Where has the Fun gone?

[Harry Stottle]

8 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Nobody is saying that the Rugby is not important, but we are staging the Rugby, we do that bit. The discussion here is that there is stuff that we are ignoring. 

But what can't be ignored with the Bulls example is that what they did has changed them as a club. Let's ignore the basket case they've become for reasons other than Rugby or entertainment, they are still seen as a big club, capable of 5 figure crowds and if they had a good ground likely they'd be capable of being a giant of the game again. 

In reality, prior to that golden period they were a club like Halifax. 

Let's just take the last 20 odd years, for the sake of discussion the SL era, Bradford are one of only four really successful clubs for winning trophy's and so I agree will be seen as a big club, but it is now 16 year's that they have won anything of note the 2006 WCC and 17 years since their last domestic trophy, will they still have the same influence again, can they repeat Bullmania, as you said in answer to me "it is not a given that speculating on paying for entertainment will increase crowds" and presumably there will be a a big number of newbies the Bulls will have to attract after all these years.

If there is one guy best positioned to speculate on providing the match day experience surely it is your very own Simon Moran, why do you consider he has shied away from doing so, or if he has speculated why not kept on with it, or could it be he is happy with the attendances the Wolves attract?

I am not against anything being tried that would boost the attendances at our grounds, as you say there are those like me are well catered for we turn up enjoy the game (or otherwise) then toddle off. Posters on this thread have mentioned how succesful F1 have been or even American sports but for one event in either of those sports I am sure they would be spending more than if every RL club did something for their home fixtures, it to me Dave is like anything else if you do not do it right and spend enough to ensure interest enough to cover your speculation then don't do it at all, Bullmania acheived it but I will not be convinced otherwise it was the on field success that was the driver of the 'big crowds' not the other way round.

[whatmichaelsays]

10 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

I've definitely noticed this. I've been an F1 fan since I was 9/10 and I remember that being Lewis Hamilton's first season and the first driver I really liked. He's up there with Rob Burrow for me in terms of sporting heroes.

That said, being an F1 fan felt like it was a bit of a nerdy pastime for most of the following decade or so.

That has changed massively in recent years as my mates have gotten into it. DTS has helped a lot, as particularly through the pandemic it was an easy watch.

Now there are 6 of us going to the Austrian GP in a few weeks for the full weekend. That would not have happened just a few years ago.

The "nerdiness" thing is interesting, because I think F1 has actually been really clever at working this into the TV coverage as a strength, rather than a weakness. 

You now have TV graphics that try and predict when overtaking moves are likely to happen - that keeps you watching even during a part of the race that is fairly processional. They use really clear graphics to show the story of the race, and they focus on the little battles all across the track. Even really nerdy stuff like tyre degradation is actually really well explained to the layman viewer.  

How they've managed to shift and broaden their audience - even when many of the events have gone behind paywalls in many of its major markets - is a brilliant story. 

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Let's just take the last 20 odd years, for the sake of discussion the SL era, Bradford are one of only four really successful clubs for winning trophy's and so I agree will be seen as a big club, but it is now 16 year's that they have won anything of note the 2006 WCC and 17 years since their last domestic trophy, will they still have the same influence again, can they repeat Bullmania, as you said in answer to me "it is not a given that speculating on paying for entertainment will increase crowds" and presumably there will be a a big number of newbies the Bulls will have to attract after all these years.

If there is one guy best positioned to speculate on providing the match day experience surely it is your very own Simon Moran, why do you consider he has shied away from doing so, or if he has speculated why not kept on with it, or could it be he is happy with the attendances the Wolves attract?

I am not against anything being tried that would boost the attendances at our grounds, as you say there are those like me are well catered for we turn up enjoy the game (or otherwise) then toddle off. Posters on this thread have mentioned how succesful F1 have been or even American sports but for one event in either of those sports I am sure they would be spending more than if every RL club did something for their home fixtures, it to me Dave is like anything else if you do not do it right and spend enough to ensure interest enough to cover your speculation then don't do it at all, Bullmania acheived it but I will not be convinced otherwise it was the on field success that was the driver of the 'big crowds' not the other way round.

I'm not sure how anyone can look at the Bradford club during that period and put it down to winning Rugby games. 

As acknowledged, of course winning makes a difference, but other clubs haven't gone from being a mid-sized club to the biggest club in Rugby because they win some trophies. We don't really see that in RL or RU for that matter. 

