to how the game should be played from people like former NHL head coach Don Cherry, the star of the first intermission segment Coach’s Corner. Most of his critics argued that Cherry was stuck in the ’70s and that he was a dinosaur in the hockey world.
Folks like Cherry taught of the “Canadian way” to play hockey, which was the rock ’em, sock ’em style that encouraged fighting and, in some cases, even flat outright hatred for the opponent. Cherry was very nationalistic. He loved his “good ol’ Canadian boys” like Douggie Gilmour, and who could forget #4, Mr. Bobby Orr? It’s fair to say Mr. Cherry didn’t like Europeans coming into the NHL. He had a disdain for Russians that was unmatched. (Some say he never got over the Cold War.). Cherry didn’t want the game to change to the point where it became all about athleticism and skill, the traits attributed to the European style of hockey. This is why Cherry always had something to say about players you know and love today, like Alex Ovechkin. Cherry feared change, so he villainized it on Coach’s Corner whenever possible.
Now, you’re probably saying, “Who cares about Grapes? He’s just an old, ignorant, and racist man yelling about anything that upsets him.” Well, for “boomers” that grew up in the ’80s and ’90s when sports, in general, were pretty rough and less about skill and more physical toughness, Cherry’s “old school” messages over the years served as state propaganda on what hockey ought to be. When this current 30–60-year-old conservative white male demographic watched Hockey Night In Canada as kids, they were subjected to Cherry’s belief system. After a while, it just sank in, and that’s what hockey culture became. In other words, Cherry helped create the consumer norms for hockey fans. One thing we’ve learned in this course is that consumer norms do change, but it takes a lot to make that change happen.
Now, as we’re getting closer to 2015, the general public, especially the younger demographics, is starting to learn just how dangerous hockey is when it comes to the discussion of CTE. The negatives of hockey culture, as in its exclusivity and racial bias, were starting to come to light. On top of it, the younger demographics didn’t like the game's pace; they wanted to see more scoring and celebrate players with personalities like Alex Ovechkin. These younger folks liked the idea of turning the NHL into a cultural melting pot and embracing different ways of playing hockey. In other words, it didn’t always have to be the Canadian way that Cherry promoted. Variety was good to them and could make the on-ice product more exciting to watch.
This is where the old school vs. new school debate began in the hockey community. On one hand, you had a bunch of “boomers” who wanted hockey to be rough and tough and for the Canadian boys to shine; it was all about the Canadian way. On the other hand, many younger people wanted the game to change. They wanted the NHL to protect its players better, and they wanted a faster-paced game with lots of scoring and less fighting.
As you can see, these are two entirely different ideologies. You could imagine the NHL was put between a rock and a hard place when trying to brand its product to both of these demos.
The NHL had to rethink its advertising campaigns because the League had recently signed a new Canadian TV rights deal with Rogers Communication. Both the League and Rogers needed to ensure that they could keep the old demographic of loyal hockey fans while catering to a new younger demographic that wanted to see change in the game before they invested fully as consumers. Otherwise, for media corporations like Rogers, who were paying out gigantic amounts of money to get the NHL TV rights, its investment could fail quickly (it kind of did in the end, but that’s a story for another day.). Therein, the hopes of a more lucrative new TV rights deal would go out the window once this one expired.
This is where we get to the “Name” 2015 NHL Stanley Cup Final TV Spot.
Discussing the semiotics in the NHL’s 2015 “Name” TV spot
Whoever came up with the idea for this ad knew what they were doing. The NHL has always been known for being behind on the times and being tone-deaf. I’d argue that this is one of the few times they were not.
Robert Goldman and Stephen Papson (2006) said in their paper that to succeed at branding, some things need to happen. “Three semiotic prerequisites have to be met — first viewers must interpretively enact an equivalency (or identity) between an encoded meaning and the brand image or brand name; second, viewers must be willing to recognize the sign generated by reattaching signified to signifier; and third, the value thus constituted requires validation. Supported by narration, music, the relationship of each image to others in the commercial and viewers’ own knowledge of the referent systems from which the signifiers are drawn, viewers are guided through the initial validation process. But for a sign value to be turned into a sustainable brand, it requires external valorization as well,” (Goldman & Papson, 2006, pg. 328).
Now, if you watch the ad start-to-finish, you’ll notice that everything comes into place according to the Goldman and Papson method, as I’ll call it. Remember, this ad’s aim was to bring people together from all parts of the hockey community and essentially get them to appreciate the beauty of the sport, past, present, and future, through the lens of names from the League’s playoff lore. The NHL's main goal was to get fans nostalgic and sentimental through the message of their ad.
