Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 402

Try our Fantastic 5-Issue Bundle Offer! For just £18, a saving of 10% on the regular cover price, you’ll get:
The Play-offs Issue - pictured (out 12 Sept) – Covering the climax of the Super League & Championship seasons
The Grand Finals Issue (out 17 Oct) – Grand Final excitement from both sides of the world plus Four Nations preview
The Four Nations Issue (out 21 Nov) – Fantastic coverage of the Four Nations tournament down under
The Golden Boot Issue (out 19 Dec) – A look back at the 2014 season plus the big reveal of the winner of the Golden Boot
The 2015 Season Preview Issue (out 23 Jan) – How will your team perform in 2015? We preview every club.


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Sponsors


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
100 replies to this topic

#21 boxhead

boxhead
  • Coach
  • 2,975 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 12:04 PM

Because the trailers are not just there to look pretty. They are moving billboards.

There are naturally disagreements around the effectiveness of this kind of advertising, but it definitely has a relatively high value. The company I work for will be using this kind of advertising this year - I don;t know too much about it tbh, but will be interested to see the budgets and expected returns.

Look at it this way:

100 trucks.
x 52 weeks
= 5200
If you use a starting point of £1m as the value, this means that it is costing £192 per truck per week. That is nothing and you'd struggle to get any kind of reasonable ads for £192. That would be swallowed up in minutes in digital advertising.

You then of course have creative and implementation costs, we can assume that Stobart paid for this.

The deal absolutely had a value, probably really quite high in marketing terms. Whether it was the right thing to do is a completely different discussion, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect to have to be paying well over £1m if you wanted to go with a full annual campaign like this.


I understand that Dave, I just don't believe those moving billboards add up to much in relation to promoting a sporting code.
I am in the Transport Industry and the majority of people I deal with have either their own name or a clean skin Trailer, if those moving billboards were that attractive why are they not sign written with a product for a price? and have marketing companies taking advantage of an "opportunity"
Because they are not worth much at all as a promotional vehicle.
My company paid in contra for a few Vans to be painted up with our name, it was a waste of time and we walked away from it.
We sponsored a race car recently, ROI? nothing, other that taking a few punters out for a day and getting them on the ######, it just did not work for our type of product.

Edited by AndyCapp, 04 January 2013 - 12:06 PM.


#22 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,808 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 01:27 PM

I understand that Dave, I just don't believe those moving billboards add up to much in relation to promoting a sporting code.
I am in the Transport Industry and the majority of people I deal with have either their own name or a clean skin Trailer, if those moving billboards were that attractive why are they not sign written with a product for a price? and have marketing companies taking advantage of an "opportunity"
Because they are not worth much at all as a promotional vehicle.
My company paid in contra for a few Vans to be painted up with our name, it was a waste of time and we walked away from it.
We sponsored a race car recently, ROI? nothing, other that taking a few punters out for a day and getting them on the ######, it just did not work for our type of product.

I do agree that 100 trucks on their own are probably worth very little to the sport of RL, my point was that they do have a real world value though.
Probably one of the main reasons that these trucks are not all sold as adverts is as you say, many of the trucks are being used to advertise the companies that own/source them.
Driving up the motorway you will see Asda, Sainsburys, Tesco, McDonalds, M&S etc. They use this space themselves.

#23 Futtocks

Futtocks
  • Coach
  • 20,451 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 01:45 PM

You need to remember that the alternative to the Stobart deal was a derisory one-off payment from a betting company. There wasn't much of a choice to make, and fans would have been dissatisfied with either.

Personally, I believe the Stobart deal was the better of the two overall, but that doesn't make it great.

Rugby League isn't chasing the vast amounts that Football, F1, Golf, Tennis etc. would be looking for - let's hope the guy trying to make the deals has used his contacts and gets something decent. And that whoever does offer sponsorship never visits this website and reads the inevitable negativity. Ever.

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it isn’t open. Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)


#24 1976PMJwires

1976PMJwires
  • Coach
  • 9,537 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 03:55 PM

You need to remember that the alternative to the Stobart deal was a derisory one-off payment from a betting company. There wasn't much of a choice to make, and fans would have been dissatisfied with either.

Personally, I believe the Stobart deal was the better of the two overall, but that doesn't make it great.

