Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 27/11/2024 at 19:30, Stainesrover said:

Having watched the Autumn series Rugby Union internationals over the last month, I couldn't help but notice the difference in sponsorship companies between League and Union.

Years ago RL had some very big blue chip companies sponsor the sport on so many levels, companies like ICI, British Coal, Gillette, Silk Cut and many Breweries/Alcohol etc.

I can't understand why our sport is so reliant on a small handful of people for sponsorship, the main one being Betfred. Otherwise it's slim pickings. 

Union seem to manage to get some serious money coming through many companies from many different spectrums, from Insurance, Betting, Vehicle companies. I'm sure in RL in the UK had a team of people to really go at it and knock on as many doors as possible to attract some sponsorship from companies. Fred Done is getting a cracking deal at the moment, Betfred (with Glens and ABK) are the only 3 companies that seem to be on show.

With the amount of coverage out sport now gets, with every game televised not only on SKY but free to air, I would say that there is plenty of eyes on our sport 

 

When you are primarily a sport played along the M62 corridor getting big name sponsors on board will always be a problem.

  • Like 1

Posted
4 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

We did in the 2000s/2010s though have the likes of Halifax Bank, Guinness, Gillette, Tetleys, Fly Emirates, Jet2, Stobart, Izuzu, JJB, Sainsbury's, P&O (questionable I know), Lloyds TSB (pre financial crisis), British Gas, The CoOp, Specsavers, Singha, Moss Bros, Highland Spring, Kelloggs, and more.

We clearly have an issue retaining sponsors - that is about value and/or it is about treatment. 

Totally agree 

Posted (edited)
30 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

When you are primarily a sport played along the M62 corridor getting big name sponsors on board will always be a problem.

M62, M5 or A34, eyes are eyes and someone who lives in Batley who needs car insurance will see the same sponsor as a Saracens fan. The state of Union at the moment is dreadful, clubs going under etc. we as a sport should be pouncing on the fact their sport is in decline. Every game is televised, their club game is on its knees, it's only internationals that are thriving, whereas we're the opposite. 

Edited by Stainesrover
Posted
8 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

We did in the 2000s/2010s though have the likes of Halifax Bank, Guinness, Gillette, Tetleys, Fly Emirates, Jet2, Stobart, Izuzu, JJB, Sainsbury's, P&O (questionable I know), Lloyds TSB (pre financial crisis), British Gas, The CoOp, Specsavers, Singha, Moss Bros, Highland Spring, Kelloggs, and more.

We clearly have an issue retaining sponsors - that is about value and/or it is about treatment. 

Who was in charge of our game then?

We could get more high profile sponsors onboard of that I'm convinced, but the RFL has to go and find them as they are not going to find us.

Posted
5 hours ago, The Future is League said:

Who was in charge of our game then?

We could get more high profile sponsors onboard of that I'm convinced, but the RFL has to go and find them as they are not going to find us.

Part of that is the changing scenery. There was no such thing as social media, smart phones or influencers for much of the past 30 years, certainly not in the same way as now. For a lot of brands, we just seem to have dropped off that staple list of corporate partnerships as others have become prioritised whilst different platforms emerge. The example for that could be Guinness or Gillette for example. 

  • Like 1
Posted
10 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Part of that is the changing scenery. There was no such thing as social media, smart phones or influencers for much of the past 30 years, certainly not in the same way as now. For a lot of brands, we just seem to have dropped off that staple list of corporate partnerships as others have become prioritised whilst different platforms emerge. The example for that could be Guinness or Gillette for example. 

It doesn't appear to me as though the RFL are trying to get former partners/sponsors back, but i could be wrong.

To me it seems that someone is sitting in an office at RFL HQ waiting for the phone to ring with a sponsor on the other end of the line.

Posted
16 hours ago, gingerjon said:

I may be being completely thick but I can't see a partners page or dedicated space on the RFL site.

There's only so many times you can show the BetFred logo before it gets a bit obvious

  • Haha 3
Posted
41 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Part of that is the changing scenery. There was no such thing as social media, smart phones or influencers for much of the past 30 years, certainly not in the same way as now. For a lot of brands, we just seem to have dropped off that staple list of corporate partnerships as others have become prioritised whilst different platforms emerge. The example for that could be Guinness or Gillette for example. 