Bradford in the last season pre-SL averaged 4.4k, in SL1 where they finished 3rd, they had 9.5k. That's unprecedented growth for a 3rd place finished. They finished 3rd in 1993 and got 4.3k.

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, Harry Stottle said:

I understand completely why you choose to use the Bullmania concept to get your point over, but what I will disagree with is your term "no matter what the events on the pitch", at the time of Bullmania Bradford had a very successful team, League Winners, GF Winners, CC Winners and WCC Winners, this period in itself would entice more locals through the gates to watch a winning team and to enjoy the party atmosphere, when that successful era for the Bulls came to an end the drop off in the party goers was significantly effected by the events that took place on the pitch.

Bullmania is an obvious example that everyone could understand. Whilst I agree that it helped that the Bulls were successful on the pitch, that doesn't detract from the fact that Bullmania was all about ensuring that people had a good time, regardless of the result. Whilst people are attracted to a winning team, is watching them put 96 points on Salford really that much fun? 

Bullmania had it's time - I think if you tried to do the same thing again, it would probably look dated - but I do think we need to ensure that all of our RL events are delivering the sort of experience that leaves people leaving happy, and wanting to come back for more. Bullmania did that whether the Bulls won, lost or drew. It followed a fairly basic concept of consumer heuristics and variance management - if you rely too much on a variable (the performance of the team) to deliver a good customer experience or product, you have an inherently risky business model and you can manage that risk by reducing your dependence on that variable to keep your customer happy. 

The wider issues with the Bulls weren't necessarily to do with their on-field performances. The club was strapped for cash, it abandoned the matchday experience stuff in favour of heavy discounting (the poorly thought-out 'Pledge' campaign) and from then on, it was a vicious cycle. If the only reason you're going to a match is "because it's cheap" then yeah, the on-field product does become more of a factor in people's decision not to go. 

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

This really is a crucial point. Even just sticking to the narrow point of. Making these events fun, what seems to be missing is that things you do now that may not see a direct return, make a real difference in future. 

If those kids they got in the ground the other day had all had the time of their lives, they'd have left wanting more, wondering when the next game is - and thats where we then hit them with the world cup. 

I walked out of the ground on my own with 3m to go and generally the discussion from people around me was underwhelming. For me the aim should always be to have people leaving the ground buzzing, and yiu can't assume the Rugby will do that for you. 

These things really do need to be looked at holistically. Spending money on entertainers, bands, colourful branding, video content, mascots, dancers, pyro etc are part of the product at this level. 

Exactly, and to follow up on the variance management stuff above, RL has to acknowledge that we're in a competitive leisure market and it's offering has to deliver if not every single time, then at least the vast majority of times. 

If I'm looking for something to take my son to at the weekend, do I take my chances on the rugby, which might be brilliant but also might leave him bored after 25 mins (which spoils the enjoyment of the event for both of us), or do I take him to the trampoline park - somewhere where I know exactly what I'm going to get and somewhere that I know he will enjoy on any day of the week? 

Those sorts of decisions are being made in households everywhere in RL land, which means that RL has to work harder to ensure that it is the option people choose, rather than anything else. That's especially true when you factor in that, whilst RL is cheap when compared to other professional sports, it's at a premium price point compared to many other leisure activities. 

 

[EastLondonMike]

3 hours ago, gingerjon said:

This is really interesting to me as, despite not being an F1 fan particularly, I've known a fair few people who follow it and, in my entire life, I've met one whole person who attended a Grand Prix other than the British Grand Prix (and even the latter was literally a couple of people).

And yet in the past year, the proportion who are now either going, planning to go, or seriously looking into going, to a Grand Prix (or more than one) has shot up. It's not like the stands were empty before but something has clearly changed about who they are marketing to and the variety of spectators they want to attract (and are attracting).

There are actually a large number of UK F1 fans who travel to races overseas regularly. Again, the event nature is probably what appeals and makes it justifiable.

If you are a hardcore F1 fan who is happy to spend the large sums of money needed to attend, let's say the British GP, you probably would only do that so many times before thinking about spending a bit more to go to France, or the US or Singapore as a different alternative and different experience. You get a long weekend away and you get plenty of bang for your buck (albeit a large amount of bucks needed).

Pre lockdown I was lucky enough to go over to Singapore for the GP. And i would say 80% of the people on my flight were there for the GP, as fans.