Rugby League isn't chasing the vast amounts that Football, F1, Golf, Tennis etc. would be looking for - let's hope the guy trying to make the deals has used his contacts and gets something decent. And that whoever does offer sponsorship never visits this website and reads the inevitable negativity. Ever.


Good post

The fact is the major sponsors don't value our game the same value we give it.

We're years behind union and if we get a mega buck offer what will happen??

Salary cap increased?
Rich clubs get richer and the poor ones go bust??


At present most, clubs can't sustain the current cap. Would they gamble on the increase in a bigger sponsorship deals to compete with the clubs who have finances in place and who are already very self sufficient.

A bigger sponsorship deal IMHO would be the death of league!

We need to understand our game is very stagnant!!

Edited by 1976PMJwires, 04 January 2013 - 04:01 PM.


#25 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,808 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 04:00 PM

Good post

The fact is the major sponsors don't value our game the same value we give it.

We're years behind union and if we get a mega buck offer what will happen??

Salary cap increased?
Rich clubs get richer and the poor ones go bust??


At present most, clubs can't sustain the current cap. Would they gamble on the increase in a bigger sponsorship deals to compete with the clubs who have finances in place and who are already very self sufficient.

A bigger sponsorship deal IMHO would be the death of league!

We need to understand our game is very stagnet !!

I'm not sure your post adds up Paul.

A bigger sponsorship deal would still only give clubs an additional £70-80k per year (maybe £100k if we attract a record deal) - that won't have many scrambling for a higher salary cap.

#26 1976PMJwires

1976PMJwires
  • Coach
  • 9,537 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 04:03 PM

I'm not sure your post adds up Paul.

A bigger sponsorship deal would still only give clubs an additional £70-80k per year (maybe £100k if we attract a record deal) - that won't have many scrambling for a higher salary cap.



Thanks Dave, my brain was thinking in bigger terms, like the union mega buck sponsorships.

Thanks for putting me right, I'll shut up on sponsorship deals

Long day in the office

Edited by 1976PMJwires, 04 January 2013 - 04:04 PM.


#27 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,808 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 04:18 PM

Thanks Dave, my brain was thinking in bigger terms, like the union mega buck sponsorships.

Thanks for putting me right, I'll shut up on sponsorship deals

Long day in the office

I think the only deal which would see us increasing wages would be a massive increase in TV revenues, and tbh the clubs have been quite restrained in keeping the salary cap at a reasonable level.

#28 brooza

brooza
  • Moderator
  • 4,360 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 04:22 PM

You need to remember that the alternative to the Stobart deal was a derisory one-off payment from a betting company. There wasn't much of a choice to make, and fans would have been dissatisfied with either.

Exactly. Considering the alternative, it was worth trying something different
St Albans Centurions 1st Team Manager. Former Medway Dragons Wheelchair RL player.

Leeds Rhinos, St Albans Centurions y Griffons Madrid fan. Also follow (to a lesser extent) Catalans Dragons, London Broncos, South Sydney Rabbitohs, Jacksonville Axemen, Vrchlabi Mad Squirrels, København Black Swans, Red Star Belgrade and North Hertfordshire Crusaders.

Moderator of the International board

#29 MrPosh

MrPosh
  • Coach
  • 3,117 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 04:24 PM

The fact is the major sponsors don't value our game the same value we give it.


The problem is, Paul, that they do.

You only have to look at some of the 'I'm not doing this because of them' threads on this board to see how much too many fans value our game.
People called Romans they go the house

#30 1976PMJwires

1976PMJwires
  • Coach
  • 9,537 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 04:25 PM

I think the only deal which would see us increasing wages would be a massive increase in TV revenues, and tbh the clubs have been quite restrained in keeping the salary cap at a reasonable level.


100% agree and again thanks for pointing out my schoolboy error.

#31 shrek

shrek
  • Coach
  • 5,867 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 06:22 PM

When the new blokes sorted out the big stuff, please can I request an official Super League beer, Dominos pizza and bottle of red, then when I settle down for a Friday night game I can tell the mrs's I'm just showing my support for the game?

Be a great way to extract a few more quid out of the growing number of arm chair fans, couple it with a virtual programme and the cash will trickle in!

#32 giwildgo

giwildgo
  • Coach
  • 4,048 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 06:32 PM

Because the trailers are not just there to look pretty. They are moving billboards.

