Value for sponsors

[whatmichaelsays]

59 minutes ago, Oxford said:

Given something Like Cooking with the Stars where every advert ends with a Marks& Sparks plug as sponsors of the programme I think this is unlikely.

And isn't it the BETFRED MOM?

The main issue with product placement is that the advert and the programme content have to be completely seperate, and one isn't allowed to influence the other. 

So you can have a show sponsored by a brand, and you can have an on-screen sponsor graphic, but you aren't allowed to have an actor or commentator reference that brand, as that is considered to be removing that separation. 

A easy example would be that Corontation Street would be allowed to have Tetleys Bitter 'sponsor' the Rovers Return by having Tetley's Bitter pumps on the bar. But the actor would still only be allowed to as for "a pint of bitter", because having 'Tetley's' in the dialogue is seen as influencing the content. 

Competition sponsors are different as that's not a relationship between the advertiser and the broadcaster. 

[Big Picture]

5 hours ago, EastLondonMike said:

Times are definitely harder, especially when it comes to getting sponsors to part with some cash.. But in the industry i work in, which is sports related fashion, over the last year or so we've seen a lot of sponsors spending again, and a lot of new sponsors from non-traditional industries getting involved in sport in a big way.

But even for a pittance, we should be able to generate some additional income through all of the things you've listed above Dave, and more. You can literally commercialise everything from the kick-off to the half time to the post match interviews.

We saw Papa Johns get involved last year, albeit tentatively, and that wasn't built on. Maybe they weren't keen, maybe it was the RFL/SL who couldn't find a way to keep them interested, but they could have easily become our version of what KFC is to the NRL.

This suggests that as I've said elsewhere, at present RL in Britain doesn't offer the sort of audiences which big money sponsors want to reach because it's too small time.  That has to change for it to attract anything like the money which Australian RL gets and quite possibly even for it to keep Sky interested beyond the current TV contract.

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

Agreed - and the Papa Johns sponsorship tbh is a bit of a case study in how toxic our game can be at times. I have rarely seen such negativity around a sponsorship deal (maybe the Stobart deal) - but for the RL media, fans and others to so actively and publicly criticise a partnership was not helpful.

The deal may have seemed small time, but sometimes these things can grow on an intitial deal - and I think sometimes as fans we need to stop and think about the harm we can do to the game.

And this reinforces my point.  Yes the Stobart and Papa Johns deals were small time, but they reflected the game's lack of real value in those sponsors' eyes.  They were criticized so harshly because they showed the game up as small time and the fans hated having that fact pointed out to them in that way.

Back to the OP's point, the Australian RL does get the sort of audiences which big money sponsors (though to be frank KFC isn't really a very impressive sponsor) want to reach and that's why it can get those deals.

[Big Picture]

3 hours ago, RP London said:

exactly.. 

we dont have the money to sponsor RL as a company (then again maybe we do to be honest) but its not something I would look at due to this type of attitude... we have sponsored a cycling team in the area (very good push on social media, great set of people to get involved with, helped develop product and help build things) and the local Hockey clubs (again pretty good) and had an ad board at Newcastle Thunder..  my next port of call would be Womens Football... but RL would be low down on my list due to the negativity I see towards sponsors to be honest. 

This speaks volumes.  RL would be low down on the list of someone who likes (or even loves) the game because it's so small time/negative etc.

3 hours ago, Dave T said:

Agreed. Focusing on root cause is really important. I often think we try to 'fix' the wrong thing. 

I suggest that the root cause is the smallish, unfashionable locations of the top pro clubs which are not the sort of places the British public associates with big time major pro sport, and their small time ways.  Fixing that is beyond the ability of anyone working within the game's current structure in Britain.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Big Picture said:

This speaks volumes.  RL would be low down on the list of someone who likes (or even loves) the game because it's so small time/negative etc.

I suggest that the root cause is the smallish, unfashionable locations of the top pro clubs which are not the sort of places the British public associates with big time major pro sport, and their small time ways.  Fixing that is beyond the ability of anyone working within the game's current structure in Britain.

I wish you'd have mentioned this before.... 

[gingerjon]

12 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Back to the OP's point, the Australian RL does get the sort of audiences which big money sponsors (though to be frank KFC isn't really a very impressive sponsor) want to reach and that's why it can get those deals.

Given its popularity, there's a pretty decent argument to be made that the NRL underperforms against what it could do.

[Big Picture]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I wish you'd have mentioned this before.... 

Well if you can identify a different root cause of the game's lack of money than Sean McGuire and Eric Pérez, by all means explain what it is.

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Given its popularity, there's a pretty decent argument to be made that the NRL underperforms against what it could do.

That's a sign of what Steve Mascord calls the game's "concrete ceiling" in that its popularity down there is still only really high among working class Aussies.

[Dave T]

15 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

Well if you can identify a different root cause of the game's lack of money than Sean McGuire and Eric Pérez, by all means explain what it is.

The game in the UK can get more money without completely trashing the existing game and making up 12 big city teams though. 

Asking and answering the wrong questions is an issue. 

As this thread has highlighted, we have had many of these sponsors in the past - that suggests it is more than just what clubs we have in SL as that hasn't really changed. 

[Big Picture]

28 minutes ago, Dave T said:

The game in the UK can get more money without completely trashing the existing game and making up 12 big city teams though. 

Asking and answering the wrong questions is an issue. 

As this thread has highlighted, we have had many of these sponsors in the past - that suggests it is more than just what clubs we have in SL as that hasn't really changed. 

I notice that you haven't identified another root cause as yet.

Eric Pérez would disagree with you at least somewhat.  When the Wolfpack were accepted into the British RL structure it was on the basis that the game had maxed out its revenues with the offering it had at the time and it needed precisely the sort of big city teams which you mention there to increase them, Pérez said as much at the time.  As we saw clearly, his attempt to combine that with the existing game didn't work because of the gulf between the way British RL operates and the way big time major pro sport (the way of the Wolfpack one might say) works.  Sean McGuire's remarks about the game's financial difficulties support the truth of what Pérez said.

Those bigger sponsors didn't stick around though, they bailed at the end of their contracts.  If they'd been happy with the value which their association with the game was giving them, they wouldn't have done that.  If there was an answer to be found within the existing game's setup in Britain, don't you think that the SL and/or RFL would have found it by now?

[Dave T]

21 minutes ago, Big Picture said:

I notice that you haven't identified another root cause as yet.

Eric Pérez would disagree with you at least somewhat.  When the Wolfpack were accepted into the British RL structure it was on the basis that the game had maxed out its revenues with the offering it had at the time and it needed precisely the sort of big city teams which you mention there to increase them, Pérez said as much at the time.  As we saw clearly, his attempt to combine that with the existing game didn't work because of the gulf between the way British RL operates and the way big time major pro sport (the way of the Wolfpack one might say) works.  Sean McGuire's remarks about the game's financial difficulties support the truth of what Pérez said.

Those bigger sponsors didn't stick around though, they bailed at the end of their contracts.  If they'd been happy with the value which their association with the game was giving them, they wouldn't have done that.  If there was an answer to be found within the existing game's setup in Britain, don't you think that the SL and/or RFL would have found it by now?

Well it depends what question you are trying to answer. 

You are searching for some weird utopia where RL is like football played all over the world, in reality we are a sport like many others fighting for our corner of the market and being the best we can. 

We can't just be a different thing, we can work on looking differently and being better than we are, but it's like putting the root cause of your house being valued poorly as because it is not in Malibu Beach. 

 

[Big Picture]

6 hours ago, Dave T said:

Well it depends what question you are trying to answer. 

You are searching for some weird utopia where RL is like football played all over the world, in reality we are a sport like many others fighting for our corner of the market and being the best we can. 

We can't just be a different thing, we can work on looking differently and being better than we are, but it's like putting the root cause of your house being valued poorly as because it is not in Malibu Beach.

I get that you don't want to accept that (the importance in the business world of "location, location, location" notwithstanding) the location of the sport's top pro clubs in Britain isn't the root cause of its chronic lack of money, stature and profile, so I'll ask you again: just what else do you think is the root cause of that?  And if it's something else besides the location of the sport's top pro clubs in Britain why haven't the SL and/or RFL discovered and solved it already?

[Tommygilf]

12 hours ago, Dave T said:

Well it depends what question you are trying to answer. 

You are searching for some weird utopia where RL is like football played all over the world, in reality we are a sport like many others fighting for our corner of the market and being the best we can. 

We can't just be a different thing, we can work on looking differently and being better than we are, but it's like putting the root cause of your house being valued poorly as because it is not in Malibu Beach. 

Extremes of this debate aside, it is a bit Chicken and Egg isn't it?

We get lower TV rights and less success with sponsors because we don't have cut through in the markets that would drive that. We get no cut through because we don't have a high enough profile generally or locally in those cases. We then use that to decide that the sport "doesn't work there" when actually we've barely tried and the cycle repeats.

Our biggest investor, Sky TV, has in the best of times seen us as a realtively cheaper pickup with a massive growth opportunity. I suspect IMG have done the same. The uncomfortable reality of that opportunity is that for some clubs that means the top flight grows beyond their capabilities as growth is achieved. 

As such then, I think your housing analogy is slightly off as it lumps the whole sport together; when in reality we want to be adding "Malibu" to our portfolio rather than replacing it entirely. I appreciate that is because of how BP discusses this topic too so please don't think its a personal attack!

[Dave T]

54 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Extremes of this debate aside, it is a bit Chicken and Egg isn't it?

We get lower TV rights and less success with sponsors because we don't have cut through in the markets that would drive that. We get no cut through because we don't have a high enough profile generally or locally in those cases. We then use that to decide that the sport "doesn't work there" when actually we've barely tried and the cycle repeats.

Our biggest investor, Sky TV, has in the best of times seen us as a realtively cheaper pickup with a massive growth opportunity. I suspect IMG have done the same. The uncomfortable reality of that opportunity is that for some clubs that means the top flight grows beyond their capabilities as growth is achieved. 

As such then, I think your housing analogy is slightly off as it lumps the whole sport together; when in reality we want to be adding "Malibu" to our portfolio rather than replacing it entirely. I appreciate that is because of how BP discusses this topic too so please don't think its a personal attack!

I think this is right when speaking to most people, but not BP.

But not being in certain territories isn't a root cause, its an outcome, it has its own root cause. 

I also think it is very important to remember that these discussions usually talk about "RL" when in reality we are talking about the UK RL comp. 

[Dave T]

7 hours ago, Big Picture said:

I get that you don't want to accept that (the importance in the business world of "location, location, location" notwithstanding) the location of the sport's top pro clubs in Britain isn't the root cause of its chronic lack of money, stature and profile, so I'll ask you again: just what else do you think is the root cause of that?  And if it's something else besides the location of the sport's top pro clubs in Britain why haven't the SL and/or RFL discovered and solved it already?

In reality there are quite a lot of root causes, I suppose it depends how far back we want to go and how wide we want to think. 

But, IMO, the main root cause of why we underperformed (let's wrap it as that), is due to fundamentally poor leadership and weak governance that hasn't allowed the game to make the right decisions. 

Not having a team in Birmingham is an outcome of this, not a root cause. 

Without resolving leadership and governance challenges we will never maximise our potential. 

And that isn't to ignore expansion, great leadership wouldn't have messed about with silly things like PSG, they'd have had proper vision for growth and implemented initiatives properly. 

Edited July 7, 2022 by Dave T

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

In reality there are quite a lot of root causes, I suppose it depends how far back we want to go and how wide we want to think. 

But, IMO, the main root cause of why we underperformed (let's wrap it as that), is due to fundamentally poor leadership and weak governance that hasn't allowed the game to make the right decisions. 

Not having a team in Birmingham is an outcome of this, not a root cause. 

Without resolving leadership and governance challenges we will never maximise our potential. 

And that isn't to ignore expansion, great leadership wouldn't have messed about with silly things like PSG, they'd have had proper vision for growth and implemented initiatives properly. 

I think you are right here. The vision of this growth from Red Hall and now New Red Hall (or whatever nonsense they want to call it) has been horrific. They want success NOW rather than waiting and building (similar to the way BP is talking to be honest). If companies start to see positive growth and plans then they will start to buy in IMHO. When we were getting good sponsors in the early 2000s it is no coincidence that this was when there were DOs around the country, it was when the RLC was growing and new areas at grassroots levels were coming on etc. It was where there seemed to be a plan for how to engage with more people and perhaps then building these and who knows where you go. (And lets be fair with a strong uni game and when the RLC was stronger and more widespread we would be catching all types of people at all types of companies in all types of locations.. that cant be a bad thing)

It seemed like there was general positivity in the game. 

