Sponsorship next season

[Rebel]

the ban on photographers at St Marys will surely affect our chances of getting a 'big' sponsor next season

 

what's the point of paying to have your logo or brand on the front of the teams shirt when its hardly ever going to be seen by a wider audience due to the ban on photographers at St Mary's

 

sure it will be seen by those at St Marys, and on the website and probably in the local paper - but national exposure will be very limited

 

Someone might tempted to sponsor the away shirts - ut only at a knock down price though

 

from a commercial or marketing point of view the ban on photographers seems to be a very strange decision

 

perhaps we'll have to get different sponsors for the home and away shirts - or donate it to charity like Barcelona!

 

Sounds to me like someone made a very stupide decision - and doesn't have the strength of character to admit it was a mistake and revoke the decision

[benjii]

Maybe it's an experiment and next year, when it matters, it will be reviewed.

[SO16_Saint]

we will have a sponsor next year and we will allow photographers in - of that im certain

[Matthew Le God]

You forgot the biggest exposure = TV. Highlights on BBC1, BBC website, Sky, Sky website etc etc

 

Which a photo ban doesn't impact on.

 

Saints hired this guy as new head of sales and marketing...

 

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10280~2096187,00.html

 

Until now, Scott has been the Marketing and Commercial Domain Leader for TEAM Marketing, based in Lucerne, Switzerland. TEAM Marketing is the exclusive marketing agent for UEFA's club football competitions, including the Champions League. This has involved sales for all the major UEFA competitions and strategic counsel to the major sponsors such as Nike, Toyota, Banco Santander and Canon, plus the creation of pan-European marketing initiatives.

 

He would have more than enough contacts to get a good deal for Saints, and any new shirt sponsor will be fully aware they won't be getting coverage in the local Carlisle paper.

[Fan The Flames]

You forgot the biggest exposure = TV. Highlights on BBC1, BBC website, Sky, Sky website etc etc

 

Which a photo ban doesn't impact on.

 

Saints hired this guy as new head of sales and marketing...

 

http://www.saintsfc.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0,,10280~2096187,00.html

 

Until now, Scott has been the Marketing and Commercial Domain Leader for TEAM Marketing, based in Lucerne, Switzerland. TEAM Marketing is the exclusive marketing agent for UEFA's club football competitions, including the Champions League. This has involved sales for all the major UEFA competitions and strategic counsel to the major sponsors such as Nike, Toyota, Banco Santander and Canon, plus the creation of pan-European marketing initiatives.

 

He would have more than enough contacts to get a good deal for Saints, and any new shirt sponsor will be fully aware they won't be getting coverage in the local Carlisle paper.

 

But who owns Sky, the same geezer that owns The Sun, so that leaves 20 secs of BBC coverage. Also I doubt that Scott bloke will be able to pull of a sponsorship of the type you have mentioned.

[Torrent Of Abuse]

I wonder if the lack of a shirt sponsor is because we had already planned to limit media access to St. Marys and suspected this would cause the sort of stink that we've seen. I expect a shirt sponsor would be making a lot of noise about lack of exposure if we had one right now and that would make Cortese's position significantly tougher.

[lambertsrightleg]

there isn't a ban on photographers is there? i thought it was just plymouths photographers who had applied late for their licence to take photos inside sms?

[benjii]

there isn't a ban on photographers is there? i thought it was just plymouths photographers who had applied late for their licence to take photos inside sms?

 

We are, apparently, not granting accreditation to any photographers other than our own appointed ones.

[Pedro]

Perfect get out for the media ban is if a new manager (a strong O'Neill type) makes it a condition of accepting the job stating that he wants them on board.

[Wes Tender]

There are several aspects of advertising apart from just that around the pitch. The photographic ban on photographers from the newspapers will have minimal affect, as in this division we get hardly any exposure of coverage with photographs anyway. Even then, an image of players might well have sharp focus on the subject matter and the background of the adverts is just a blur. Furthermore, those advertising around the pitch have to hope that an incident worthy of a photograph has their advert visible behind it. No, most of the pitch side advertising is done to get the name in front of 20,000 or so people who attend the matches and the products and services are those that might be used by them locally.

