Commercial performance and sponsorship of SL

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, scotchy1 said:

Ill definitely agree that SL has failed to sell sponsorship to the challenge cup, match officials and lower leagues, as i said at the start, these are RFL properties.

I expect a raft of club bankruptcies on the back of the loss of their official cider.

Please, highlight the new SLE deals that have been forthcoming, as per the first paragraph in this whole thread.

Who'd have thought you'd have become and SLE apologist?

[M j M]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I expect a raft of club bankruptcies on the back of the loss of their official cider.

So sponsorship doesn't matter? You're all over the place on this one.

[Gooleboy]

For me the bottom line is there is no sign of any new Sponsors coming on board despite as said earlier on this thread that Pearson amongst others told us that  now Elstone was on board we would really see the the Super League grow it's Commercial Partners.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Gooleboy said:

For me the bottom line is there is no sign of any new Sponsors coming on board despite as said earlier on this thread that Pearson amongst others told us that  now Elstone was on board we would really see the the Super League grow it's Commercial Partners.

And that brings us right back to the opening paragraph of this whole thread!

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Most of the Super League properties are already signed up.

Sure. No thanks, corporates, we are full.

[EastLondonMike]

Something I picked up on from tonight's WCC, linked to the topic of commercial value etc.

Betfrrd recently announced as title sponsor but what has the game and Betfrrd got from tonight?

Stdney Roosters wore jerseys with WCC branding, but branding that didn't have the Betfred logo present, they also wore NRL branded shorts. Wigan wore a SL kit.. no WCC branding on it at all, although Betfred was present on the SL branding on their kit, so they got some value, albeit by chance.

We also had incorrect WCC branding on the Sky Sports Try/No Try video. A white "V" being visible on the logo on the video. A white "V" that is not on the actual branding. Someone at the Sky Sports creative department obviously forgot to knockout part of the logo.

Very unprofessional from all involved, on many levels. 

SL now have a new creative director in Lee Hicken. All of the above should in theory have come across his desk. He may only be a part time appointment, and none of the above may actually be part of his remit, but it's all another example of reasons why we struggle to attract the big brands to the sport, and keep the few that we do.

[EastLondonMike]

3 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Im not sure that will sit with Lee Hicken, whose job is more to tell the narrative of SL.

Maybe not. But when you carry the title of creative director it should. 

Commercial managers aren't going to have the required knowledge or experience regarding such creative requirements.

[whatmichaelsays]

12 hours ago, EastLondonMike said:

Maybe not. But when you carry the title of creative director it should. 

 Commercial managers aren't going to have the required knowledge or experience regarding such creative requirements.

In fairness, you don't necessarily need to be creative or have experience of creative aspects to be able to deliver value to sponsors. The commercial director packages the sponsorship opportunity, sells it in and then briefs the creatives to deliver.

To agree with the above post, you'd have had very little idea that Betfred were sponsoring the game if you just turned over. There was very little branding around the ground, no pitch branding at all (why aren't we offering this, particuarly given that it can be done digitally so as not to upset Wigan Athletic?) and the iconongraphy just screamed "we sold this sponsorship at the last minute for a knock-down rate". 

[RP London]

just to go back a couple of steps with Ronseal... does it not actually show that the International game is super important? Companies want to get on board to sponsor/partner with the national team, Company likes what they get and likes the games and its exposure for their brand so wants to get some more "everyday" exposure etc. 

It happens in other sports too, the national team is a smaller outlay to start, but a good brand to be associated with. Test the waters of that sport and then maybe move on or move deeper into the sport if the boxes are ticked etc. So i dont really see a problem with the sponsors of the international game being "upsold" into the leagues. it is also good for that brand to be more entrenched into the game. As long as they are actually "upselling" and not giving it away as a cant find anyone else and really need some name attached to it panic then i dont see an issue. 

Its the same as with fans, RFL etc need to get the international game moving along nicely (not as they are with this GB madness) as it brings potential fans and sponsors to the game

[Alffi 7]

I think it’s unrealistic to expect a massive change in commercial performance a few weeks in to a new campaign.  We are only a few games in, but the product seems better - faster certainly - hopefully that will equate to bigger attendances and TV viewers.  The social Media side seems to have improved, there’s certainly a greater presence on Facebook that I’ve noticed.  

 

If we can improve the narrative around some of the elite players we could potentially start to see improvements in Commercial Performance off the back of that from 2020. Need to get a move on though, new TV contract negotiations will start shortly no doubt, so they need to push forward.