There are naturally disagreements around the effectiveness of this kind of advertising, but it definitely has a relatively high value. The company I work for will be using this kind of advertising this year - I don;t know too much about it tbh, but will be interested to see the budgets and expected returns.

Look at it this way:

100 trucks.
x 52 weeks
= 5200
If you use a starting point of £1m as the value, this means that it is costing £192 per truck per week. That is nothing and you'd struggle to get any kind of reasonable ads for £192. That would be swallowed up in minutes in digital advertising.

You then of course have creative and implementation costs, we can assume that Stobart paid for this.

The deal absolutely had a value, probably really quite high in marketing terms. Whether it was the right thing to do is a completely different discussion, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect to have to be paying well over £1m if you wanted to go with a full annual campaign like this.

Thanks. Finally someone found a way of articulating my understanding of the logic of the deal. Evaluating in pure cash terms was always short sighted and I'm hardly the least critical poster of RFL / SL decision making. I absolutely think it was a risk worth taking, even in hindsight, the only weakness being a difficulty in drawing a direct link to how much revenue it brought to the game through the marketing aspect. I suspect it was probably as effective in publicising the game as previous billboard campaigns were and probably not much different in terms of cost.

#33 1976PMJwires

1976PMJwires
  • Coach
  • 9,537 posts

Posted 04 January 2013 - 06:37 PM

The problem is, Paul, that they do.

You only have to look at some of the 'I'm not doing this because of them' threads on this board to see how much too many fans value our game.


Fair point. Happy new year, no bulls cr4p from me this year, scouts honour.

Edited by 1976PMJwires, 04 January 2013 - 06:38 PM.


#34 RP London

RP London
  • Coach
  • 12,678 posts

Posted 07 January 2013 - 09:39 AM

I understand that Dave, I just don't believe those moving billboards add up to much in relation to promoting a sporting code.
I am in the Transport Industry and the majority of people I deal with have either their own name or a clean skin Trailer, if those moving billboards were that attractive why are they not sign written with a product for a price? and have marketing companies taking advantage of an "opportunity"
Because they are not worth much at all as a promotional vehicle.
My company paid in contra for a few Vans to be painted up with our name, it was a waste of time and we walked away from it.
We sponsored a race car recently, ROI? nothing, other that taking a few punters out for a day and getting them on the ######, it just did not work for our type of product.


The problem is nothing ever works in isolation you have to have campaigns.. Sponsorship is pointless if your name doesnt tell people exactly what you do it is jut a name on a shirt/car/billboard etc.. you need a full campaign around it to help educate until the point that you are in the consciousness of people.. The biggest mistake of people who advertise/market/sponsor is to think that that alone should bring in cash and orders etc.. it doesnt you have to use that and have other forms of marketing/pr/advertising going on around it otherwise it cannot/will not give any benefits.

The negativiy around the Stobart deal coupled with the RFL's inability to use it properly meant that it was completely inefective. It was worth a crack becuase it could have been genious but they didnt do what was needed to be done around the deal to make it work. The "advertising" equivelant of those lorries was massive but they needed to spend money on other forms of PR and marketing to help them have an impact rather than people just driving past them going "look its kevin sinfield" (if your an RL fan) or "what Super League are they talking about and who is that" then not trying to find out becuas ethey are in the car and forget about the irrelevant lorry when they get home (if they are not an RL fan).

#35 amh

amh
  • Moderator
  • 11,085 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 06:21 PM

I've read that the challenge cup has a sponsor and the announcement is imminent - fantastic :)

However, the news I received last night really ticked me off. As far as I understand, we are still to announce sponsorship deals for the WC2013, the SL and the Championships - what I don't understand is the Sky sponsorship for SL. Excuse my ignorance, but is that two separate deals i.e. the RFL will get a sponsor for SL and Sky will have their own for TV advertising. Call me thick for not knowing, I've heard worse -_-

Anyway, I was told that (allegedly-get that in just in case) Sky have been offering a BOGOF with SL - sponsor their union coverage and the RL comes free. I can comes to terms with the fact that the economic climate makes it tougher than ever. I can come to terms with having to package us with other deals...but the bit that sticks in my craw is bandying us about free and with union

Whilst I do not suffer fools gladly, I will always gladly make fools suffer

A man is getting along on the road of wisdom when he realises that his opinion is just an opinion


#36 Dave T

Dave T
  • Coach
  • 14,808 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 06:48 PM