To take BP to a bit of an extreme but if we suddenly decided that the top level teams were going to be Birmingham, London, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, Cardiff, Sheffield, Nottingham, Paris, Edinburgh and Newcastle then I still don't see big sponsors coming forward because this would be a totally new sport and a totally new league with no history whatsoever. When people get involved they want the history, they want the Wigans, Saint Helens, Leeds' they actually want the Warrington "always our year" style teams. But yes new teams in bigger cities to prove growth would also be great but they can come in time and they dont have to be at the expense of anyone, expansion can be expansion (14-16-18 team Super League).

But NONE of that comes without what we have now.. Right now we need the nicer grounds to make us look more than just a poor northern sport, and they are coming, they will boost the ability to attract corporates. We need clubs and the governing body to actively go after that not be passive. We need the RFL to make more of the development of the game outside the heartlands and put more money in to grass roots growth (in and outside the heartlands but push outwardly  [press/media] the development outside). 

Oh and when people do get on board make sure everyone knows that without them there is no money and no game so be positive ffs!

Edited July 7, 2022 by RP London

[Dave T]

27 minutes ago, RP London said:

I think you are right here. The vision of this growth from Red Hall and now New Red Hall (or whatever nonsense they want to call it) has been horrific. They want success NOW rather than waiting and building (similar to the way BP is talking to be honest). If companies start to see positive growth and plans then they will start to buy in IMHO. When we were getting good sponsors in the early 2000s it is no coincidence that this was when there were DOs around the country, it was when the RLC was growing and new areas at grassroots levels were coming on etc. It was where there seemed to be a plan for how to engage with more people and perhaps then building these and who knows where you go. (And lets be fair with a strong uni game and when the RLC was stronger and more widespread we would be catching all types of people at all types of companies in all types of locations.. that cant be a bad thing)

It seemed like there was general positivity in the game. 

To take BP to a bit of an extreme but if we suddenly decided that the top level teams were going to be Birmingham, London, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Bristol, Cardiff, Sheffield, Nottingham, Paris, Edinburgh and Newcastle then I still don't see big sponsors coming forward because this would be a totally new sport and a totally new league with no history whatsoever. When people get involved they want the history, they want the Wigans, Saint Helens, Leeds' they actually want the Warrington "always our year" style teams. But yes new teams in bigger cities to prove growth would also be great but they can come in time and they dont have to be at the expense of anyone, expansion can be expansion (14-16-18 team Super League).

But NONE of that comes without what we have now.. Right now we need the nicer grounds to make us look more than just a poor northern sport, and they are coming, they will boost the ability to attract corporates. We need clubs and the governing body to actively go after that not be passive. We need the RFL to make more of the development of the game outside the heartlands and put more money in to grass roots growth (in and outside the heartlands but push outwardly  [press/media] the development outside). 

Oh and when people do get on board make sure everyone knows that without them there is no money and no game so be positive ffs!

Agreed with all that. BP has become a bit of a one trick pony, but it's an interesting discussion, and it's why I'm so interested in the game focusing on the right things rather than vanity projects that maybe sound nice on paper. 

If we think about wanting big city teams, during SL, we have tried adding Paris, Gateshead (Newcastle), London, Wales, Catalans, Toronto and Toulouse. On paper that is quite a list of expansion projects in 25 years - but they have failed due to poor leadership and how they were done. 

Similarly, if its as easy as just having big city teams, as you suggest it becomes a bit hollow - we haven't seen Basketball, Ice Hockey, NFL Europe etc smash it just by using big city teams, even with Castleford and Leigh we have richer top leagues than those comps. 

It's too simplistic to say big city teams are needed. We can deliver growth even with the current teams there. 

[Oxford]

Interesting the Location, location argument given new TGG life. First of all although it's a business RL is not a hotel or a shop. And a quick look at even the Premier League would highlight the fact that not all of them are in particularly sought after places, and some are downright unfashionable.

