Re: Stobart Saints Truck : Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:07 pm  

FearTheVee wrote:

You have no idea how it will play out, whether it could attract new fans or not, what it will do for awareness of the sport etc.

If your argument is about the lost cash, .......

My point is a simple one...

It's what it says on the side of the truck. - "Watch it on Sky on Friday evening" What could be simpler?

The objective of this advertising is plain for anyone who is capable of reading that straight forward simple one line - "Watch it on Sky on Friday evening"

If the objective was to boost the gate then it would say someting like "come along for the real live RL experience".

The clue is on the side of the truck.

There could be ll kinds of unintended outcomes of this, it might even cause the martians to invade. But the intention is not in doubt - "Watch it on Sky on Friday evening"

Re: Stobart Saints Truck : Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:14 pm  

Donkey OTay wrote:

That's bollox, if it was about attracting more fans to the game that's what it would say on the side of the trucks. It doesn't, it says in big letters... watch it on Sky.

Don't you think that if there's more people watching the game on SKY they're also a greater likelihood of them attending a game? It worked with football.

Re: Stobart Saints Truck : Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:16 pm  

Watch it on tv, get a taste for it, adopt a team, buy the merchandise, eventually attend.

Re: Stobart Saints Truck : Mon Jan 30, 2012 4:23 pm  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

Ronald Teeman ex RFL president

Perhaps we should point out that RFL president is not really an executive role is it? Given the choice between going with his opinions or those of the clubs and Richard Lewis I'm more inclined to side with them than Teeman lol.

Re: Stobart Saints Truck : Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:01 pm  

Having looked at the pics for the first time I do see Donkey's point, it does look as much an advert for the Sky showing of the game as it does for RL itself.

Re: Stobart Saints Truck : Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:20 pm  

Donkey OTay wrote:

My point is a simple one...

It's what it says on the side of the truck. - "Watch it on Sky on Friday evening" What could be simpler?

The objective of this advertising is plain for anyone who is capable of reading that straight forward simple one line - "Watch it on Sky on Friday evening"

If the objective was to boost the gate then it would say someting like "come along for the real live RL experience".

The clue is on the side of the truck.

There could be ll kinds of unintended outcomes of this, it might even cause the martians to invade. But the intention is not in doubt - "Watch it on Sky on Friday evening"

By your logic no advert for or coverage of RL on TV, be it terrestrial or otherwise, promotes the game as a whole as it is only there to get people to watch it on TV.

If the BBC trailed the challenge cup heavily, do you think the only possible outcome for that is that people stay at home and watch it? Might people not be tempted to attend a game locally in person? Would it not promote the profile of the game as a whole?

You couldn't be any more black and white or one dimensional in your thinking. It's a very narrow interpretation of this deal.

Given that the RFL have said they think they'll replace the cash with partner sponsors (which Engage have vetoed in the past and in which case this is a cash PLUS Stobart deal), what have we got to lose?

Re: Stobart Saints Truck : Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:27 pm  

Horatio Yed wrote:

Watch it on tv, get a taste for it, adopt a team, buy the merchandise, eventually attend.

That's fine and may very well happen but it's not what this sponsorship was supposed to be for. Sky have a budget all of their own to promote watching RL on Sky. It is Sky's responsibility and self interest to promote their channel. It is RFL's interest to promote RL and specifically SuperLeague, not Sky.

There would have been champagne corks poppin' in the Sky marketing department head office when they saw those pics. All that advertising for free.

Re: Stobart Saints Truck : Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:36 pm  

Just because something is beneficial for SKY does not mean it is not beneficial for the game.

Re: Stobart Saints Truck : Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:37 pm  

FearTheVee wrote:

By your logic no advert for or coverage of RL on TV, be it terrestrial or otherwise, promotes the game as a whole as it is only there to get people to watch it on TV.

If the BBC trailed the challenge cup heavily, do you think the only possible outcome for that is that people stay at home and watch it? Might people not be tempted to attend a game locally in person? Would it not promote the profile of the game as a whole?

If the BBC trailed the challenge cup heavily then that's the business of the BBC, and good luck to them.

It is not the business of the RFL to promote the CC on the BBC. It is the business of the RFL to promote the CC. full stop.

I have no idea why you cannot see the difference in the two.

People might be tempted to do all kinds of things but that is irrelevent. Unintended outcomes should not be factored in for a sponsorship deal. You factor in what marketers call the 'call to action', and that is to watch it on Sky.

I suspect, behnd the scenes, someone wasn't watching what Sky were up to. That's because they are amateurs. The RFL employ a load of ex players. Sky employ professionels.

Re: Stobart Saints Truck : Mon Jan 30, 2012 5:39 pm  

McClennan wrote:

Just because something is beneficial for SKY does not mean it is not beneficial for the game.

That is exactly true. However, that's not what this sponsorship should have been about.