Re: Eddie Hearn : Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:23 pm  

bramleyrhino wrote:

If we want the sport to be relevant and credible, he's not the answer.

I don't get this kind of snobbery, isn't this what we used to bash RU for? RL certainly isn't relevant at the moment. How is our sport which is currently playing in front of sub 10k crowds most weeks, more relvant and credible than boxing which has multi-million TV deals, personalities, and sells out arenas for domestic fights?

Ask joe bloggs which is more relevant and credible, boxing or RL?

Interestingly the SKY tb coming up, hasn't Hearn just signed a $1billion contract for a boxing streaming service called DAZN?

But lets keep our flat caps, play in front of 5k fans, because that way, we're definitely.more relevant and credible than boxing...

Re: Eddie Hearn : Thu Oct 04, 2018 7:31 pm  

Bull Mania wrote:

But lets keep our flat caps, play in front of 5k fans, because that way, we're definitely.more relevant and credible than boxing...

The Hearns have a pedigree in "single player" events.
Darts revolves around alcohol and basically the audience are "on one" with the arrows secondary.
Boxing, no matter your stance on the pro's and con's of the sport, has always appealed. I remember Benn and Eubank going it at it, the tragedy of Watson nearly 30 years ago, I remember Barry McGuigan uniting Ireland in the 1980's.......Boxing has always had a following and has always been a jingoistic sport, so the production line from the investment in amateur boxing for the Olympics was always going to produce talent....the Hearns have just jumped on it. They also list clients in Pool, 10 pin Bowling, fishing and Table Tennis.......

When it comes to Team Sports......how are Leyton Orient doing these days?

Why would we let a bloke/organisation with no pedigree in team sports tell us how to run our sport? It's not snobbery....it's pragmatism. They either control the sports they're involved in or they don't bother, so Mr Hearn.....don't bother!

Re: Eddie Hearn : Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:16 am  

Call Me God wrote:

The Hearns have a pedigree in "single player" events.
Darts revolves around alcohol and basically the audience are "on one" with the arrows secondary.
Boxing, no matter your stance on the pro's and con's of the sport, has always appealed. I remember Benn and Eubank going it at it, the tragedy of Watson nearly 30 years ago, I remember Barry McGuigan uniting Ireland in the 1980's.......Boxing has always had a following and has always been a jingoistic sport, so the production line from the investment in amateur boxing for the Olympics was always going to produce talent....the Hearns have just jumped on it. They also list clients in Pool, 10 pin Bowling, fishing and Table Tennis.......

When it comes to Team Sports......how are Leyton Orient doing these days?

Why would we let a bloke/organisation with no pedigree in team sports tell us how to run our sport? It's not snobbery....it's pragmatism. They either control the sports they're involved in or they don't bother, so Mr Hearn.....don't bother!

Rather than just dismiss them and say no thanks, why not give them an event to market? The upcoming series with NZ would have been good or maybe next year's Magic Weekend. Let them prove themselves before signing over power of attorney of the whole of RL

Re: Eddie Hearn : Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:19 am  

Bull Mania wrote:

I don't get this kind of snobbery, isn't this what we used to bash RU for? RL certainly isn't relevant at the moment. How is our sport which is currently playing in front of sub 10k crowds most weeks, more relvant and credible than boxing which has multi-million TV deals, personalities, and sells out arenas for domestic fights?

Ask joe bloggs which is more relevant and credible, boxing or RL?

Interestingly the SKY tb coming up, hasn't Hearn just signed a $1billion contract for a boxing streaming service called DAZN?

But lets keep our flat caps, play in front of 5k fans, because that way, we're definitely.more relevant and credible than boxing...

For context, I don't think turning RL into the circus that large elements of boxing has become would do us any favours and I think holding that view is neither snobbish, nor insisting that remain a sport with 5k flatcappers watching it.

I come back my point about "the wrong answer to the wrong question". People looking to Hearn are asking "who can save us?", and see Hearn as that saviour. But so many of the answers are right there in front of us. The problem is not that we don't have a Hearn (who, as others have mentioned, doesn't have the unblemished record that some would have you believe, especially in team sports), but that we don't have enough clubs willing to explore those answers.