I've read that the challenge cup has a sponsor and the announcement is imminent - fantastic :)

However, the news I received last night really ticked me off. As far as I understand, we are still to announce sponsorship deals for the WC2013, the SL and the Championships - what I don't understand is the Sky sponsorship for SL. Excuse my ignorance, but is that two separate deals i.e. the RFL will get a sponsor for SL and Sky will have their own for TV advertising. Call me thick for not knowing, I've heard worse -_-

Anyway, I was told that (allegedly-get that in just in case) Sky have been offering a BOGOF with SL - sponsor their union coverage and the RL comes free. I can comes to terms with the fact that the economic climate makes it tougher than ever. I can come to terms with having to package us with other deals...but the bit that sticks in my craw is bandying us about free and with union

Yes, Sky are offering sponsorship of their actual programme - Irn Bru had it last year. This funding is for Sky and is not linked to any RFL sponsorship.

I'm not sure it's worth getting worked up about the joined up package thing. Firstly, on getmemedia.co.uk where Sky seem to be advertising all their opportunities, there is no mention of a RU package being available, and secondly, if they were offering a Rugby package, then tbh that makes perfect sense.
Having a quick look at the opportunities they have, they offer individual packages, then you can also get a bundle which groups programmes together, this is just the same.

#37 Gav Wilson

Gav Wilson
  • Coach
  • 3,304 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 07:09 PM

I've read that the challenge cup has a sponsor and the announcement is imminent - fantastic :)

However, the news I received last night really ticked me off. As far as I understand, we are still to announce sponsorship deals for the WC2013, the SL and the Championships - what I don't understand is the Sky sponsorship for SL. Excuse my ignorance, but is that two separate deals i.e. the RFL will get a sponsor for SL and Sky will have their own for TV advertising. Call me thick for not knowing, I've heard worse -_-

Anyway, I was told that (allegedly-get that in just in case) Sky have been offering a BOGOF with SL - sponsor their union coverage and the RL comes free. I can comes to terms with the fact that the economic climate makes it tougher than ever. I can come to terms with having to package us with other deals...but the bit that sticks in my craw is bandying us about free and with union


Thats just for Sky coverage that, its nothing to do with the RFL & they don't get a penny from it.

Iron Bru, William Hill, Stan James and SkyBet have all done it in the last few seasons.
Posted Image

#38 John Rhino

John Rhino
  • Coach
  • 2,503 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 07:45 PM

I've read that the challenge cup has a sponsor and the announcement is imminent - fantastic :)

However, the news I received last night really ticked me off. As far as I understand, we are still to announce sponsorship deals for the WC2013, the SL and the Championships - what I don't understand is the Sky sponsorship for SL. Excuse my ignorance, but is that two separate deals i.e. the RFL will get a sponsor for SL and Sky will have their own for TV advertising. Call me thick for not knowing, I've heard worse -_-

Anyway, I was told that (allegedly-get that in just in case) Sky have been offering a BOGOF with SL - sponsor their union coverage and the RL comes free. I can comes to terms with the fact that the economic climate makes it tougher than ever. I can come to terms with having to package us with other deals...but the bit that sticks in my craw is bandying us about free and with union


I agree, it stinks, especially as our viewing figures are far greater.

However, the only saving grace is the viewer will not notice the difference (and we may be linked to someting a bit more prestigious than betting or fizzy sugarwater)

Derby City - proud to be flying the flag for Rugby League in the Midlands for over 24 years.
 

Visit:  http://www.derbycityrlfc.co.uk and see the progress being made.

 

Follow us on Twitter: @derbycityrlfc


#39 Gav Wilson

Gav Wilson
  • Coach
  • 3,304 posts

Posted 14 January 2013 - 07:46 PM

I agree, it stinks, especially as our viewing figures are far greater.

However, the only saving grace is the viewer will not notice the difference (and we may be linked to someting a bit more prestigious than betting or fizzy sugarwater)


Why does it stink? It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
Posted Image

#40 Futtocks

Futtocks
  • Coach
  • 20,451 posts

Posted 15 January 2013 - 09:32 AM

Why does it stink? It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.


It says something about the screwed-up way this country perceives sport - we could end up getting substantially more money by being bundled in with a sport that gets far fewer viewers.

A mind is like a parachute. It doesn’t work if it isn’t open. Frank Zappa (1940 - 1993)





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users