: Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:47 pm  

A hot topic eh?

We have to start from where we are, not where we think we should be. Small beer is better than no beer, it will give us some exposure, and given the lack of a CEO I pleased we have got a sponsor. No one knows the details so I will withold my opinion but it is proactive. I am normally a supporter of Gutterfax, and this may be a bad move, and I agree that we we should be sorting out the back-office but I will put this down as a step forward albeit a little one, and back Gutterfax in his general line of march re the direction of the club.

Bring on the Pies, I am feeling peckish!

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:49 pm  

ExiledFromHull wrote:

LISTER

Thats a crap answer!

If i had 50k to sponsor a club - who would i sponsor, Quins or Saints

Answer me why i would choose one over the other.

(Note: Saints are also 'a professional sports club at the top of our sport with exposure to thousands every single week, sometimes tens of thousands on the television'............so why would i give it to Quins?)

I love your little demands Considering Saints already have a main shirt sponsor I would choose Quins.

How is it a crap answer btw? A business wouldn't want thousands of people seeing their logo on a weekly basis?

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:52 pm  

LISTER

Youre assumptions that sponsors simply look for blank shirts is laughable!

At last count, i think West Brom, Aston Villa and for a chunk of the season West Ham had no sponsor.

So why werent Sponsors jumping at that chance? They get a hell of a lot more coverage than Quins RL, always have, always will!

How about you walk before you run in your expectations.

I work in sports marketing, its my job.
I know exactly why people wont sponsor Quins RL.
I know exactly why this has happened and why St Marys is a decent (but not perfect) tie up.

If a sponsor has 50k and is guaranteed to be known by 50'000 active fans, or 5000 active fans - i know which i'd choose!
(Thats the difference between Saints and Quins - and to a sponsor, those are the types of figures that matter!)

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 5:56 pm  

ExiledFromHull wrote:

LISTER

Youre assumptions that sponsors simply look for blank shirts is laughable!

At last count, i think West Brom, Aston Villa and for a chunk of the season West Ham had no sponsor.

So why werent Sponsors jumping at that chance? They get a hell of a lot more coverage than Quins RL, always have, always will!

How about you walk before you run in your expectations.

I work in sports marketing, its my job.
I know exactly why people wont sponsor Quins RL.
I know exactly why this has happened and why St Marys is a decent (but not perfect) tie up.

Deary me. This is unbelievable. You work in sports marketing? Honestly?

Can you please therefore explain to me why anyone has sponsored us before in the past? Why are businesses wasting their money sponsoring Super League sides?

Of course premiership football clubs get more exposure, what a ridiculous comparison, but so they should considering the cost of such sponsorship is so much more.

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:05 pm  

Health warning: This isn't an opinion it's a question.

Don't Leeds Met Carnegie sponsor Leeds and the Challenge Cup? How is St Mary's less of a sponsor?

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:08 pm  

Why did people sponsor Quins in the past

1 - the Obvious attempt to buy into the Aussie community in a RL backwater. (FOSTERS) and link up with the Brisbane Broncos to facilitate such a venture is alluring to any marketeer.

2 - the 'Novelty' factor and chance of making a bigger impact for the money invested (Note the extra interest in Celtics and Catalans got/get)
Extra mentions and extra 'novelty' means a bigger audience. Bigger Audience from a team with lower 'sponsorship' expectations means value for every pound spent

3 - The better financial climate where marketing/sponsorship budgets were readily available for such activity to sponsor a 'team sport' which faciltates Corporate Social Responsibility.

4 - All your sponors have had a link to what you do and see the obvious 'link up' Branson used this as extra 'Virgin' territory, Fosters piggy backed off the clear Aussie link up.

5 - Success at International level has hampered all clubs, and lack of international stars has meant even 'personal' tie ups to club and player are limited at Quins. E.g. Leeds Permanent could use Rob Burrow, Lee Smith, Jamie Peacock in a Marketing campaign and have an immediate impact in the locality to promote the brand. Quins however have no one to use, which makes the use of 'brand ambassadors limited'

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:10 pm  

joeo wrote:

Health warning: This isn't an opinion it's a question.

Don't Leeds Met Carnegie sponsor Leeds and the Challenge Cup? How is St Mary's less of a sponsor?

Leeds Met Carnegie are not the main shirt sponsor of Leeds.

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:11 pm  

ExiledFromHull wrote:

Why did people sponsor Quins in the past

1 - the Obvious attempt to buy into the Aussie community in a RL backwater. (FOSTERS) and link up with the Brisbane Broncos to facilitate such a venture is alluring to any marketeer.

2 - the 'Novelty' factor and chance of making a bigger imp
act for the money invested (Note the extra interest in Celtics and Catalans got/get)
Extra mentions and extra 'novelty' means a bigger audience. Bigger Audience from a team with lower 'sponsorship' expectations means value for every pound spent

3 - The better financial climate where marketing/sponsorship budgets were readily available for such activity to sponsor a 'team sport' which faciltates Corporate Social Responsibility.

4 - All your sponors have had a link to what you do and see the obvious 'link up' Branson used this as extra 'Virgin' territory, Fosters piggy backed off the clear Aussie link up.

5 - Success at International level has hampered all clubs, and lack of international stars has meant even 'personal' tie ups to club and player are limited at Quins. E.g. Leeds Permanent could use Rob Burrow, Lee Smith, Jamie Peacock in a Marketing campaign and have an immediate impact in the locality to promote the brand. Quins however have no one to use, which makes the use of 'brand ambassadors limited'

Bartercard?

Why are businesses wasting their money sponsoring Super League sides?

Of course premiership football clubs get more exposure, what a ridiculous comparison, but so they should considering the cost of such sponsorship is so much more.

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:12 pm  

Sorry - dont understand last post from you Lister?

Are you asking why Bartercard are involved?

: Wed Feb 25, 2009 6:17 pm  

ExiledFromHull wrote:

Sorry - dont understand last post from you Lister?

Are you asking why Bartercard are involved?

I'm asking what band they fit into.

And also still asking why Leeds Building Society, P&O Ferries, The Trafford Centre, Vestas and Parasol (for example) are wasting their money?