A grand prix is obviously a different experience to a game of RL, as it is a much longer time commitment, and therefore the need to provide plenty of activities and entertainment is possibly greater.

But there are plenty of lessons RL could learn from F1 and how they have grown and changed. Though in modern times they have never really had the issue of finance that RL has.

[fighting irish]

2 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

One of the problems that I think the game has when it comes to marketing is that there's an unhealthy self-reliance on short-term "performance" marketing and not enough on longer term strategy. And whilst I understand that this suggestion comes from the right place, it sort of perpetuates that problem (it's the same mindset that sees some of my posts challenged with "well if you're so smart, why don't you offer to do it on commission?"). I don't think we solve this issue by looking at it game by game because, when we do, we'll look at the immediate ROI and wonder why we bothered. 

Anyone who has worked in or studied marketing will know that "The Long and the Short of it' is essential reading. It addresses this very balance and shows that businesses - in any sector - that focus on longer term activity (stuff that often takes a longer time to realise and is harder to measure) make more in the long term than businesses that focus on short-term activity. 

If you were to take something like BullMania and look at that through a short term ROI lens after the first game, it would look like a money pit - a huge, expensive folly that you'd be stupid to repeat. But over time, the impact is much bigger - BullMania positioned Odsal match days as Bradford's biggest party - something for everyone and ensured that no matter what the events on the pitch were, people had a good time (yes, it also helped that the Bulls were good, but it wasn't essential to people enjoying themselves). That changes the perception of a day at RL and helps the Bulls build their crowds long term.

I don't think RL can fix this issue with a game-by-game approach and this is where I think @Dave T is right. I think RL has a major awareness issue - not because people don't know what it is, but because people don't know what it offers, what it stands for, why it's different and why it's worth their time and money. Are we a family sport? Then why didn't we manage to keep Dave's wife and kids entertained? Are we a sport that just offers p-up weekends?. If so, is that what we want to be? Are we just for the usual crowd, or are we offering something for everyone?

I always enjoy your well thought out, intelligent comments.

I've often complained about the games obsession with short term gains from their (amateurish) marketing efforts, the lack of well resourced junior development, a dearth of long term investment in revenue generating assets and continually prioritising club, over the game as a whole. They are all manifestations of the same basic problem, the inability and/or unwillingness to delay gratification.

I hope IMG can extend the pay-back horizon to a position where eventually the rewards far exceed the overall expenditure.

I feel the urge to comment on your minor grumble about someone's suggestion  ''why don't you offer to do it on commission''. I think, it's probably me you are referring to and I remember our discussions in the past.

What I was trying to get at, but accept that I may not have got my message across clearly enough, is that if I was a club owner, eager to use a marketing strategy to build the club, I'd want to see a marketing plan which would make some kind of confident estimates of the real value of those efforts, the total cost and thereby, an estimate of the time to break even. Making glib promises to increase exposure, or get more eyeballs is unlikely to engender confidence amongst cash strapped, owners.

I can remember complaining that just giving Elstone, £400,000 per annum on the  basis that ''Robert will take care of it'' was embarrassingly naive, and hopelessly optimisitic. A bit like putting all your chips on one number on a roulette table. 

I'm encouraged by the story that IMG are not taking too much out of the game until financial performance improves. It seems they have the resources to back themselves until the returns outweigh the ongoing expenditure.

[redjonn]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Bullmania is an obvious example that everyone could understand. Whilst I agree that it helped that the Bulls were successful on the pitch, that doesn't detract from the fact that Bullmania was all about ensuring that people had a good time, regardless of the result. Whilst people are attracted to a winning team, is watching them put 96 points on Salford really that much fun? 

Bullmania had it's time - I think if you tried to do the same thing again, it would probably look dated - but I do think we need to ensure that all of our RL events are delivering the sort of experience that leaves people leaving happy, and wanting to come back for more. Bullmania did that whether the Bulls won, lost or drew. It followed a fairly basic concept of consumer heuristics and variance management - if you rely too much on a variable (the performance of the team) to deliver a good customer experience or product, you have an inherently risky business model and you can manage that risk by reducing your dependence on that variable to keep your customer happy. 

The wider issues with the Bulls weren't necessarily to do with their on-field performances. The club was strapped for cash, it abandoned the matchday experience stuff in favour of heavy discounting (the poorly thought-out 'Pledge' campaign) and from then on, it was a vicious cycle. If the only reason you're going to a match is "because it's cheap" then yeah, the on-field product does become more of a factor in people's decision not to go. 

