Snow Balled: Rudolph The Red Soxed Reindeer Never Had a Contract

Stolen and not for charity.

Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer is a mythical character without the ability to choose his endorsement deals. Still, Rudy is represented by Character Arts. Those who wish to license his likeness can put together a proposal and try to obtain approval.

Last October, a local sports marketing firm had this brilliant idea to obtain licensing for Rudolph and the Boston Red Sox and create a children’s story book where David Ortiz Helps Rudolph Save Christmas. All the proceeds from the sale of the book would support his charitable foundation. They were unable to come to terms with David, so they approached the Boston Red Sox with the story idea instead. Ultimately, however, the deal fell through because Character Arts was unable to provide licensing for Rudolph’s usage.

As explained by Ashish Sharma from Character Arts to the agency: “I spoke with the team and in short, while we love the idea, the charitable component and the baseball players involved, we cannot move forward due to the fact that Rudolph has not never [sic] been brought out of the fictional realm.” Sharma added “When it comes to the brand, we are very careful to safeguard its current mythological reverence and this often leads to having to make tough decisions such as this one.”

So imagine their surprise when this December, the Red Sox distributed their online holiday announcement as a partnership between the team and Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer. There was no charitable component. The team’s online greeting card was a branding initiative. It told the story of how minor leaguers teased Rudolph, but how the scouts thought he could go pro. The problem is, you can never go pro if you don’t have a deal.

And the Red Sox never had one.

After seeing the online promotion, they contacted Character Arts to inquire. An excerpt from the letter:

The Red Sox are more Scrooge than Santa.

“We had discussed the opportunity of linking together Rudolph with the Boston Red Sox last year, and I know that you mentioned that was not something you were able to do. Then today, this message was distributed to their fans, and it currently is posted on their website. I’m wondering what changed.” Then it added, “We are disappointed that our concept and presentation seems to have been leveraged without our involvement.”

Well, it turns out the Red Sox liked the idea too much to let lack of a license slow them down, and they opted to proceed anyhow. According to Sharma later that same evening, there was still no deal. “Nothing has changed (and thank you for bringing this to our attention) – this use is unauthorized and will be dealt with appropriately.”

I’m going to now take a deep breath for a moment.

Those who work in sports marketing only do so because they aren’t good enough to still be playing. They have a passion for the game, and want to do whatever they can to still be a part of it, for as long as possible. Their entire value is tied to their ideas, and execution of those ideas. After all, if you knock those ideas out of the park, you win.

This sports marketing company, which has asked to remain confidential, is a little unique compared to other sports organizations. They are in business to help teams and their athletes raise money for their favorite causes. They don’t make a percentage off a player’s salary or endorsement deal, and they don’t earn a dime selling advertising or stadium signage to fans who already pay a premium for tickets and concessions. Everything this company does is tied to coming up with ideas, sharing them with teams and athletes, and then implementing those ideas so we can help them raise money.

It is with deep sadness that on one particular occasion, the idea this company pitched to a team for charity was declined, and then subsequently implemented without their involvement for profit or brand gain. This strikes me as somewhat greedy, and also as highly unethical. It is even more frustrating when the idea was tied to holiday giving, and that benefit was taken away at the hands of a team that has been honored and respected for a lifetime.

But more troubling is that no organization is stricter in regards to usage of names and logos than Major League Baseball. And they should be – there is a lot of equity invested in those brand marks. And yet, a team within this organization ignored this when they leveraged the name, logo, and song of a property owned by Character Arts.

What were the Red Sox thinking?

They stole an idea, didn’t provide a credit for where the idea came from, used it without rights, and posted it for brand gain – all while eliminating the charitable component, which was the whole purpose of the concept to begin with.

The moral of my story is: Be ethical.

Small companies and idea guys are not going to get patents and copyrights every time they have a good idea. They are going to take these ideas to those who benefit, with the hope that if the idea is accepted, they will have a chance to implement it. To those of you who work in sports, I urge you: don’t steal ideas. It is the same as stealing. And when you’re caught stealing, you will be outed.

24 comments on “Snow Balled: Rudolph The Red Soxed Reindeer Never Had a Contract”

  1. rob says:

    WOW… too many thoughts to write…

    1. joegill88 says:

      In favor or against?

  2. Anthony says:

    Nice work Joe!

    1. joegill88 says:


  3. Medway Mike says:

    I can see Deadspin picking up this story and this thing going national. Make sure you are credited as the proper frontman for breaking this news about the seedier side of the Red Sox.

    1. joegill88 says:

      Thanks so much mike!

  4. Kevin says:

    Hoo boy. Who gives a shit?

    1. joegill88 says:

      too his their own

  5. Detroit Derek says:

    Incredibly well written, makes me very upset to hear stuff like this is going. I hope this gets taken to a national level. Great work Joe

    1. joegill88 says:

      Thanks Derek and thanks for reading!

  6. evonsports says:

    They were stupid to use his name. They could have just used a likeness and had a made up name for him.

    1. joegill88 says:

      They are not too bright.

  7. The Red Sox took down the Rudolph file today, but failed to realize that you can't delete the internet. Here is a copy of the file that started all the fuss:


    1. joegill88 says:

      Thanks Charlie!

  8. Joe DeFerrari says:

    Nice job, and merry Christmas Joe!

    1. joegill88 says:

      Thanks sir!


    i have this written at the bottom of all my emails stating that the concept remains my property.I just attended the Basbeall Winter meetings Trade show and was surprised to find out that one of the NEW YORK YANKEES for example buy all of the marketing merchdise and re sell it to their minor league affliates as anothe profit center
    Rainbow Entertainment has invested time, energy and funds in developing the information included in this presentation. It is our belief that our services are unique and creative in their content and, thus, represents concepts, ideas and information that is essential to our business success. We therefore consider these materials to constitute confidential trade information on loan to you with the understanding and acceptance of their proprietary nature. No part of this presentation may be reproduced or redistributed without the written consent of Rainbow Entertainment. All talent recommendations, event concepts and services recommended by Rainbow Entertainment remains our property and Standard Entertainment Business practices apply to compensation. A standard re booking fee will be charged. All contracts and invoices are non cancelable upon receipt.

    1. RICHARD S POLLAK says:


  10. Medway Mike says:

    Why are people slamming a fine piece of investigative journalism on your part? This is not something "Real Sports" would run with, but Comcast or the Channel 4 I-Team might want to feature this story.

    1. joegill88 says:

      Thanks again Mike!

  11. pops says:

    ok.. let me see if I got this right….the money was ALL going to charity..but Character Arts..would not let them do it because character arts was not spelled out to be the contributor???
    what other reason was there? The article does not (to my knowledge) explain why.

  12. Magnificent goods from you, man. I’ve bear in mind your stuff previous to and you’re just too great. I actually like what you have received right here, really like what you’re saying and the best way through which you are saying it. You make it enjoyable and you continue to take care of to stay it wise. I cant wait to read much more from you. This is actually a great website.

  13. hello!,I like your writing very so much! proportion we keep in touch
    more approximately your post on AOL? I need a specialist on this house to solve my problem.
    Maybe that’s you! Looking ahead to see you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *