Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
4 minutes ago, Stainesrover said:

 sponsors for instant replays for instance. 

You couldn't have that in the UK - our product placement rules (even after they have been liberalised relatively recently) are some of the strictest in the world. 


Posted
3 minutes ago, Stainesrover said:

I'm more interested in people's views on sponsorship, and why we cannot attract more sponsors than the 3 we currently have. NRL (I know is a different animal) have sponsors for instant replays for instance. Why can't we have more companies putting more money in. 

What are they buying for their investment?

You can advertise to the same people much easier on social media/internet sidebars, and everybody sees the ad. Our sport is behind a paywall and less popular than other sports that it used to be more popular than. 

Posted (edited)

Sponsorship is almost universally directly proportional to the number of people who see it, that is the answer. Businesses are only willing to pay for the relative exposure, whether that is the number of people in the stadium or the number of people viewing on screens

Edited by Hello
Posted
7 minutes ago, WN83 said:

He's right with Wilkin and that Salford v Leigh game. I was totally invested watching it, thought it was a quality and tense affair and was stunned when it goes to Wilkin and Tomkins post game and they just spoke about how poor Salford had been. The guys on Sky and the wider Media might not be the be all and end all when it comes to attracting more sponsors to the game but they're a starting point. I sometimes wonder if WIlkin in particular actually likes the sport or not. 

That's fair, but we also don't need to be too insecure that somebody grumbling about one match becomes something we still talk about months later. I have no time for Wilkin's opinions and try and forget about them instantly tbh!

Posted
2 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I'd agree with that. The under-selling and over-discounting of RL will take a generation to overcome, and I agree that the pricing at the last WC, particularly for central seats, was excessive. 

But I also think that even if we had priced games at "normal" rates, the core issue remains - there is more supply than there is demand, and that puts too much pressure on the need to sell multiple tickets to a small pool - where other major events have the opposite issue. 

It'll be interesting to see how they price the Ashes. I think it's fair that they put a premium on the games and don't give tickets away but by the same token, you don't want big blocks of empty seats in the central areas. Reasonable 'Rugby League price' for games like those (for adults) should be from £30 up to about £60 IMO. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Dave T said:

That's fair, but we also don't need to be too insecure that somebody grumbling about one match becomes something we still talk about months later. I have no time for Wilkin's opinions and try and forget about them instantly tbh!

True but he's just a good example of the sort of issue we face when compared to the Union guys, who make something that dull sound like the most exciting entertainment you'll ever see. I look at a guy like John Davidson in the written media as well and with friends like those, we certainly don't need enemies. 

  • Like 1
Posted
8 minutes ago, Stainesrover said:

I'm more interested in people's views on sponsorship, and why we cannot attract more sponsors than the 3 we currently have. NRL (I know is a different animal) have sponsors for instant replays for instance. Why can't we have more companies putting more money in. 

Quite simply, the demand isn't there. And there are likely to be plenty reasons for that, but I think we have a major issue in being squeezed out of the market. If you have a modest budget nowadays that youve decided to spend in sport, you probably have more options than ever with the emergence of women's sport for example.

I agree we are under performing, even against where we should be, but we are miles off what the potential is, and that will take a huge shift.

Posted
1 minute ago, WN83 said:

True but he's just a good example of the sort of issue we face when compared to the Union guys, who make something that dull sound like the most exciting entertainment you'll ever see. I look at a guy like John Davidson in the written media as well and with friends like those, we certainly don't need enemies. 

Can't disagree on Davidson.

But I would say that there is a hell of a lot of criticism of these sports by their own too.

I think we maybe take the criticism more personally in RL because we are under achieving and vulnerable. When Union pundits are critical, as a fan you can enjoy it and relax knowing there are 80k in London, 70k in Cardiff, 68k in Edinburgh and 50k in Dublin. We take it harder when we know we have 15k in Wigan and 300 in Gateshead.

I don't think we aren't selling because of people telling people RL is no good.

  • Like 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Hello said:

Sponsorship is almost universally directly proportional to the number of people who see it, that is the answer. Businesses are only willing to pay for the relative exposure, whether that is the number of people in the stadium or the number of people viewing on screens

To an extent that's true and there are clearly numbers at play, but there is also brand, prestige, history,  perception and loyalty and other softer measures that are important too.

And then we have other logical factors like geography and scheduling at play.

I don't feel like the game takes the whole picture seriously, and just stages some games and hopes some sponsors decide they like it.