There are two things to this kind of seductive idea, it's based largely on sound bite and a business model that has so many holes and the acceptance of northerness as a kind of albatross; but more importantly there is a price to pay for thinking and acting on this as the main focus.

[whatmichaelsays]

I've said this before, but the obession with seeing "expansion" as a location issue rather than an audience issue is yet another one of those cases where we're attacking the symptom rather than the cause. 

Even if we look at where the game is popular in cities, is the audience that watches Leeds Rhinos fundamentally different to the one that watches Castleford or Leigh? Are the demographics notably different? Is the average age notably different? Is the gender split notably different? Is the ethinicity split notably different? Is the average income notably different? 

If the people watching RL in Leeds were that much different to the ones watching in the smaller towns - in that they were younger, more diverse, had greater spending power or whatever, then the city argument makes a bit more sense. But at the moment, I don't think that's the case.

It seems that wherever the game is played, be it town, city, village or hamlet, the core issue is that it seems to sell to the same people, time after time after time and to that end, taking the RL circus to the next town or city and hoping to find more "people like us" is a waste of time - because there aren't enough "people like us" to sustain growth. And let's not pretend that these other audiences don't exist in RL land, because they do. There are pockets of affluence all over RL land. There are young people all over RL land. There are people looking for something to do on Thursday nights all over RL land. 

The overall point here is that if you want to try and argue that the game needs to be in new cities to appeal to younger, wealthier or more ethnically diverse audiences, you need to be able to answer the question as to why the younger, wealthier and more ethnically diverse audiences aren't watching in the towns and cities where RL is stong. . 

The truth is that game has to start with what it has got, and what it has got is content (usually created in northern towns) and a means to distribute that content - whether that is by charging people to come to watch it live, letting people watch it on TV, or letting them consume it online. The way forward is not to focus on what new places we need to be in to create that content, but on how we make that content something that more people want to see/buy, how we package and present it, and how we make it easier for the audience we want to reach to see and buy it. Do that, and the "fashionability" of the teams involved becomes much, much less of a factor. 

Edited July 7, 2022 by whatmichaelsays

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I've said this before, but the obession with seeing "expansion" as a location issue rather than an audience issue is yet another one of those cases where we're attacking the symptom rather than the cause. 

Even if we look at where the game is popular in cities, is the audience that watches Leeds Rhinos fundamentally different to the one that watches Castleford or Leigh? Are the demographics notably different? Is the average age notably different? Is the gender split notably different? Is the ethinicity split notably different? Is the average income notably different? 

If the people watching RL in Leeds were that much different to the ones watching in the smaller towns - in that they were younger, more diverse, had greater spending power or whatever, then the city argument makes a bit more sense. But at the moment, I don't think that's the case.

It seems that wherever the game is played, be it town, city, village or hamlet, the core issue is that it seems to sell to the same people, time after time after time and to that end, taking the RL circus to the next town or city and hoping to find more "people like us" is a waste of time - because there aren't enough "people like us" to sustain growth. And let's not pretend that these other audiences don't exist in RL land, because they do. There are pockets of affluence all over RL land. There are young people all over RL land. There are people looking for something to do on Thursday nights all over RL land. 

The truth is that game has to start with what it has got, and what it has got is content (usually created in northern towns) and a means to distribute that content - whether that is by charging people to come to watch it live, letting people watch it on TV, or letting them consume it online. The way forward is not to focus on what new places we need to be in to create that content, but on how we make that content something that more people want to see/buy, how we package and present it, and how we make it easier for the audience we want to reach to see and buy it. Do that, and the "fashionability" of the teams involved becomes much, much less of a factor. 

I almost tagged you in on this as I think your posts on this are always a perfect counter to BP's big city obsession. 

Agree with the above 100%.

I really feel we ignore a whole aspirational population. I am working class, son of a homemaker and a bricklayer. I am very different to my parents, I have a differebt outlook on life, I want different things, but I feel the game still caters for them and not me. 

Within Warrington and surrounding areas (and all the other towns we are present in) we have populations who are not interested in the cheapest beer, the bargain basement experience, the working class image that we play up to. That is a valid segment that we do serve, but I dont think we play much outside of that segment. 