Exactly, and to follow up on the variance management stuff above, RL has to acknowledge that we're in a competitive leisure market and it's offering has to deliver if not every single time, then at least the vast majority of times. 

If I'm looking for something to take my son to at the weekend, do I take my chances on the rugby, which might be brilliant but also might leave him bored after 25 mins (which spoils the enjoyment of the event for both of us), or do I take him to the trampoline park - somewhere where I know exactly what I'm going to get and somewhere that I know he will enjoy on any day of the week? 

Those sorts of decisions are being made in households everywhere in RL land, which means that RL has to work harder to ensure that it is the option people choose, rather than anything else. That's especially true when you factor in that, whilst RL is cheap when compared to other professional sports, it's at a premium price point compared to many other leisure activities. 

 

I agree with what your saying, but how do you suggest stopping your son being bored after 20mins, unless their is activity on the side lines or he is engaged with the crowd or you take him out to some activity and then bring him in... or provide lots of info/play back to suit his age on a computer tablet he takes in...

[whatmichaelsays]

58 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I always enjoy your well thought out, intelligent comments.

I've often complained about the games obsession with short term gains from their (amateurish) marketing efforts, the lack of well resourced junior development, a dearth of long term investment in revenue generating assets and continually prioritising club, over the game as a whole. They are all manifestations of the same basic problem, the inability and/or unwillingness to delay gratification.

I hope IMG can extend the pay-back horizon to a position where eventually the rewards far exceed the overall expenditure.

I feel the urge to comment on your minor grumble about someone's suggestion  ''why don't you offer to do it on commission''. I think, it's probably me you are referring to and I remember our discussions in the past.

What I was trying to get at, but accept that I may not have got my message across clearly enough, is that if I was a club owner, eager to use a marketing strategy to build the club, I'd want to see a marketing plan which would make some kind of confident estimates of the real value of those efforts, the total cost and thereby, an estimate of the time to break even. Making glib promises to increase exposure, or get more eyeballs is unlikely to engender confidence amongst cash strapped, owners.

I can remember complaining that just giving Elstone, £400,000 per annum on the  basis that ''Robert will take care of it'' was embarrassingly naive, and hopelessly optimisitic. A bit like putting all your chips on one number on a roulette table. 

I'm encouraged by the story that IMG are not taking too much out of the game until financial performance improves. It seems they have the resources to back themselves until the returns outweigh the ongoing expenditure.

It wasn't really pointed at anyone in fairness, but it is a response that has come up a few times. 

The point is that if you, as a club chairman, were to give me a one-off game to push and increase your crowd, there are probably lots of things I could do - I could sell more tickets, get you a few more turnstile clicks and that would be that. But would you make more money on that one-off game? Probably not. What I'd do would naturally be very short-term, it would be small activations and some targeted advertising that would get punters in, but would also eat into your margin and increase your cost per sale - before you've even given me my cut. 

The point is that when you think that marketing/advertising is that short-term game-by-game approach, you're never going to really make a lot of, if any, money from what you do. We're not selling Corby trouser presses here or some ropey double glazing where we can have an army of commission-only door-to-door salespeople. We're selling something much more emotional and experiential, and we also have a reputation to build and maintain. 

When you take that short term "advertise a match on commission" approach, you neglect the other stuff that actually makes the short-term stuff much more effective. Developing the product, creating an image, creating stories that people connect with, creating an experience that people want to sample, ensuring that they have a great time when they get here, making sure you're being talked about in the media, making the product attractive to different audience - that's all much harder, but getting that right makes the advertising more effective and for so less financial outlay on the advertising itself. It doesn't leave us in the position where the RFL is praying that Leeds get to the Challenge Cup Final every year, because we've invested in making the CC Final a "FOMO" event that people want to see regardless. It means we don't have clubs dreading a Toronto or Toulouse coming into Super League, because the sport has reduced it's reliance on away fans. You get the idea.   

Don't get me wrong - I understand why the clubs do it the way they do it. For many clubs, the immediate worry is simply keeping the lights on for another week, selling the next fixture or hitting this year's season ticket target. But it comes at a cost. 