Posted
16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Can't disagree on Davidson.

But I would say that there is a hell of a lot of criticism of these sports by their own too.

I think we maybe take the criticism more personally in RL because we are under achieving and vulnerable. When Union pundits are critical, as a fan you can enjoy it and relax knowing there are 80k in London, 70k in Cardiff, 68k in Edinburgh and 50k in Dublin. We take it harder when we know we have 15k in Wigan and 300 in Gateshead.

I don't think we aren't selling because of people telling people RL is no good.

All very true. The game getting it's act together with the internationals would have the biggest impact on us attracting sponsors IMO. Big companies aren't likely to see much benefit in sponsoring teams in towns like Wigan, Castleford and Huddersfield, especially when the games are hidden away on Sky (and not even the main channels much of the time) but if we had regular internationals, they may be interested in putting their name to an England national side, especially when those games are on terrestrial tv and even against Samoa, are pulling in decent numbers. If we could sort that aspect, you'd then like to think it would have a positive knock on effect on the sponsorship in the club game. 

  • Like 3
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, Dave T said:

To an extent that's true and there are clearly numbers at play, but there is also brand, prestige, history,  perception and loyalty and other softer measures that are important too.

And then we have other logical factors like geography and scheduling at play.

I don't feel like the game takes the whole picture seriously, and just stages some games and hopes some sponsors decide they like it.

Dave, you're a poster who I regard well and I'm sure that you understand my point. I particularly agree with your final paragraph, and that kind of completes the circle for me, aim low and you will reap low.

Edited by Hello
Posted
2 hours ago, Damien said:

Certainly not when that is coupled with playing the games at bog standard SL grounds.

The ones played at non bog standard SL grounds sold even fewer tickets (Boro, Coventry etc). 

Posted
31 minutes ago, Hello said:

Dave, you're a poster who I regard well and I'm sure that you understand my point. I particularly agree with your final paragraph, and that kind of completes the circle for me, aim low and you will reap low.

Aye, I don't think we were disagreeing, just adding more to the point on numbers.

  • Like 1
Posted
22 minutes ago, Eddie said:

The ones played at non bog standard SL grounds sold even fewer tickets (Boro, Coventry etc). 

Sort of, Australia at St Helens got half the crowd they did in Coventry.

That's pretty shocking.

Posted
7 hours ago, Eddie said:

That’s a cop out. 

Nonsense.  Advertisers know where to target their products and Land Rover etc and other multi nationals know it’s not a small (and ever shrinking) number of white, working class people in small, largely deprived towns in the north of England.  That’s why we end up with effin Mushy Peas and Foxy Bingo.  Simple.

  • Like 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, Dullish Mood said:

Nonsense.  Advertisers know where to target their products and Land Rover etc and other multi nationals know it’s not a small (and ever shrinking) number of white, working class people in small, largely deprived towns in the north of England.  That’s why we end up with effin Mushy Peas and Foxy Bingo.  Simple.

What was your previous TRL pseudonym? 

  • Like 3
Posted
43 minutes ago, Eddie said:

The ones played at non bog standard SL grounds sold even fewer tickets (Boro, Coventry etc). 

They both got more than the 5,586 and 7,752 crowds at Saints for fairly unappealing games.

I doubt many think Middlesbrough was a good selection anyway and kind of falls into Daves point.

Posted
2 hours ago, Dullish Mood said:

Nonsense.  Advertisers know where to target their products and Land Rover etc and other multi nationals know it’s not a small (and ever shrinking) number of white, working class people in small, largely deprived towns in the north of England.  That’s why we end up with effin Mushy Peas and Foxy Bingo.  Simple.

Don't forget, we had Bargain Booze as well!

Posted
6 hours ago, Gooleboy said:

Don't forget, we had Bargain Booze as well!

Nowt wrong with Bargain Booze, and the song The Girl from Bargain Booze is a classic. 

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Eddie said:

What was your previous TRL pseudonym? 

Edited - not worth it, but some of the returners really don’t do subtle.

Edited by gingerjon

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Posted

One of the things that I do find is a bit of a challenge for RL (on top of the other points already discussed) is that I think the passion and loyalty of the fanbase and media can be a strength, but I do also think it can quite quickly turn toxic, and if I'm honest, I find some of that comes from the Northern roots where we can often be harsh, self-deprecating, and have a habit of 'telling it as it is'.