Expansion could easily be focused on expanding our customer base. We feel we are big in Warrington and Wigan, but I'd argue we are big in certain segments in Warrington and Wigan. 

[Barley Mow]

17 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I've said this before, but the obession with seeing "expansion" as a location issue rather than an audience issue is yet another one of those cases where we're attacking the symptom rather than the cause. 

Even if we look at where the game is popular in cities, is the audience that watches Leeds Rhinos fundamentally different to the one that watches Castleford or Leigh? Are the demographics notably different? Is the average age notably different? Is the gender split notably different? Is the ethinicity split notably different? Is the average income notably different? 

If the people watching RL in Leeds were that much different to the ones watching in the smaller towns - in that they were younger, more diverse, had greater spending power or whatever, then the city argument makes a bit more sense. But at the moment, I don't think that's the case.

It seems that wherever the game is played, be it town, city, village or hamlet, the core issue is that it seems to sell to the same people, time after time after time and to that end, taking the RL circus to the next town or city and hoping to find more "people like us" is a waste of time - because there aren't enough "people like us" to sustain growth. And let's not pretend that these other audiences don't exist in RL land, because they do. There are pockets of affluence all over RL land. There are young people all over RL land. There are people looking for something to do on Thursday nights all over RL land. 

The overall point here is that if you want to try and argue that the game needs to be in new cities to appeal to younger, wealthier or more ethnically diverse audiences, you need to be able to answer the question as to why the younger, wealthier and more ethnically diverse audiences aren't watching in the towns and cities where RL is stong. . 

The truth is that game has to start with what it has got, and what it has got is content (usually created in northern towns) and a means to distribute that content - whether that is by charging people to come to watch it live, letting people watch it on TV, or letting them consume it online. The way forward is not to focus on what new places we need to be in to create that content, but on how we make that content something that more people want to see/buy, how we package and present it, and how we make it easier for the audience we want to reach to see and buy it. Do that, and the "fashionability" of the teams involved becomes much, much less of a factor. 

That's a top post.

[Oxford]

Just as location is a factor that never explains or even mentions its failures a market demographic is partial explanation too often seen as the key issue.

A failure to see the importance of the role of media in establishing whether your on trend or comical is a crucial element.

The idea that local media is local is almost laughable these days and there are very few outlets that do RL justice.

The assumption that RL is small because that's what it deserves is only out shone in stupidity by something as gross as neoliberal economic thinking, and although that's a bit political, that takes some going.

 

 

[whatmichaelsays]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

I almost tagged you in on this as I think your posts on this are always a perfect counter to BP's big city obsession. 

Agree with the above 100%.

I really feel we ignore a whole aspirational population. I am working class, son of a homemaker and a bricklayer. I am very different to my parents, I have a differebt outlook on life, I want different things, but I feel the game still caters for them and not me. 

Within Warrington and surrounding areas (and all the other towns we are present in) we have populations who are not interested in the cheapest beer, the bargain basement experience, the working class image that we play up to. That is a valid segment that we do serve, but I dont think we play much outside of that segment. 

Expansion could easily be focused on expanding our customer base. We feel we are big in Warrington and Wigan, but I'd argue we are big in certain segments in Warrington and Wigan. 

Likewise - my situation sounds similar to yours - my mum was a school dinner lady, my dad was an engineer and theyve lived in the same city all their lives, whereas I was the first person in my entire family tree to go to university (pretty common for my generation), I've lived in seven different cities in four different countries and I'm working in an industry that didn't even exist 25 years ago. My interest and passion for RL doesn't change just because my demographics and lifestyle is different from the ones I grew up in. 

This is a huge missed opportunity because as much as it is important that we cater to our core audiences, I think the game has been very poor at reflecting the societal changes in the communities it serves - and that's especially poor for a sport that is often seen as a "community-driven" sport. 

There are now millions of those "first in the family to go to university" people out there and whilst BUCS RL has been a success, how good is the sport at engaging those people once they graduate? How good is RL at keeping connected with those people who leave the heartlands for work or study, and never come back? Their interest in RL doesn't die just because they no longer live within earshot of the M62.

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I've said this before, but the obession with seeing "expansion" as a location issue rather than an audience issue is yet another one of those cases where we're attacking the symptom rather than the cause. 