Can you accurately forecast how much doing all of that brings in? It's difficult and some of it is much harder to measure than other tactics. But you also need to factor in the opportunity cost into those calculations as well and what we do know is that attendances, sponsorship and media rights revenue are all declining. Is that entirely down to a lack of marketing and half-time entertainment? Probably not, but it's probably part of the equation. We also know from research that organisations that keep investing in developing their "brand" make more money in the long term, survive recessions better and come out of them stronger. 

[whatmichaelsays]

43 minutes ago, redjonn said:

I agree with what your saying, but how do you suggest stopping your son being bored after 20mins, unless their is activity on the side lines or he is engaged with the crowd or you take him out to some activity and then bring him in... or provide lots of info/play back to suit his age on a computer tablet he takes in...

Activity on the side lines, stuff on the big screen, making use of the electronic signage, mascots doing photo-ops around the ground, activities around the ground - this is all stuff that we used to be pretty good at (or at least, were the first to do). 

It ultimately comes down to whether the sport is really delivering on the experience that it tries to sell. I don't know if the sport really actively promotes the "family sport" positioning but let's take that as an example:

• If we're a family sport, are there things going on to amuse kids of all ages?
• If we're a family sport, are the viewing facilities on offer to a standard a family would expect?
• If we're a family sport, are there enough toilets for both genders so that women don't feel like second-class citizens? 
• If we're a family sport, are our games held at family-friendly times? 

Whatever the "sell" we want to offer, it has to be followed through. It's hard to sell a "fun family day" out if the kids get bored and mum spends the entire half-time break queuing for the toilet, because these are the sorts of challenges that other "family days out" have tackled and those other places will start being the more obvious choice for people's leisure dollar. 

[Dave T]

45 minutes ago, redjonn said:

I agree with what your saying, but how do you suggest stopping your son being bored after 20mins, unless their is activity on the side lines or he is engaged with the crowd or you take him out to some activity and then bring him in... or provide lots of info/play back to suit his age on a computer tablet he takes in...

Speaking for my daughter at the weekend, the issue isn't necessarily that they would be bored after 20m of sitting there, it's the fact that they may have already been in the ground for an hour pre-match, and let's be honest, if there is nothing to entertain them, a stadium is just a grey concrete stadium full of big people. 

I think it's easier to defer boredom if you know that if you get to half time they'll be entertained or similar 

[Barry Badrinath]

On 19/06/2022 at 08:21, Dave T said:

This has been something that has been bugging me for a while now, but I dont think it could have been any more evident than yesterday. 

IMO, Rugby League events have forgotten that they are meant to be about FUN.

Now, to avoid pure negativity her I want to clarify that I thoroughly enjoyed myself yesterday. I really enjoyed the England Women's game, and I liked seeing the England Men win. 

However - just after half time, my 6 year old declared that she was bored, so my wife and her left to do some shopping and I stayed for the last half hour myself. The East Stand where I sat had emptied by this stage as the dance initiative that had been a success led to many of them leaving once they had danced at half time. 

As I sat on my own, it really struck me that RL like this is for the purists. I felt like a dinosaur enjoying County Cricket or something with a few other (mainly) older blokes. 

It got me thinking about the event and I couldn't think of a single thing that had been put on to entertain all those kids and families outside of the 160m of Rugby League. For people like me, and I suspect many on these boards, that is enough, but clearly for kids, new fans etc. it just isn't. 

The presentation of the event was fine, professional, but all very po-faced and serious. Where were the attempts at singalong music, where was the entertainment, where were the mascots, face-painters, use of the video screen etc? I should add the dance event was great, my neices were part of it and loved it (then left with their family). 

I think every event we stage should be offering something for people to have fun at, outside of the core game. I don't always like the comparisons to cricket, but they recognised that they needed to inject fun and have re-poaitiined their game massively. We did at the start of SL 25 years ago, but we seem to have now gone back to 1994 - the event yesterday was like an old skool event, and not for the better imo. 

I really fear that we are going to blow the RLWC if we get a load of new fans in the grounds and then don't captivate them. 

obviously i'm missing 6 pages of responses and replies here, but this is essentially what karl fitzpatrick was trying to do at warrington, build up the matchday experience, for youngsters, and he's been met with derision, pillory(is that a word?) and grief, as he's tried to make it more attractive to non hardcore watchers, to the youngsters who dont watch the 80 minutes intently but do like to get their face painted, and dick about with wolfie, or watch the dancers, or the half time games. and the online stuff to try and make it cool and amusing to the tweens.