 

Shirt sponsorship? Well, most would say that it was a masterstroke to have no sponsor this year, as sales of the special edition anniversary shirt have broken all records.

 

Stadium naming? Well that is up for grabs if somebody offers a good price for it and that sort of sponsorship is totally unaffected by the photography ban.

 

The biggest fillip for companies advertising themselves in football is the exposure they get on national TV. Now, it has been suggested that because Rupert Murdoch also owns the Sun, he will feel disinclined to televise matches involving us with Sky. I don't believe it. Sky's policies will be based purely on how attractive the match is commercially to its viewers and if we are high-flyers, they will feature us, sometimes against lowly opposition, hoping for an upset. You can bet your bottom dollar that we won't be hearing the commentator calling us "the South Coast Club" as the idiot Sun journalists do.

 

If we are successful, the media will show us on TV and write more in the press. Ditto, the more successful we are, the more revenue we will be able to generate through sponsorship, advertising and corporate hospitality.

 

This young guy in charge of our marketing seems a bright spark, well-connected and well qualified. I'm sure he knows what he is doing and that Cortese will take his advice as an expert in that field.

[CB Fry]

There are several aspects of advertising apart from just that around the pitch. The photographic ban on photographers from the newspapers will have minimal affect, as in this division we get hardly any exposure of coverage with photographs anyway. Even then, an image of players might well have sharp focus on the subject matter and the background of the adverts is just a blur. Furthermore, those advertising around the pitch have to hope that an incident worthy of a photograph has their advert visible behind it. No, most of the pitch side advertising is done to get the name in front of 20,000 or so people who attend the matches and the products and services are those that might be used by them locally.

 

Shirt sponsorship? Well, most would say that it was a masterstroke to have no sponsor this year, as sales of the special edition anniversary shirt have broken all records.

 

Stadium naming? Well that is up for grabs if somebody offers a good price for it and that sort of sponsorship is totally unaffected by the photography ban.

 

The biggest fillip for companies advertising themselves in football is the exposure they get on national TV. Now, it has been suggested that because Rupert Murdoch also owns the Sun, he will feel disinclined to televise matches involving us with Sky. I don't believe it. Sky's policies will be based purely on how attractive the match is commercially to its viewers and if we are high-flyers, they will feature us, sometimes against lowly opposition, hoping for an upset. You can bet your bottom dollar that we won't be hearing the commentator calling us "the South Coast Club" as the idiot Sun journalists do.

 

If we are successful, the media will show us on TV and write more in the press. Ditto, the more successful we are, the more revenue we will be able to generate through sponsorship, advertising and corporate hospitality.

 

This young guy in charge of our marketing seems a bright spark, well-connected and well qualified. I'm sure he knows what he is doing and that Cortese will take his advice as an expert in that field.

 

 

The ban on photographers isn't a commercial decision, and wasn't taken for commercial reasons, and wasn't taken on the advice on some bright spark from Marketing.

 

One of the first rules of marketing is about "reach" and getting your brand/product in as many faces as possible as efficiently as possible. Intentially withdrawing your "brand" from circulation does not benefit said brand in any meaningful way, especially when said brand is L1 no-mark team every national media outlet can live without for at least two more years. We might be "successful", but the Sun/whoever can run six lines on us every Monday all season with no effect on their circulation. If it were last season, we'd be getting full pages with photos. Oh well.

 

Our marketing bright spark is clearly some kind of genius and will soon be off to Man United or Chelsea as these two, along with every other club in the country haven't followed our revolutionary way of thinking. They must have right thickos in their marketing departments what with us having the expert in his field......

[JRM]

talking of sponsorship and the new shirt, have they got any more stock in at the club shop or has that all been forgotten about now?