Even if we look at where the game is popular in cities, is the audience that watches Leeds Rhinos fundamentally different to the one that watches Castleford or Leigh? Are the demographics notably different? Is the average age notably different? Is the gender split notably different? Is the ethinicity split notably different? Is the average income notably different? 

If the people watching RL in Leeds were that much different to the ones watching in the smaller towns - in that they were younger, more diverse, had greater spending power or whatever, then the city argument makes a bit more sense. But at the moment, I don't think that's the case.

It seems that wherever the game is played, be it town, city, village or hamlet, the core issue is that it seems to sell to the same people, time after time after time and to that end, taking the RL circus to the next town or city and hoping to find more "people like us" is a waste of time - because there aren't enough "people like us" to sustain growth. And let's not pretend that these other audiences don't exist in RL land, because they do. There are pockets of affluence all over RL land. There are young people all over RL land. There are people looking for something to do on Thursday nights all over RL land. 

The overall point here is that if you want to try and argue that the game needs to be in new cities to appeal to younger, wealthier or more ethnically diverse audiences, you need to be able to answer the question as to why the younger, wealthier and more ethnically diverse audiences aren't watching in the towns and cities where RL is stong. . 

The truth is that game has to start with what it has got, and what it has got is content (usually created in northern towns) and a means to distribute that content - whether that is by charging people to come to watch it live, letting people watch it on TV, or letting them consume it online. The way forward is not to focus on what new places we need to be in to create that content, but on how we make that content something that more people want to see/buy, how we package and present it, and how we make it easier for the audience we want to reach to see and buy it. Do that, and the "fashionability" of the teams involved becomes much, much less of a factor. 

Agree with most of this.

I'll add that we even have the obvious packages for quick wins in new audiences with women's and wheelchair RL.

There were 68,000 people at yesterday's England v Austria women's international.

It was very obviously and clearly a different demographic and atmosphere than go to men's games. (Not better, not worse, just different).

They didn't get there by rolling their big women's fixtures into being openers for the men's games the fans are really there for.

[Dave T]

2 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Likewise - my situation sounds similar to yours - my mum was a school dinner lady, my dad was an engineer and theyve lived in the same city all their lives, whereas I was the first person in my entire family tree to go to university (pretty common for my generation), I've lived in seven different cities in four different countries and I'm working in an industry that didn't even exist 25 years ago. My interest and passion for RL doesn't change just because my demographics and lifestyle is different from the ones I grew up in. 

This is a huge missed opportunity because as much as it is important that we cater to our core audiences, I think the game has been very poor at reflecting the societal changes in the communities it serves - and that's especially poor for a sport that is often seen as a "community-driven" sport. 

There are now millions of those "first in the family to go to university" people out there and whilst BUCS RL has been a success, how good is the sport at engaging those people once they graduate? How good is RL at keeping connected with those people who leave the heartlands for work or study, and never come back? Their interest in RL doesn't die just because they no longer live within earshot of the M62.

Something I find interesting about myself and my relationship with RL is the value I put on my no. 1 past time. 

I have spent £115 watching a football game, £250 for a gig, £450 on a michelin star meal for 2, my bucket list will see me go to a major Euro F1 event in hospitality spending thousands - yet I am hesitating paying £50 for a World Cup ticket for the opener. That isn't me being 'tight' it is an embedded behaviour based on the perceived value of RL events being way behind all these other forms of entertainment. I'll end up buying tickets, but I'm hardly chomping at the bit to snap them up. I can't fully explain or understand it tbh. 

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Agree with most of this.

I'll add that we even have the obvious packages for quick wins in new audiences with women's and wheelchair RL.

There were 68,000 people at yesterday's England v Austria women's international.

It was very obviously and clearly a different demographic and atmosphere than go to men's games. (Not better, not worse, just different).

They didn't get there by rolling their big women's fixtures into being openers for the men's games the fans are really there for.

I've just bought tickets for Sweden v Portugal at Leigh taking my young daughter. She's really looking forward to it and actually asked to go to a football match. 

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I've just bought tickets for Sweden v Portugal at Leigh taking my young daughter. She's really looking forward to it and actually asked to go to a football match. 

Hope she enjoys it - I'm sure she will as I've heard Alex Simmons is doing the pre-match fan village.