I think one of the things we forget to an extent is that many of these sponsors were brought in when we had a more regular higher quality international game (in the UK). We saw even as recent as 2021 with the World Cup we signed up higher quality partners even along the m62. 

  • Like 3
Posted
9 hours ago, Stainesrover said:

M62, M5 or A34, eyes are eyes and someone who lives in Batley who needs car insurance will see the same sponsor as a Saracens fan. The state of Union at the moment is dreadful, clubs going under etc. we as a sport should be pouncing on the fact their sport is in decline. Every game is televised, their club game is on its knees, it's only internationals that are thriving, whereas we're the opposite. 

Unfortunately, the world doesn't work like or see things like that. Not every customer is equal. 

Football has mass appeal across all segments of society. That means brands can go for a huge range of people. RU, whilst much much smaller in terms of audience, is perceived as having a higher proportion of A B and C1s, to use the industry terms, and crucially is national across the UK. That means per head they are valuable customers able to pay more. 

The perception is of RL is almost the opposite. Regional, small audience, relatively lower income viewers. That's obviously not entirely true, but it is a perception that is hard to break and not one that is worth challenging to most advertisers who already have alternative ways of getting to those eyes that are on RL anyway. 

  • Like 2
Posted
2 minutes ago, Worzel said:

There's only so many times you can show the BetFred logo before it gets a bit obvious

To be fair, the fact that we don't have the logos of all the SL and England RL sponsors is pathetic. There are a range in there. And where we do have the England ones the have old ones and miss out current ones.

It's just poor quality execution, why on earth would a sponsor go near us with that shoddy approach?

When times are tough, you really need to uphold your standards.

  • Like 2
Posted
3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think one of the things we forget to an extent is that many of these sponsors were brought in when we had a more regular higher quality international game (in the UK). We saw even as recent as 2021 with the World Cup we signed up higher quality partners even along the m62. 

Oh absolutely, to add to a post I put before this, big internationals help us break out of the more limited perceptions.

  • Like 2
Posted
Just now, Tommygilf said:

Unfortunately, the world doesn't work like or see things like that. Not every customer is equal. 

Football has mass appeal across all segments of society. That means brands can go for a huge range of people. RU, whilst much much smaller in terms of audience, is perceived as having a higher proportion of A B and C1s, to use the industry terms, and crucially is national across the UK. That means per head they are valuable customers able to pay more. 

The perception is of RL is almost the opposite. Regional, small audience, relatively lower income viewers. That's obviously not entirely true, but it is a perception that is hard to break and not one that is worth challenging to most advertisers who already have alternative ways of getting to those eyes that are on RL anyway. 

Yep, that's not to say that RL doesn't have an appealing audience, we are overly harsh on ourselves in that area.

But, in reality, there are other sports that do what we do and do it better. We don't just have these floating numbers, they are competing against others.

A lot of sponsorships and corporates are about prestige and aspiration, and RL is weak in this area. We have one Wembley event, Old Trafford and St James. Outside of that it's not very prestigious. 

Other sports can appeal to the major companies in the major cities. We get offered football tickets a fair bit through work via hospitality partnerships, but being based in Edinburgh, or London, or Cardiff, or Birmingham, or Glasgow, or Dublin - or other important hubs, we don't appeal to those.

We've seen we can do well somewhere like Leeds, but that really is the only major city we are in.

  • Like 2
Posted
35 minutes ago, The Future is League said:

It doesn't appear to me as though the RFL are trying to get former partners/sponsors back, but i could be wrong.

To me it seems that someone is sitting in an office at RFL HQ waiting for the phone to ring with a sponsor on the other end of the line.

What do they have to sell? The Challenge Cup - great historic competition but from a corporate POV the only away day a sponsor could utilise in London is Wembley once a year?

The Grand Final? Well it's super league property but Manchester at least, again though it's just one day.

Internationals - no regularity, limited profile, often in small regional venues, can change on a whim...

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

To be fair, the fact that we don't have the logos of all the SL and England RL sponsors is pathetic. There are a range in there. And where we do have the England ones the have old ones and miss out current ones.

It's just poor quality execution, why on earth would a sponsor go near us with that shoddy approach?

