Damien Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 I remember at the dawn of Super League Nike supposedly wanting to be the kit manufacturer for all teams but this was turned down. I think it was a combination of some clubs getting less money and being tied into deals. I think something like that with sponsors too would be the way to upmarket the sponsors and improve the image but would no doubt be loss making in the short term. Concentrate on attracting maybe 3 high end sponsors for all teams and a kit manufacturer. This may then filter to attracting other blue chip sponsors to the SL and Cup portfolios. Whether that is doable or possible cost wise is a different story. As is whether it would be short term pain for much longer term gain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattrhino Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 So the master plan is to reintroduce the US sports stye nicknames that we did in 1996 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrispmartha Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 58 minutes ago, Dave T said: Indeed, if there was such demand at a Super League club to have sole presence on a shirt, that's what would be happening. If this was the regular feedback that was being given, why would they ignore it? Firstly Im not talking about sole presence, I'm talking about limiting the number of sponsors. The discussion is wider than the clubs getting as much and as many sponsors as possible, it affects the whole brand of the game, it looks cheap and smalltime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackroman Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 3 hours ago, Rupert Prince said: The Bet Fred Super League Grand Final. The logo tells us. Channel 9 just tells me that Panthers, Storm and Eels finished 1, 2 and 3 in the ladder. I've forgotten, please remind me which city Storm play in? Is it Perth, Adelaide or was it Brisbane? Oh right, but which sport. The logo tells me nothing. It's got more in common with world of sport from the 70's. Are these wrestlers then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted November 17, 2020 Author Share Posted November 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, Ackroman said: Oh right, but which sport. The logo tells me nothing. It's got more in common with world of sport from the 70's. Are these wrestlers then? Odd you think so, considering that to see that graphic you'd almost certainly have to follow Super League or a Super League club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackroman Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 1 minute ago, Tommygilf said: Odd you think so, considering that to see that graphic you'd almost certainly have to follow Super League or a Super League club. Which Super League? There are plenty of them. A thread about rebranding and the branding doesn't tell anyone what the sport is unless you are in the know. Very peculiar attitude to marketing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lucky 7 Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 20 hours ago, Oxford said: Logos? They're for brand recognition, aren't they? I thought club colour's did that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Damien said: It's all a little chicken and egg though and there would be a major period of adjustment, which no doubt would be costly. It's pretty much similar to when Super League tried to move away from betting companies and the like. It takes years to change an image and in those years you are likely to lose a lot of money. With most clubs current portfolio of sponsors, never mind Super League's, quality blue chip sponsors paying big money just aren't going to be attracted. There may be the odd exception but they are few and far between. There are no easy answers on this. I personally think it's overstated, but that is just an opinion. I'm not sure whether the sponsorship portfolio has changed as a result of having other companies on the shirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 32 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said: Firstly Im not talking about sole presence, I'm talking about limiting the number of sponsors. The discussion is wider than the clubs getting as much and as many sponsors as possible, it affects the whole brand of the game, it looks cheap and smalltime It depends on your attitude to it. A club shirt with plenty sponsors, particularly local ones shows a club that is in touch with the local community. A lot of major companies quite like community engagement. Sponsors are just part of sport nowadays, I honestly don't think the vast majority of people think anything of it and certainly won't be concerned that it looks cheap and small-time. I do think the bigger concern is around kit sales, as shirt aesthetic can be affected a fair bit- and they will absolutely have the numbers on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrispmartha Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 1 minute ago, Dave T said: It depends on your attitude to it. A club shirt with plenty sponsors, particularly local ones shows a club that is in touch with the local community. A lot of major companies quite like community engagement. Sponsors are just part of sport nowadays, I honestly don't think the vast majority of people think anything of it and certainly won't be concerned that it looks cheap and small-time. I do think the bigger concern is around kit sales, as shirt aesthetic can be affected a fair bit- and they will absolutely have the numbers on that. I disagree, think small and you’ll stay small. it’s obviously just my opinion as neither of us has any data. Im not sure they will have numbers on kit sales how can they unless they sell an unsponsored shirt vs a playing shirt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 Just now, Chrispmartha said: I disagree, think small and you’ll stay small. it’s obviously just my opinion as neither of us has any data. Im not sure they will have numbers on kit sales how can they unless they sell an unsponsored shirt vs a playing shirt? They will however have seen a sharp drop off in sales when they started to add more and more sponsors. I think we are barking up the wrong tree by complaining about too many sponsors! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrispmartha Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 5 minutes ago, Dave T said: They will however have seen a sharp drop off in sales when they started to add more and more sponsors. I think we are barking up the wrong tree by complaining about too many sponsors! It’s just one part of the branding of the game, I don’t think it will magically improve revenues or turn the game around but when we are talking about the brand of Super League it is a part of it. The Fa wouldn’t have sponsor guidelines of it didn’t work for the overall look of the game. Theres too many variables on the shirt side of things to get any meaning data its not as if there were only a few sponsors then suddenly tonnes of them on the shirts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted November 17, 2020 Author Share Posted November 17, 2020 33 minutes ago, Ackroman said: Which Super League? There are plenty of them. A thread about rebranding and the branding doesn't tell anyone what the sport is unless you are in the know. Very peculiar attitude to marketing. You'd know if you followed them and seen that graphic. Just like if you followed the Premier League, La Liga, Ligue Un, Bundesliga, Gallagher Premiership etc. Its pedantic to argue its rubbish because it doesn't say rugby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave T Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 7 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said: It’s just one part of the branding of the game, I don’t think it will magically improve revenues or turn the game around but when we are talking about the brand of Super League it is a part of it. The Fa wouldn’t have sponsor guidelines of it didn’t work for the overall look of the game. Theres too many variables on the shirt side of things to get any meaning data its not as if there were only a few sponsors then suddenly tonnes of them on the shirts. I don't necessarily disagree with the principle, but to recommend a change that will cost money you have to generally have a good case. The case for adding more sponsors was an increase in income, to remove 3 or 4 of them would need a strong argument tbh, and without evidence its pretty difficult to get anyone to buy into that. Particularly as the approach to sponsors appears to be to diversify and have a wider panel (obviously not necessarily on shirts). The NRL and RU also use far more space on their kits nowadays. Looking bavk at some Wire kits, there has been a big increase in sponsors over 10 years, certainly contemporary enough data to support an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert Prince Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 43 minutes ago, Ackroman said: Oh right, but which sport. The logo tells me nothing. It's got more in common with world of sport from the 70's. Are these wrestlers then? The logo says "Super League". It's plain. In print. Are you blind? Its you who published the picture. The picture wot you published. The one saying "Bet Fred Super League" That's the one saying "Bet Fred Super League" that I pointed out to you. Namely, the one saying "Bet Fred Super League" on the picture you posted saying "Bet Fred Super League". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 47 minutes ago, lucky 7 said: I thought club colour's did that No that's to differentiate them from the other team and to focus their fans on the right team during the match. 2 warning points Non-Political Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Ting Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 2 hours ago, Mattrhino said: So the master plan is to reintroduce the US sports stye nicknames that we did in 1996 US style nicknames often predate US sports. Learn to listen without distortion and learn to look without imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 1 hour ago, Mister Ting said: US style nicknames often predate US sports. As does focusing on one small part of a strategy to denigrate everything else about it. 2 warning points Non-Political Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackroman Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 2 hours ago, Rupert Prince said: The logo says "Super League". It's plain. In print. Are you blind? Its you who published the picture. The picture wot you published. The one saying "Bet Fred Super League" That's the one saying "Bet Fred Super League" that I pointed out to you. Namely, the one saying "Bet Fred Super League" on the picture you posted saying "Bet Fred Super League". I didn't publish the picture, I referred to it. Bet Fred Super League is ambiguous and the whole marketing message is a mess that appeals only to the zealots such as yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackroman Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 2 hours ago, Tommygilf said: You'd know if you followed them and seen that graphic. Just like if you followed the Premier League, La Liga, Ligue Un, Bundesliga, Gallagher Premiership etc. Its pedantic to argue its rubbish because it doesn't say rugby. No it's not when your marketing budget is a precious asset to be spent wisely. SL has had 25 years to make it stick but no-one has been scared off creating their own Super League in that time. That's a fact. It is not a trademark. However I bet if the SL rebranded to be "The Premiership" the sport would fold under it's legal costs. SL needs to face facts. It's only Super by it's own standards and those standards, as they have been played out recently, are not particularly high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Ting Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 37 minutes ago, Oxford said: As does focusing on one small part of a strategy to denigrate everything else about it. So what's being denigrated? Learn to listen without distortion and learn to look without imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 20 minutes ago, Mister Ting said: So what's being denigrated? ? 2 warning points Non-Political Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Ting Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 1 minute ago, Oxford said: ? That's a mysterion... Learn to listen without distortion and learn to look without imagination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yipyee Posted November 17, 2020 Share Posted November 17, 2020 On 16/11/2020 at 17:26, Damien said: Its all superficial and doesn't materially change anything. The sport needs to change far more radically than badges and monikers, all which was done to some extent at the dawn of Super League and didn't do much, if anything, then. The monikers are also a bit meaningless as they are almost all used by other teams. A lot of people would think as Tigers v Warriors as Leicester v Worcester at RU for example. Rovers? Sounds like a Football team to me. Saints? Northampton RU. There is little recognition with a lot of these in isolation. Disagree totally. When I've tried watching union I have no idea where the teams play or represent. This is probably a bonus and sells itself better to neutrals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommygilf Posted November 17, 2020 Author Share Posted November 17, 2020 37 minutes ago, Ackroman said: No it's not when your marketing budget is a precious asset to be spent wisely. SL has had 25 years to make it stick but no-one has been scared off creating their own Super League in that time. That's a fact. It is not a trademark. However I bet if the SL rebranded to be "The Premiership" the sport would fold under it's legal costs. SL needs to face facts. It's only Super by it's own standards and those standards, as they have been played out recently, are not particularly high. I don't think it would fold at all as very few would care. The Premier League was for a time the Premiership and Rugby Union is that too. That would be different if we ran around calling ourselves the premier league with a lion as our badge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.