 

 

[Oxford]

This has been a good discussion thus far. If we took all the reasoning here and gave it to IMG they might gain an understanding of TGG Fans and their vision of and for the game. I still believe that it's a measure of how the fun has gone out of us rather than the game itself.

The short termism within the game is a direct product of you lose and you're out. Like the logic of P&R or not it produces top teams who budget for success and lack of it can have dire consequences. Believe in the necessity of P&R as a prerequesite to quality or not but the lack of long term vision and capability flies out the window.

It does often seem to be the same posters arguing for promotion as a factor in the sport who also appear to be unhappy with the quality of the game. But just as P&R has real implications both looked for and unasked for so does our disatisfaction with the sport.

And sometimes it sounds like all that keeps us turning up is so we can express how unhappy it all makes us.

[fighting irish]

5 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The "nerdiness" thing is interesting, because I think F1 has actually been really clever at working this into the TV coverage as a strength, rather than a weakness. 

You now have TV graphics that try and predict when overtaking moves are likely to happen - that keeps you watching even during a part of the race that is fairly processional. They use really clear graphics to show the story of the race, and they focus on the little battles all across the track. Even really nerdy stuff like tyre degradation is actually really well explained to the layman viewer.  

How they've managed to shift and broaden their audience - even when many of the events have gone behind paywalls in many of its major markets - is a brilliant story. 

Who's orchestrating it? 

[Dave T]

34 minutes ago, Barry Badrinath said:

obviously i'm missing 6 pages of responses and replies here, but this is essentially what karl fitzpatrick was trying to do at warrington, build up the matchday experience, for youngsters, and he's been met with derision, pillory(is that a word?) and grief, as he's tried to make it more attractive to non hardcore watchers, to the youngsters who dont watch the 80 minutes intently but do like to get their face painted, and dick about with wolfie, or watch the dancers, or the half time games. and the online stuff to try and make it cool and amusing to the tweens.

 

 

Warrington have done a fair bit of this over the years, a little sporadically though. Draper really kickstarted the fan engagement piece in earnest before he was moved on. 

For some reason, they have abandoned pretty much everything since the return from the pandemic, and we are seeing the results of that (our crowds were down prior to the bad results). 

I do think you are overstating the stick KF has received - I don't think anyone is moaning about face paint for kids, mascots and dancers. 

[Dave T]

35 minutes ago, Oxford said:

This has been a good discussion thus far. If we took all the reasoning here and gave it to IMG they might gain an understanding of TGG Fans and their vision of and for the game. I still believe that it's a measure of how the fun has gone out of us rather than the game itself.

The short termism within the game is a direct product of you lose and you're out. Like the logic of P&R or not it produces top teams who budget for success and lack of it can have dire consequences. Believe in the necessity of P&R as a prerequesite to quality or not but the lack of long term vision and capability flies out the window.

It does often seem to be the same posters arguing for promotion as a factor in the sport who also appear to be unhappy with the quality of the game. But just as P&R has real implications both looked for and unasked for so does our disatisfaction with the sport.

And sometimes it sounds like all that keeps us turning up is so we can express how unhappy it all makes us.

Apologies if I'm wrong, but I believe I am a fair bit younger than you Oxford, and I have a 6yr old who keeps me even younger even if my body is not quite so young! 

But one thing that is quite big in society at the moment is experiences - a lot of family fun experiences have emerged and appear to be doing really well. We're talking family festivals, drive thru cinemas, adventure golf, seasonal events (Halloween etc), pubs now are popping up offering beer pong, bowling, crazy golf in them, Bongo Bingo nights are huge, and so on.

I don't think the fun has left us, I think people are looking to have fun, they are just finding it elsewhere. People are out there spending money doing these things. I worry we aren't keeping up with the times. 

[fighting irish]

10 minutes ago, Oxford said:

This has been a good discussion thus far. If we took all the reasoning here and gave it to IMG they might gain an understanding of TGG Fans and their vision of and for the game. I still believe that it's a measure of how the fun has gone out of us rather than the game itself.

The short termism within the game is a direct product of you lose and you're out. Like the logic of P&R or not it produces top teams who budget for success and lack of it can have dire consequences. Believe in the necessity of P&R as a prerequesite to quality or not but the lack of long term vision and capability flies out the window.

It does often seem to be the same posters arguing for promotion as a factor in the sport who also appear to be unhappy with the quality of the game. But just as P&R has real implications both looked for and unasked for so does our disatisfaction with the game.