When times are tough, you really need to uphold your standards.

No, that's very true, apologies for my flippancy!

When I had my training business I used to list all of the blue chip customer names on the back cover of our brochures, even if it was only some random junior admin assistant from HSBC who'd attended a one-day "time management" course, once. The idea being that the HR Director at another big bank might have thought we did far more than that for HSBC, and reach out to us to help. It's called "social proof"... people buy products (or sponsor things) that other people they respect already do. We ended up running the outsourcing of the entire (as was) Lloyds TSB external training spend. True story! 😆

 

  • Like 3
Posted
13 hours ago, The Future is League said:

When you are primarily a sport played along the M62 corridor getting big name sponsors on board will always be a problem.

The population of that corridor is similar to Australias 

Posted
7 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

The population of that corridor is similar to Australias 

Yeah if you ignore half to two thirds of Australia maybe

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted (edited)

Something else to add about the issue of "perception".

Firstly, internationals (again) - a major brand would love to get involved with the England RU team (current form notwithstanding) because they can proclaim "Company X - proud sponsor of England" and know they are getting double-figure televised matches every year, many on free-to-air, to show their logo.

That same company sponsoring the England RL team that goes completely AWOL for 2 years? Or when they do appear, instead of major markets like France, Australia, Italy etc. you instead are faced with convincing corporate hospitality to watch PNG and Samoa (after you've shown them where they are on a map).

Secondly, I remember the thread about Sport 24 (the cruise ship/airline sports channel) and people moaning about how the NRL was covered while Super League wasn't and how much of an injustice it all was. Again, to a casual watcher who knows little or nothing about RL, which sounds more "glamorous" - Wakefield v. Castleford or Melbourne v. Sydney?

Edited by MidlandsJohn
typos
  • Like 1
Posted
6 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Unfortunately, the world doesn't work like or see things like that. Not every customer is equal. 

Football has mass appeal across all segments of society. That means brands can go for a huge range of people. RU, whilst much much smaller in terms of audience, is perceived as having a higher proportion of A B and C1s, to use the industry terms, and crucially is national across the UK. That means per head they are valuable customers able to pay more. 

The perception is of RL is almost the opposite. Regional, small audience, relatively lower income viewers. That's obviously not entirely true, but it is a perception that is hard to break and not one that is worth challenging to most advertisers who already have alternative ways of getting to those eyes that are on RL anyway. 

Whose perception is that though? Maybe it’s RL fans’ perception of their own game, I’m not sure others think the same. 

Posted
3 hours ago, sweaty craiq said:

My error it’s greater than NSW and Queensland combined

Is it, over 13m? I suppose it’s how you define the M62 corridor. 

Posted
1 hour ago, Eddie said:

Is it, over 13m? I suppose it’s how you define the M62 corridor. 

 

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

Is it, over 13m? I suppose it’s how you define the M62 corridor. 

North west and Yorks/Humberside is 13m, add in NE and it’s 16m

Posted
3 minutes ago, sweaty craiq said:

 

North west and Yorks/Humberside is 13m, add in NE and it’s 16m

Woukd you say places like Blackburn and Burnley are in the M62 corridor though, or Rotherham or Stockport? I wouldn’t. 

Posted
8 hours ago, Tommygilf said:

Unfortunately, the world doesn't work like or see things like that. Not every customer is equal. 

Football has mass appeal across all segments of society. That means brands can go for a huge range of people. RU, whilst much much smaller in terms of audience, is perceived as having a higher proportion of A B and C1s, to use the industry terms, and crucially is national across the UK. That means per head they are valuable customers able to pay more. 

The perception is of RL is almost the opposite. Regional, small audience, relatively lower income viewers. That's obviously not entirely true, but it is a perception that is hard to break and not one that is worth challenging to most advertisers who already have alternative ways of getting to those eyes that are on RL anyway. 

💯 this ^^^^^ The end.

Posted
2 hours ago, Eddie said:

Woukd you say places like Blackburn and Burnley are in the M62 corridor though, or Rotherham or Stockport? I wouldn’t. 

Stockport was a founder member of the NU. Plenty from Burnley used to watch Keighley. Is Keighley in the corridor btw

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.