Re: Sky losing interest. : Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:10 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

I don't agree with your Cas v Leeds idea. If Leeds played Wakefield it would be one Wakefield's biggest games of the year the reverse fixture at Leeds would not have the same importance. Same if Salford were playing Cas the same weekend Warrington were playing Wigan you can't market the two games in the same way.

What the RFL need to do is work out they can improve the product on the field and then how they can get that message across. Clubs need to conquer there own challenges independent of the RFL's bigge5r marketing effort.

I could not disagree more.

If we prioritise some games.as big and important. By definition we declare some games as less big and less important. From a marketing point of view that makes no sense whatsoever. You have just made any attempt to sell Wakefield v Salford a million times harder. As we are finding we cannot sell some games as the pinnacle of sport, a huge clash between titans. World class players squaring up against world class players and hen others as a bargain basement day out for people who can't afford proper top quality sport.

The view our a me puts out cannot be 'hey come watch Super League, a fair amount of games are a bit poop but some are good'.

There is no intrinsic reason that Cas v Salford cannot be a big game, Salford are the Man City of RL, rich middle eastern owner v the green bay packers of RL the small town team punching above its weight. The clash of styles, the highly paid mercenaries v the home grown talent from the heartlands.

That's your pitch for Cas v Salford, not we know this game is a little poop so we have made it cheaper, don't worry though Wigan will be along soon.

We don't just need to improve the product, we don't just need to improve how we tell people about it. We need to decide what the hell the product is first. Is it the best Rugby competition or is it a cheap and cheerful day out for people who can't afford the football? Are we standing chest puffed out against any rugby competition in the world or are we happy being a cheap way to kill a few hours. We can't be both.

During the WC, the rfl said we were offered the chance to see world class sport from £5 per ticket. We need to know if we are selling the tickets on the basis they are £5 per ticket or because it's world class sport because people know world class sport doesn't cost £5 per ticket. Crap sport does. Those two messages we put out contradicted each other.

Re: Sky losing interest. : Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:18 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

I don't agree with your Cas v Leeds idea. If Leeds played Wakefield it would be one Wakefield's biggest games of the year the reverse fixture at Leeds would not have the same importance. Same if Salford were playing Cas the same weekend Warrington were playing Wigan you can't market the two games in the same way.

What the RFL need to do is work out they can improve the product on the field and then how they can get that message across. Clubs need to conquer there own challenges independent of the RFL's bigger marketing effort.

I'd go with that.

The RFL's job is simply to provide a structure and framework for the clubs to operate in. At the very basis level, this means organising the fixtures but at the more complicated level, it involves putting together a coherent and compelling message and set of brand guidelines.

From there on, it is down to the respective clubs to market the products that they sell (whether that is 13 home games, replica shirts, conference facilities or whatever).

Is the RFL providing the best possible framework for the clubs, probably not. But that doesn't excuse clubs from sitting on their hands and thinking that a few posters outside the ground constitutes a "marketing strategy". That lack of framework didn't stop Wigan marketing their game with Leeds at the end of the season and getting in excess of 20,000 (without resorting to discounted tickets) - it shouldn't stop any other club either.

Re: Sky losing interest. : Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:30 pm  

bramleyrhino wrote:

I'd go with that.

The RFL's job is simply to provide a structure and framework for the clubs to operate in. At the very basis level, this means organising the fixtures but at the more complicated level, it involves putting together a coherent and compelling message and set of brand guidelines.

From there on, it is down to the respective clubs to market the products that they sell (whether that is 13 home games, replica shirts, conference facilities or whatever).

Is the RFL providing the best possible framework for the clubs, probably not. But that doesn't excuse clubs from sitting on their hands and thinking that a few posters outside the ground constitutes a "marketing strategy". That lack of framework didn't stop Wigan marketing their game with Leeds at the end of the season and getting in excess of 20,000 (without resorting to discounted tickets) - it shouldn't stop any other club either.

We are selling something bigger than 13 matches, replica shirts etc.

You are right there are things that can be done on a local level but even picking one game, to fulfil it's potential, needs both clubs buy in and often these are clubs in competition with each other. That needs central leadership

There is also the huge economies of scale that would be gained by this being done centrally that we lose out on.

On a more 'philosophical' level of you will, the RFL are the games leaders, there is not much leadership in saying it's the clubs fault.

Re: Sky losing interest. : Tue Jan 06, 2015 4:53 pm  

You can lead a club to a marketing opportunity, but you can't make it invest the time and money to exploit it to the fullest.

The RFL should not be dictating to its member clubs how they run their businesses on such a micro level.

Re: Sky losing interest. : Tue Jan 06, 2015 6:26 pm  

Andy Gilder wrote:

You can lead a club to a marketing opportunity, but you can't make it invest the time and money to exploit it to the fullest.

The RFL should not be dictating to its member clubs how they run their businesses on such a micro level.

The NRL do.

Clubs are "invited" to play intheir competition, but woe betide if you screw up.

In this country it's who shouts loudest and a slap on the wrist!

The RFL need to grow a pair.

Re: Sky losing interest. : Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:17 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

We don't just need to improve the product, we don't just need to improve how we tell people about it.

Leaguefan wrote:

The RFL need to grow a pair.

Spot on...both times.

How did the Marketing/Promotional company hired to promote the "Big Hit" in London 2013 manage to get 67,000 people into the stadium? IIRC that was the biggest crowd ever to watch an England RL match anywhere in the world....how did they get these people into the game? What did they sell to them?

Re: Sky losing interest. : Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:17 pm  

Leaguefan wrote:

The NRL do.

Clubs are "invited" to play intheir competition, but woe betide if you screw up.

In this country it's who shouts loudest and a slap on the wrist!

The RFL need to grow a pair.

Yep, they really came down on Newcastle like a tonne of bricks eh.

Re: Sky losing interest. : Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:21 pm  

Ganson's Optician wrote:

Yep, they really came down on Newcastle like a tonne of bricks eh.

eh?
The Knights are pretty well supported in the NRL.

Re: Sky losing interest. : Tue Jan 06, 2015 8:47 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

Spot on...both times.

How did the Marketing/Promotional company hired to promote the "Big Hit" in London 2013 manage to get 67,000 people into the stadium? IIRC that was the biggest crowd ever to watch an England RL match anywhere in the world....how did they get these people into the game? What did they sell to them?

The GB brand secured a Wembley attendance of 73,631 in 1992 against Australia. It didn't require a year long "BIG HIT" double header sales pitch to attract a decent attendance, nor did it require ludicrously cheap tickets on offer either.

Re: Sky losing interest. : Wed Jan 07, 2015 8:47 am  

Ganson's Optician wrote:

Yep, they really came down on Newcastle like a tonne of bricks eh.

I
I think you mean cronulla!