I have to agree with you about the fun going out of us. Whether that's permanent or temporary, we'll have to wait and see.

Having worked from home for over two years as a result of the pandemic, I know my own personal life has changed immeasurably.

I've become a virtual recluse. My social life has dwindled away to nothing. All my local ''haunts'' are on the verge of bankruptcy, experiencing only modest partial recovery towards their pre-pandemic flourish.

My physical strength has atrophied, more rapidly than the normal ageing process would have brought on, so it's not surprising that my inner candle flame, may have dimmed.

I'm sure there are many people out there with similar experiences. I am clinging to the belief/hope that things will improve in time. I just think the recovery may take longer than we first thought and when it does, I'm sure the popularity of RL will return to previous levels and grow beyond.

To wind up, I just want to make a comment about the value of true supporters in our attempts to broaden the games appeal. As a former salesman, I know that one of the highest potential lead sources was past customer recommendations. A word of mouth recommendation almost always resulted in a sale (a very high conversion rate) and was worth thousands of pounds spent on advertising.

I dread to think what effect the ''average'' RL fans comments about the game, have on potential newcomers who may overhear them as they whine, ##### and moan to each other in the pub.

To me, RL is one of the bright lights at the end of the tunnel, indicating the way to a happier future. 

 

[GUBRATS]

7 hours ago, fighting irish said:

Maybe they should give her a few quid to wander around the town telling everybody else too. 

 

7 hours ago, fighting irish said:

Maybe they should give her a few quid to wander around the town telling everybody else too. 

You made a flippant comment , I showed it to be wrong , don't make it worse 

[GUBRATS]

7 hours ago, whatmichaelsays said:

One of the problems that I think the game has when it comes to marketing is that there's an unhealthy self-reliance on short-term "performance" marketing and not enough on longer term strategy. And whilst I understand that this suggestion comes from the right place, it sort of perpetuates that problem (it's the same mindset that sees some of my posts challenged with "well if you're so smart, why don't you offer to do it on commission?"). I don't think we solve this issue by looking at it game by game because, when we do, we'll look at the immediate ROI and wonder why we bothered. 

Anyone who has worked in or studied marketing will know that "The Long and the Short of it' is essential reading. It addresses this very balance and shows that businesses - in any sector - that focus on longer term activity (stuff that often takes a longer time to realise and is harder to measure) as well as short-term activity make more in the long term than businesses that focus excessively on short-term activity. 

If you were to take something like BullMania and look at that through a short term ROI lens after the first game, it would look like a money pit - a huge, expensive folly that you'd be stupid to repeat. But over time, the impact is much bigger - BullMania positioned Odsal match days as Bradford's biggest party - something for everyone and ensured that no matter what the events on the pitch were, people had a good time (yes, it also helped that the Bulls were good, but it wasn't essential to people enjoying themselves). That changes the perception of a day at RL and helps the Bulls build their crowds long term.

I don't think RL can fix this issue with a game-by-game approach and this is where I think @Dave T is right. I think RL has a major awareness issue - not because people don't know what it is, but because people don't know what it offers, what it stands for, why it's different and why it's worth their time and money. Are we a family sport? Then why didn't we manage to keep Dave's wife and kids entertained? Are we a sport that just offers p-up weekends?. If so, is that what we want to be? Are we just for the usual crowd, or are we offering something for everyone?

But that was my point , different clubs will require different things , and different approaches , by having an outside perspective ( rather than somebody employed by the club who would expect as you suggest an instant return ) then each initiative could be assessed on its potential long term merits and impact , and then evaluated on its use again , you could also then look at joint initiatives between clubs , as I said this was specifically the lower tier clubs , SL clubs should have the capacity to do this more individually 

[GUBRATS]

7 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

I understand completely why you choose to use the Bullmania concept to get your point over, but what I will disagree with is your term "no matter what the events on the pitch", at the time of Bullmania Bradford had a very successful team, League Winners, GF Winners, CC Winners and WCC Winners, this period in itself would entice more locals through the gates to watch a winning team and to enjoy the party atmosphere, when that successful era for the Bulls came to an end the drop off in the party goers was significantly effected by the events that took place on the pitch.

Correct Harry , but which came first , the on field success or the party ? , And if it was so successful , why didn't it pay its way ? 

Or as we have been led to believe , it was all an illusion , that was costing money ? , not making money ?