[Scummer]

Our marketing bright spark is clearly some kind of genius and will soon be off to Man United or Chelsea as these two, along with every other club in the country haven't followed our revolutionary way of thinking. They must have right thickos in their marketing departments what with us having the expert in his field......

 

Not sure he's even started yet. If he has, it was only this week.

[Topcat]

The ban on photographers isn't a commercial decision, and wasn't taken for commercial reasons, and wasn't taken on the advice on some bright spark from Marketing.

 

One of the first rules of marketing is about "reach" and getting your brand/product in as many faces as possible as efficiently as possible. Intentially withdrawing your "brand" from circulation does not benefit said brand in any meaningful way, especially when said brand is L1 no-mark team every national media outlet can live without for at least two more years. We might be "successful", but the Sun/whoever can run six lines on us every Monday all season with no effect on their circulation. If it were last season, we'd be getting full pages with photos. Oh well.

 

Our marketing bright spark is clearly some kind of genius and will soon be off to Man United or Chelsea as these two, along with every other club in the country haven't followed our revolutionary way of thinking. They must have right thickos in their marketing departments what with us having the expert in his field......

 

Far too much sense in here. To reduce the value of our image to a future sponsor ranks amongst the dumbest act any company could do. Right up there with Ratner's "a sandwich is better value than what we sell" remark.

[Rebel]

I'm not convinced that someone who worked for UEFA wil necessarily have the right experience and contacts to market a club in the old English first division.

 

Our TV coverage is minimal (league football show highlights and very occassional SKY games) and the audience for it is pretty much the same as that which uses the Saints website, reads the Echo or attends the games - the active supporter base

 

it's the national newspapers that give us the widest audience and reach

 

unless we are in the premier league we are never going to compete for media coverage with the big clubs such as Chelsea, Arsenal, Man Utd - but it still seems counter productive to restrict the reach of our brand - or that of a sponsor by restricitng photographers from the national press and other local papers

 

to be honest I don't watch Match of the Day anymore - nor live football on SKY - only the highlights of Saints games on iPlayer - and the only reason I can tell you that Tombola sponsor Sunderland is because I saw a picture in the paper with a match report

[Legod Third Coming]

If that guy worked for TEAM and was any good there, he will be fine for us. We laud their approach to rights management as about the most effective sponsorhip case study anywhere. When I worked in racing, my guvnors used to bang on about us operating like the Champion's League... we would have done too, if they had as much balls as they do brains, but that's a story for a beer not an internet forum.

[LVSaint]

I used to work for SIS in Guildford which was a part of TEAM over a decade ago. T'was fun. We watched UCL games all day checking for sponsorship spots. Maybe I should have got the job. Meh.

[CB Fry]

If that guy worked for TEAM and was any good there, he will be fine for us. We laud their approach to rights management as about the most effective sponsorhip case study anywhere. When I worked in racing, my guvnors used to bang on about us operating like the Champion's League... we would have done too, if they had as much balls as they do brains, but that's a story for a beer not an internet forum.

 

 

Hmmm. I work in FMCG Brand Marketing and we all laud what Coca-cola can do in terms of distribution and awareness. We can strive for it, and we can take the principles from it but my brand despite being pretty famous is never going to be Coke.

 

One of the assets football club "brand" has in its credit column is acres and acres and acres of free advertising, locally and nationally. Very low cost, very high value. That is the kind of PR coverage that money literally cannot buy.

 

Walking away from that for control, or for "profit" is simply not a very bright strategy.

 

We are not the Champions League. We are not any league.

 

Anyway, I think we all know this is not a commercial decision or part of a commercial strategy, so it's a bit of a redundant argument. It's about a control thing driven by pettiness and paranoia. Maybe our new marketing hotshot will set him straight.

[Legod Third Coming]

Hmmm. I work in FMCG Brand Marketing and we all laud what Coca-cola can do in terms of distribution and awareness. We can strive for it, and we can take the principles from it but my brand despite being pretty famous is never going to be Coke.

 

One of the assets football club "brand" has in its credit column is acres and acres and acres of free advertising, locally and nationally. Very low cost, very high value. That is the kind of PR coverage that money literally cannot buy.

