Discussions from Sports Marketing Professionals

Hi Matt, Thank you for reading the article and for your comment. The data we see here of UK participation shows us that there is always a spike after the Olympics (the survey is in October each year) but that drops off the year afterwards. What we want to see (and work with Governing Bodies to achieve) is continued growth throughout the Olympic 4 year cycle. A 49% increase in searches is fantastic. The important thing is to ensure that the interest from that spike is captured, along with the data required to correctly profile the individual and understand their needs. 'Customer' pathways need to be built to deliver relevant communications to convert the interest into participation and maintain the relationship so that you know for sure whether they go on to join a team or not.
Started by Sophie Morris.
While I can understand why various sponsors have distanced themselves or cut ties with Maria Sharapova, I don’t believe that it will be difficult for her to rebuild her career. The reason being is that the substance in question was taken for genuine reasons, which Sharapova has not hidden. It’s a substance used by many people in general population in Russia to treat lack of blood flow to parts of the body, which is not uncommon. I may be giving her the benefit of the doubt, but given that this substance wasn’t on the banned list until earlier this year tells me that Sharapova did not engage in an illegal activity that undermined the integrity of the sport. Brands need to be seen as taking a zero-tolerence approach to doping, so I understand the reaction. However, Sharapova has built up a very strong personal brand that is not linked to her performances on the tennis court. As such, I can see her rebuilding with different type brands that are more in line with her career as a model. It’s important to note that my opinion is based on the information that is currently available so I’m prepared to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Started by Christian Radnedge.
Hi Rupert, good to hear from you! It's definitely a destination advertising event and I think the only thing like it we see in the UK is the big retailer Christmas ads. The use of social media to launch trailers and teasers, and to interact live whilst the game is out is really very good. I interacted with a couple of advertisers during the Super Bowl who replied within minutes with a (seemingly) personal reply. That's very impressive and I'm interested to see how they translate that away from the buzz of the moment, to brand awareness, brand preference and sales in the longer term. However, given the levels of spend and resource poured into social engagement I still feel that the majority of ads lacked the tools to create a longer term connection, rather than just a moment of social media buzz, compared to previous years. I'd love to see some stats around it. If I find anything, I'll share it on here.
Started by Sophie Morris.
David, maybe it is because you ask the question to which everyone is still seeking the answer - this is the holy grail of sports commerce, isn't it. I can imagine that this whole area causes distress amongst the Finance Directors of professional Sports Teams and Federations as their Commercial colleagues will put a good case for spending money in this area but there doesn't seem to be a financial return on the investment yet!
Started by J. David Jones.
Did anybody see Paddy Power's follow-up at Anfield on the weekend? A statue of Moyes with the plaque: "For services to Liverpool Football Club."
Started by Steve Moorhouse.
Mourinho has a unique image and he knows it. Incredibly smart, he uses his image and popularity perfectly, and whatever he does and says trigger attention and a definite value to the league. He is a marketable icon similar to any global football player.
Started by Steve Moorhouse.
One of the problems with libel law is that it is very unpredictable. I remember years ago that a boating magazine ran a picture of a guy testing his outboard motor on a jetty. The caption ran something along the lines of "Joe Bloggs tries to steal jetty". The man sued for defamation and won. It really was mad. The question, in terms of libel should be whether KP's reputation was damaged? If it was absolutely clear to everyone that it was a joke and didn't put his integrity in doubt, then it is not libel. If, as seems the case, it was decided that it could be interpreted as suggesting that he is a cheat, then it is libelous and his case was strong. It would be a shame if advertisers can't use humour, or even send up celebrities, but really they should have thought about this a bit more carefully.
Started by Steve Moorhouse.
A very old and sterile argument. The Premier League Clubs are not short of revenue, they just have a cost base which is too high (which is a topic for a different discussion). If The FA paid clubs for the use of players, would the parties involved ever agree values - would they have paid the same for Wayne Rooney and Kevin Davies? The FA probably earns most of its revenue from The FA Cup competition rather than the England team. As The FA is a not for profit organisation, it doesn't keep any money itself, and gives it away to the football community. Firstly it provides income, including prize money, for everyone involved in The FA Cup. The biggest recipients of this income tend to be Premier League teams as they usually progress furthest in the competition. The FA, like the Premier League, also invests huge amounts into grass roots football. This can be classified as football investing back into its own product to maintain interest in the game now and in future years. So if The FA paid money directly to Premier League clubs which of this expenditure would you suggest they reduce or stop? Also remember that now only 38% of Premier League players are English, are you going to suggest that all countries pay Premier League clubs when players represent their countries? The English FA have the good grace to insure players against injury when they are on international duty - not something that many countries do. Maybe the problem is that, in England, the national team and the professional leagues are managed by different organisations. If they were all under one organisation perhaps there wouldn't be any "us and them"?
Started by Steven Falk.
This AIBA Youth World Boxing Championships Yerevan 2012 is already the tenth AIBA competition we streamed through AIBAboxingtv.com and we will carry on this way in the next years. We are delighted to witness how passionate boxing fans are and it is AIBA’s mission to bring the sport of boxing to the widest audience possible.
Started by Edward Rangsi.
It seems negative feedback has caused a re-think. Mayor Bloomberg has said:"We would not want a cloud to hang over the race or its participants, and so we have decided to cancel it. We cannot allow a controversy over an athletic event - even one as meaningful as this - to distract attention away from all the critically-important work that is being done to recover from the storm and get our city back on track." Is this the correct decision?
Started by Colin Robinson.
Not sure that is quite true Colin. Worthington took over from Coke in 1998 and (from memory) did 5 seasons. Subsequent to that Carling (part of same brewing stable at the time) took over and did the following 9 seasons up until this one. To me that is relatively low churn over 14 years. I think the point is that relevant activation is always required and needs to be even more compelling and work harder in relatively low consumer interest categories such as financial services or insurance when compared to more "glamorous" and eceryday relevant sectors such as beer or soft drinks. Following on from 9 seasons of Carling (who prior to that had 10 seasons on the Premiership so are a football sponsor heavyweight) Capital One are probably quite sensibly taking their time to build awareness before plunging too headlong with the chequebook into activation. They have time and money on their side so can probably afford to let Carling's name naturally wane in year 1.
Started by Steven Falk.
I think Nike is looking at the bigger picture and trying to cash in on larger than life persona of Lance Armstrong which has gained further traction due to Livestrong. Its more a case of cause related association for Nike than utilizing Lance Armstong as an official brand ambassador.
Started by Steven Falk.
Much of it comes down to the products and giving people what they want, the fans love the pies, which are made locally, and supporters also asked us to serve local Harvey’s beer. In addition to the product, we also have different offers to entice fans in early or to stay later at the stadium. We also encourage fans to get to the stadium early or remain behind afterwards with club TV content in the concourses – including extended highlights within ten minutes of the final whistle. For the tickets, we have around 22,000 season ticket holders, but that still leaves a few thousand match-to-match tickets, so we offer special match packs, where we group games together. We use a range of marketing initiatives, including utilising our customer database to send emails, SMS messages to make supporters aware of what is on offer and we also back this up with online and traditional offline advertising and PR."
Started by Edward Rangsi.
Presumably he can only be promoted as a very successful charity worker and not as a bona fide sports star?
Started by Steven Falk.
  • «
  •  Start 
  •  Prev 
  •  1 
  •  2 
  •  3 
  •  4 
  •  5 
  •  6 
  •  Next 
  •  End 
  • »
superload.me filesmonster