I'm not sure that always creates a positive and welcoming environment for people to come into the game. 

A couple of instances here - and my examples are not meant as endorsements of the sponsorship deals in question.

1 - We know there are challenges around gambling sponsorship, so the leaders decided to take an alternative approach and turn down the betting company deal. The Stobart deal was born and offered something different, some visibility, but we gave away much less - the assets were broken down and the intent was to sell more various assets across the piece. Clearly it wasn't a brilliant deal, but it did show a leadership team that was attempting to shift from problem areas, and shift into a more modern area of sponsorship deals - however they were playing with a weak hand, and the offer was zero cash.

A key issue here is that despite the clubs agreeing to this and buying into it (and taking the hit on the £30-50k per year - pretty minimal really), the media and fans were queueing up to mock and bash the deal. It quite quickly became unsustainable and toxic. I don't think that would have helped sell ancillary sponsorships under that model, and can't help future negotiations when your title sponsor deal has been so battered by the fans and media.

2 - Papa Johns is another perfect example of the above. A perfectly reasonable deal that provided some food for some visibility in the grounds. The kind of deal that can be built upon if a success and you woo them as a full on partner. The fans, media, and then even the players mocked this one to death. Papa Johns were last seen sponsoring football and Rugby Union.

3 - We have numerous other examples - even in this thread Mushy Peas have been mocked numerous times, despite not even being a partner any more. Betfred get stick regularly. 

I do think there is a real toxicity at times in RL and we need to be really careful.

  • Like 8
Posted
10 hours ago, WN83 said:

All very true. The game getting it's act together with the internationals would have the biggest impact on us attracting sponsors IMO. Big companies aren't likely to see much benefit in sponsoring teams in towns like Wigan, Castleford and Huddersfield, especially when the games are hidden away on Sky (and not even the main channels much of the time) but if we had regular internationals, they may be interested in putting their name to an England national side, especially when those games are on terrestrial tv and even against Samoa, are pulling in decent numbers. If we could sort that aspect, you'd then like to think it would have a positive knock on effect on the sponsorship in the club game. 

Internationals are THE big stumbling block, not just because of the lack of them - RU whether you love or detest it has the World Cup, Six Nations and Autumn Internationals, where you know the dates, teams, format and good idea of who will be covering it fairly early. Then you have RL with a World Cup where you're unsure about the teams, unsure about how much mainstream media attention it will get and possibly unsure whether it will actually happen at all. Then you have the international scene outside the WC where it appears the Wheelchair teams are working harder to play more matches than the Men's do.

But also, the issue for me with RL is look WHO the nations being targeted are. RU's World Cup gets coverage in lots of rich or at least middling markets - UK, Australasia, North America, Japan, I'm sure mainland Europe is covered too.

What does RL have instead? Cook Islands with a worldwide community of roughly 120,000, Fiji Samoa and Tonga who are less than a million combined and Lebanon which is an economic basket case. Why is a blue-chip company going to want to invest in sponsorship for exposure in Rarotonga and Beirut when they can punp money into the other code and get viewers in L.A. and Tokyo?

  • Like 1
Posted
45 minutes ago, Dave T said:

2 - Papa Johns is another perfect example of the above. A perfectly reasonable deal that provided some food for some visibility in the grounds. The kind of deal that can be built upon if a success and you woo them as a full on partner. The fans, media, and then even the players mocked this one to death. Papa Johns were last seen sponsoring football and Rugby Union.

This is the one that gets me most. A decent deal for what it was, with a cash value that ran to thousands if you worked it out. And everyone lined up to take the mick.

  • Like 3

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Posted (edited)

Thinking outside the box here a bit, I admit.  Let's bring in a global organisation with a proven track record at this sort of thing, to provide the skill, ability, expertise, ideas, resources to enhance our excellence on the sporting front. Let's take a long term view, maybe even as long as 12 years. 

Let's make sure our top clubs have everything to appeal to the leading broadcasters, advertiser's, sponsors etc .Things like ...I don't know...maybe decent stadiums, with pitch-side advertising, big screens, decent broadcasting infrastructure, strong social media presence, may be a whole set of criteria to ensure clubs all meet the same high standards.

THen, let's deliver that as a much more appealing package to potential broadcasters, sponsors, etc .

Then let's get our fans, clubs, specialist media to try to sabotage it all...

Fantasy, I know.

Edited by JohnM
  • Haha 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.