 

Walking away from that for control, or for "profit" is simply not a very bright strategy.

 

We are not the Champions League. We are not any league.

 

Anyway, I think we all know this is not a commercial decision or part of a commercial strategy, so it's a bit of a redundant argument. It's about a control thing driven by pettiness and paranoia. Maybe our new marketing hotshot will set him straight.

 

True for most people in our situation. But CB we don't even NEED a sponsor...

I read a good article in Director recently which said the best way to be a big company was to act like one...

 

Hell, I'm no marketing guru, but if Cortese is thinking big, it can't be all bad. And if you want your brand to be Coke, maybe you should PM me some time!

[CB Fry]

True for most people in our situation. But CB we don't even NEED a sponsor...

I read a good article in Director recently which said the best way to be a big company was to act like one...

 

Hell, I'm no marketing guru, but if Cortese is thinking big, it can't be all bad. And if you want your brand to be Coke, maybe you should PM me some time!

 

Fair enough, I'm all for thinking big - but thinking big is acting smart, and I'd say picking fights with your closest media partner is not thinking big, it's pettiness driven by insecurity.

 

The club could sweat the Echo far more effectively by working with them, rather than picking silly fights based on perceived slights. And to be honest that goes for the nationals as well - there's a great story happening at SFC which could be leveraged*.

 

But it aint going to be leveraged by narrow-mindedly thinking "if they want us, come to the official site, we've got photos and everything".

Edited 3 September, 2010 by CB Fry
*fair to say the story has got less great recently, from a PR point of view anyway.

[marc_saint]

Maybe it's not going to be an issue if we're gonna have MALI as our sponsors?

[aintforever]

If the situation stays the same the photographer ban will only mean we get less money in sponsorship/advertising revenue - that is screamingly obvious to anyone who knows anything about advertising.

[dobbo]

I think it will be "THE SUN" next year sponsoring us with all the publicity they are giving us at the moment!!!!!!!!!!!

[John Smith]

Fair enough, I'm all for thinking big - but thinking big is acting smart, and I'd say picking fights with your closest media partner is not thinking big, it's pettiness driven by insecurity.

 

The club could sweat the Echo far more effectively by working with them, rather than picking silly fights based on perceived slights. And to be honest that goes for the nationals as well - there's a great story happening at SFC which could be leveraged*.

 

But it aint going to be leveraged by narrow-mindedly thinking "if they want us, come to the official site, we've got photos and everything".

 

lmao! This is very funny. I understand now why you talk in cliché's. FMCG's and football are totally different animals. What works for coke does not necessarily work for a league 1 club, but I guess you know that. I'm sure you also know that 'South Coast Club' had the largest column inches on Wednesday compared to all our league 1 competitors. You would have also noticed that there were no pictures of 'any' of the Tuesday night match reports, not one. On sunday, let's both have a look at how many pictures, including sposors, make it into the NofTW or the Mail on Sunday, and let's evaluate how much it affects advertising.

 

I'm not saying the decision to ban photographers is good, what I am saying is that it's not as bad as you are making it out to be. I get your approach to the situation, but, the impact is minor. Compare this to the decision to revoke that strategy next season, hopefully when we are in the CCC, and let's see if we get a 'special' deal with one of the nationals? Also, whilst we're in League 1, let's not over play our advertising capabilities, they are minor, particularly when not on TV, and when we are on TV, the viewing public of League 1 games is minute when you take out the supporting team's fans and target the casual football watcher.

 

A photograpeher ban at SMS is not catastrophic, it just isn't. Maybe it was the wrong decision, but, ok, let's see what happens, believe it or not, it won;t kill us this season, will it? Come on, if you work in advertising you know I'm right, Saints will not be financially devastated by having an external phtographic ban in the ground this season.