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Correct Harry , but which came first , the on field success or the party ? , And if it was so successful , why didn't it pay its way ? 

Or as we have been led to believe , it was all an illusion , that was costing money ? , not making money ?

I've showed what came first. 

Bulls averaged 4.4k. When they came joint top with Wigan and Wire they had an uplift to 6.7k. It dropped back to 4.4k.

Then in SL1 when the Bulls rebranded and relaunched, they finished 3rd and got 9.6k. 

While it's simplistic analysis, it's quite a striking example. 

Of course there is a balancing act here, but I dont think any post-mortem has ever put the Bulls problems down as too many face painters. 

[GUBRATS]

37 minutes ago, fighting irish said:

I have to agree with you about the fun going out of us. Whether that's permanent or temporary, we'll have to wait and see.

Having worked from home for over two years as a result of the pandemic, I know my own personal life has changed immeasurably.

I've become a virtual recluse. My social life has dwindled away to nothing. All my local ''haunts'' are on the verge of bankruptcy, experiencing only modest partial recovery towards their pre-pandemic flourish.

My physical strength has atrophied, more rapidly than the normal ageing process would have brought on, so it's not surprising that my inner candle flame, may have dimmed.

I'm sure there are many people out there with similar experiences. I am clinging to the belief/hope that things will improve in time. I just think the recovery may take longer than we first thought and when it does, I'm sure the popularity of RL will return to previous levels and grow beyond.

To wind up, I just want to make a comment about the value of true supporters in our attempts to broaden the games appeal. As a former salesman, I know that one of the highest potential lead sources was past customer recommendations. A word of mouth recommendation almost always resulted in a sale (a very high conversion rate) and was worth thousands of pounds spent on advertising.

I dread to think what effect the ''average'' RL fans comments about the game, have on potential newcomers who may overhear them as they whine, ##### and moan to each other in the pub.

To me, RL is one of the bright lights at the end of the tunnel, indicating the way to a happier future. 

 

In the pubs it's the ones who don't go who whinge and moan , not the ones that do go 

[GUBRATS]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I've showed what came first. 

Bulls averaged 4.4k. When they came joint top with Wigan and Wire they had an uplift to 6.7k. It dropped back to 4.4k.

Then in SL1 when the Bulls rebranded and relaunched, they finished 3rd and got 9.6k. 

While it's simplistic analysis, it's quite a striking example. 

Of course there is a balancing act here, but I dont think any post-mortem has ever put the Bulls problems down as too many face painters. 

But was it washing its face Dave ? ,Or was it losing hand over fist ?

[fighting irish]

11 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

 

You made a flippant comment , I showed it to be wrong , don't make it worse 

Let's not argue (any more) I did make a flippant comment about printing fixture lists.

The comment about your wife was a joke (in context).

If I've caused offense to you, or your wife, then I'm sorry, it was not intentional.

I assumed you would see it for what it was and were robust enough to take it.

You are renowned for your abrupt, hard hitting, one liners, which you seem to issue freely and without reservations but let me assure you, my own comment was of a very different genus, light hearted and meant in jest.

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, fighting irish said:

Who's orchestrating it? 

I understand that F1 does almost all of its production in house with a single video feed (probably with some language variations) which is supplied to broadcasters, who can then either use their own commentary or use the international feed (which is the Sky Sports UK commentary). 

Most of the graphical elements are sponsored (the race data is sponsored by Amazon Web Services) so there is a commercial motive as well, but it's a clever way to keep users engaged throughout a long race. 

Other sports do similar with their TV presentation. Darts tries to build up anticipation for "9-darters" with their graphics whilst The Hundred, for all the stick it got from traditionalists, used a "bar chart" graphic to visualise run chases. I'm not sure what you do in RL really, because it's hard to predict so much of it (remember Phil Clarke's 'margin meter'?), but I'd like to see the sport try and make better use of stats and data. 

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

But was it washing its face Dave ? ,Or was it losing hand over fist ?

Couple of things. It's a silly question that is unreasonable to ask as we can't answer that. These are private commercial clubs who have to manage their own finances and activity - but it is clear evidence that off-field improvements work - similar to those clubs who have seen big increases through facility improvements.

And of course a winning team are likely to drive bigger crowds - but whilst you can guarantee entertainment, you can't guarantee a winning team, so it is a riskier strategy.

Even when the Bulls were on their way down and losing, they were still a bigger club than pre-SL.