For example, the ad starts with a piano creating a slow backing line that you know will support a strong narration throughout the ad. It brings a feeling of sentiment and gets a new meaning when the picture of Wayne Gretzky in one of his last Stanley Cup Final games as an Edmonton Oiler. The music helps signify meaning. Then the narration from acclaimed actor Liev Schreiber begins. He talks about the meaning of a name and how it presents a player to the world, expanding the meaning of images the viewer sees. They’re trying to sell the importance of the name’s recognition to the audience. The ad is trying to reel the old-timers in and show the youngsters what the playoffs were/are all about.
As the narration continues, frames of hockey’s greatest legends like the vastly underrated Jean Béliveau, the always charismatic Martin Brodeur, the beloved Ray Bourque, the rough and tough Broad Street Bully himself Bobby Clarke, the skillful Swedish defenseman Nik Lidström, the magnificent Mario Lemieux and the idled Bobby Orr appear on the screen. Then the ad starts recognizing players from the current generation like Sidney Crosby, Milan Lucic, Brad Marchand, Patrick Kane, and Jonathan Toews.
The narration explains how the old names help welcome the new names into the spotlight, which signifies the meaning of being a part of a team and building something. Therein, showcasing how each player’s name builds off the other. Hence, the reference to the line that says their names are only as good as the company they keep, which is something that truly makes them memorable and legendary within hockey lore. Basically, the message was that hockey is a sport built on teamwork. The Gretzkys don’t get anywhere without the Jari Kurris and the Paul Coffeys on their teams. The supporting actors may not get their due like the teams' stars did, but the real reward, as the ad put it, was having their names engraved on the Stanley Cup. Therein, making their names immortal, so, in essence, no one, superstar or otherwise, to accomplish the feat will ever be forgotten because they were all part of the team.
On the surface, the ad has tons of loaded meanings which signify the importance of the players’ names and how they’ll forever be remembered as Stanley Cup champions. There are also some sneaky underlying meanings. As I explained in my background section, there was a major idealistic rivalry between the old-school and new-school ways of approaching the game of hockey. If you watch the ad, I think it kind of says that the old and new schoolers have a lot in common. Each new and old player built their legacies around many of the same things. Gretzky was a skilled player with a laser of a shot. He made the defenceman look silly with his dirty dangles. Crosby does much of the same thing today. Bobby Clarke isn’t that much different from Milan Lucic, they’re both the same types of rough and tough players. Today’s game still has leaders who are just as good as those of yesteryear. Hence, the Stan Mikita-Jonathan Toews and Mario Lemieux-Sidney Crosby comparisons. In other words, just as things change, they stay the same. No matter what ideology these fans belonged to, old or new school, they’re all brought together for the same thing, the love of the game. The ad is basically subconsciously saying to enjoy the game for what it is. Also, the ad said the game's future is in good hands with players like Sidney Crosby and Jonathan Toews populating the League, two Canadian boys, something the “old schoolers” could latch onto.
Obviously, many sports leagues were trying to find ways to advertise their products as the times changed, so these types of commercials were a dime a dozen. One may say it takes away from the meaning that hemorrhages it. My only criticism is that the NHL makes these commercials hit on more of a religious level in the sense that it gets down to the core. Whereas, similar commercials by the National Football League and National Basketball Association never really got to that level, so the fractal values are differently assorted per se. It kind of feels like you’re getting the same message, just a different sport. It doesn’t separate itself. The exchange value is out of whack. It speaks to the eternal sameness of The Culture Industry, as Adorno might say.
Another thing that I should mention when digging into the semiotics of the “Name” ad: Through the music, the narration, and the visuals of the NHL’s “Name” ad, I’d argue the ad was trying to make things black and white in terms of what the League is and has always been. By that, I mean hockey is what it is. Yes, it will change just like everything else in life will. That said, when you tune into the Stanley Cup Final, things will always be as they’ve been. The games will be close and physical. Players will sacrifice themselves, play through injuries, and fight for every inch of ice. That’ll never change, and deep down, every fan knows it, which explains why they’ll be tuning into each and every game with just as much anticipation for this one as the last. Fans might deny it, but it’s just a fact of life. That’s what makes it so black and white. That’s why the NHL makes its shield symbol black and white. It kind of shows the arrogance of corporate branding and advertising.
As the ad says at the end, “Once it’s engraved, it will never be forgotten. #WelcomeToForever,” (NHL, 2015). The underlying idea behind its message is that what is dead never dies, and as much as things change, they stay the same. The future is bright. We know you’ll keep buying into our brand, and we’ll keep giving you darn old consumers reason after reason to do so.