[tuutaisrambo]

Is it Elstone's job to bring in sponsors?  I know it probably should be but i get the impression he had 2 main tasks..

1. Get rid of the 8s

2. Sort a TV deal

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

just to go back a couple of steps with Ronseal... does it not actually show that the International game is super important? Companies want to get on board to sponsor/partner with the national team, Company likes what they get and likes the games and its exposure for their brand so wants to get some more "everyday" exposure etc. 

It happens in other sports too, the national team is a smaller outlay to start, but a good brand to be associated with. Test the waters of that sport and then maybe move on or move deeper into the sport if the boxes are ticked etc. So i dont really see a problem with the sponsors of the international game being "upsold" into the leagues. it is also good for that brand to be more entrenched into the game. As long as they are actually "upselling" and not giving it away as a cant find anyone else and really need some name attached to it panic then i dont see an issue. 

 Its the same as with fans, RFL etc need to get the international game moving along nicely (not as they are with this GB madness) as it brings potential fans and sponsors to the game

I agree with the principle of the post. The fact that we went the first couple of weeks without Ronseal on the ref shirts, and the fact that there has been no press release celebrating this deal (which may come yet) suggests that this is a late bolt on.

But, the positive is that it is a new RL brand (joined less than 12m ago) and hopefully they feel they are getting good visibility from us.

[Dave T]

21 minutes ago, Alffi 7 said:

I think it’s unrealistic to expect a massive change in commercial performance a few weeks in to a new campaign.  We are only a few games in, but the product seems better - faster certainly - hopefully that will equate to bigger attendances and TV viewers.  The social Media side seems to have improved, there’s certainly a greater presence on Facebook that I’ve noticed.  

 

If we can improve the narrative around some of the elite players we could potentially start to see improvements in Commercial Performance off the back of that from 2020. Need to get a move on though, new TV contract negotiations will start shortly no doubt, so they need to push forward.

Agree with your first line, however what we should expect is no decline in performance, and a normal year would see at least 1 or 2 new deals announced. That was the point of the thread, in the lead up to season kick off we actually saw a couple of sponsors drift away from the game, and they weren't replaced.

[Oliver Clothesoff]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Agree with your first line, however what we should expect is no decline in performance, and a normal year would see at least 1 or 2 new deals announced. That was the point of the thread, in the lead up to season kick off we actually saw a couple of sponsors drift away from the game, and they weren't replaced.

Also, Elstone has been in the role since June 2018, granted he wanted to sort out the breakaway from The RFL first but that happened on 14th September 2018. The season started on 31st January 2019, over four months later than that. He had a third of a year to bring in new sponsors or to even replace departing sponsors and didn’t manage to. 

That’s worrying. 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, tuutaisrambo said:

Is it Elstone's job to bring in sponsors?  I know it probably should be but i get the impression he had 2 main tasks..

1. Get rid of the 8s

2. Sort a TV deal

One of the main aims of SLE separating from the RFL was to improve the commercial performance. I think that will probably be up there with improving visibility of the comp and a better TV/media deal.

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, Oliver Clothesoff said:

Also, Elstone has been in the role since June 2018, granted he wanted to sort out the breakaway from The RFL first but that happened on 14th September 2018. The season started on 31st January 2019, over four months later than that. He had a third of a year to bring in new sponsors or to even replace departing sponsors and didn’t manage to. 

That’s worrying. 

Sponsorship is clearly challenging at the moment, for all sports, we have seen far more popular sports than ours struggle somewhat, so I am not playing down how difficult this is. 

But, this is probably the lowest key commercial launch to a season we have ever seen. Sponsors left, and the only positive press release we saw was an extension of the mushy pea deal. 

There were people at the RFL looking after this, I'm not sure whether they still are, or whether those responsibilities have now been transferred over. Either way, we haven't brought any new Super League partners on board this year, for the first time in a while.

Hopefully this will change and improve throughout the year.

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I agree with the principle of the post. The fact that we went the first couple of weeks without Ronseal on the ref shirts, and the fact that there has been no press release celebrating this deal (which may come yet) suggests that this is a late bolt on.

But, the positive is that it is a new RL brand (joined less than 12m ago) and hopefully they feel they are getting good visibility from us.

yes agree with all of that.. you have to wonder when its late in and little fanfar. 

Its a bit like the Coral one £1m for 1 year compared to "7 figure sum" for 2 years makes you assume it is less because £9m is also a 7 figure sum but you would assume if it was more than £2m they would be talking of "increased deal" etc..