 

So, let's be careful not to be overly critical. If you disagree with NC, that's ok, you are entitled to disagree, but really, do we have to blow it out of all proportion? The OP might have a case for shirt sponsors being shy in coming forward for next season, but, who made our shirts this season? UMBRO? Also, I'm sure this new guy will have some kind of enducement to encourage shirt sponsors for next year. In fact, don't be surprised if it's not a ver lucrative deal, but, I'm guessing we need to be in the CCC, and if we are, the sponsor deal on the shirts will be for at least 2 years, hoping we will get into the Prem in 1 try. Now, what shirt sponsor wouldn't want that, just look at Blackpool's coverage, think of the TV hours Saints will get if they get double promotions.

 

Now, let's calm down, enjoy the season, support the saints and get some perspective, a ban on external photographers has not been THAT detremental so far, which ever way you spin it, it just hasn't.

[Windmill Arm 2]

Who cares???? what a pants thread..........

[Wes Tender]

lmao! This is very funny. I understand now why you talk in cliché's. FMCG's and football are totally different animals. What works for coke does not necessarily work for a league 1 club, but I guess you know that. I'm sure you also know that 'South Coast Club' had the largest column inches on Wednesday compared to all our league 1 competitors. You would have also noticed that there were no pictures of 'any' of the Tuesday night match reports, not one. On sunday, let's both have a look at how many pictures, including sposors, make it into the NofTW or the Mail on Sunday, and let's evaluate how much it affects advertising.

 

I'm not saying the decision to ban photographers is good, what I am saying is that it's not as bad as you are making it out to be. I get your approach to the situation, but, the impact is minor. Compare this to the decision to revoke that strategy next season, hopefully when we are in the CCC, and let's see if we get a 'special' deal with one of the nationals? Also, whilst we're in League 1, let's not over play our advertising capabilities, they are minor, particularly when not on TV, and when we are on TV, the viewing public of League 1 games is minute when you take out the supporting team's fans and target the casual football watcher.

 

A photograpeher ban at SMS is not catastrophic, it just isn't. Maybe it was the wrong decision, but, ok, let's see what happens, believe it or not, it won;t kill us this season, will it? Come on, if you work in advertising you know I'm right, Saints will not be financially devastated by having an external phtographic ban in the ground this season.

 

So, let's be careful not to be overly critical. If you disagree with NC, that's ok, you are entitled to disagree, but really, do we have to blow it out of all proportion? The OP might have a case for shirt sponsors being shy in coming forward for next season, but, who made our shirts this season? UMBRO? Also, I'm sure this new guy will have some kind of enducement to encourage shirt sponsors for next year. In fact, don't be surprised if it's not a ver lucrative deal, but, I'm guessing we need to be in the CCC, and if we are, the sponsor deal on the shirts will be for at least 2 years, hoping we will get into the Prem in 1 try. Now, what shirt sponsor wouldn't want that, just look at Blackpool's coverage, think of the TV hours Saints will get if they get double promotions.

 

Now, let's calm down, enjoy the season, support the saints and get some perspective, a ban on external photographers has not been THAT detremental so far, which ever way you spin it, it just hasn't.

 

Thanks for posting that John; I just couldn't be arsed frankly. As you say, its all been blown way out of proportion. But when you are trying to gain some perspective and you are up against statements like this:-

 

The ban on photographers isn't a commercial decision, and wasn't taken for commercial reasons,

 

then you know that there is little point in arguing the toss against somebody who knows exactly what Cortese is thinking or what his motives are.

 

As Windmill says, who cares. Apart from some who wish to impress others with how important their contribution is, based on their intimate knowledge of the advertising industry. But as you rightly point out, John, there is little connection with the sort of brands like McDonalds and Coca Cola and a football club and there are several strands to it crossing over from advertising, publicity, sponsorship, promotions, corporate hospitality, merchandising, etc. I wonder if CB has expertise in all of those fields too and can therefore assess accurately what the effect would be of a policy on one sector towards the others.

 

The most important factor affecting all of those, is success on the pitch, not some petty little squabble with the local rag or a red top comic. As many others have pointed out, we have gained more publicity from this than we otherwise would have had it not happened.