Like I said, across the 12 Super League clubs there are at least 12 people responsible for marketing, for reaching new audiences, for merchandising, for media relations and PR and for attracting sponsors. The first question to ask is why they aren't doing their jobs effectively enough. Look at how clubs like Bristol RU have turned themselves around in a relatively short space of time - now pulling in crowds of 15-20k simply by promoting themselves in the right places, in the right way, to the right people. They haven't needed Eddie Hearn, so why do we?

We have clubs insisting that we retain loop fixtures - fixtures that we know supporters are tired of and don't want - rather than looking at ways to improve the quality of the product and to grow the game. I genuinely think that Nines has the potential to be to RL what T20 has been to cricket, but the clubs seem to be willing to ignore this opportunity. Again, this isn't an issue that we need Hearn to fix - the clubs are more than capable with coming up with something more interesting than loop games.

When there are clubs blaming a structure for not being able to sell hospitality, yet those clubs don't even have a web page for their hospitalty offer, I think it's quite symptomatic of the problems that this sport has. Hearn doesn't change any of that.

Re: Eddie Hearn : Fri Oct 05, 2018 7:39 am  

bramleyrhino wrote:

For context, I don't think turning RL into the circus that large elements of boxing has become would do us any favours and I think holding that view is neither snobbish, nor insisting that remain a sport with 5k flatcappers watching it.

I come back my point about "the wrong answer to the wrong question". People looking to Hearn are asking "who can save us?", and see Hearn as that saviour. But so many of the answers are right there in front of us. The problem is not that we don't have a Hearn (who, as others have mentioned, doesn't have the unblemished record that some would have you believe, especially in team sports), but that we don't have enough clubs willing to explore those answers.

Like I said, across the 12 Super League clubs there are at least 12 people responsible for marketing, for reaching new audiences, for merchandising, for media relations and PR and for attracting sponsors. The first question to ask is why they aren't doing their jobs effectively enough. Look at how clubs like Bristol RU have turned themselves around in a relatively short space of time - now pulling in crowds of 15-20k simply by promoting themselves in the right places, in the right way, to the right people. They haven't needed Eddie Hearn, so why do we?

We have clubs insisting that we retain loop fixtures - fixtures that we know supporters are tired of and don't want - rather than looking at ways to improve the quality of the product and to grow the game. I genuinely think that Nines has the potential to be to RL what T20 has been to cricket, but the clubs seem to be willing to ignore this opportunity. Again, this isn't an issue that we need Hearn to fix - the clubs are more than capable with coming up with something more interesting than loop games.

When there are clubs blaming a structure for not being able to sell hospitality, yet those clubs don't even have a web page for their hospitalty offer, I think it's quite symptomatic of the problems that this sport has. Hearn doesn't change any of that.

I don't disagree with your oft-repeated point about clubs doing a better job of marketing themselves; they absolutely should, and that would drive an uptick in income through gate receipts, sponsorship, corporate shindigs etc - no doubt about that.

But your focus is too narrow - marketing managers at SL clubs can't be expected to have any meaningful whole-sport effect on broadcast deals, sponsorship, national media profile for players and clubs etc; that's a job that quite rightly sits with a central function - absolutely propped up and underpinned by what individual clubs do - but with a much wider focus on the entire sport. The RFL has singularly failed in that mission - which I guess is why when a big player like Hearn expresses an interest, some people see it as the solution?

Re: Eddie Hearn : Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:20 am  

bren2k wrote:

But your focus is too narrow - marketing managers at SL clubs can't be expected to have any meaningful whole-sport effect on broadcast deals, sponsorship, national media profile for players and clubs etc; that's a job that quite rightly sits with a central function - absolutely propped up and underpinned by what individual clubs do - but with a much wider focus on the entire sport. The RFL has singularly failed in that mission - which I guess is why when a big player like Hearn expresses an interest, some people see it as the solution?

One feeds the other in my view.

Don't get me wrong, I will happily critique the RFL as much as I do the clubs. My issue is that by using the RFL as this convenient lightning rod for the game's failings, it moves the focus away from the real issue.

The clubs are the primary point of consumption for the sport. They collectively sell tickets to all but four RFL-controlled club events (the GF, CC Final, Semi Finals Day and Magic Weekend), the clubs control the matchday experience at all but these four events, provide the spectator facilities at all but these four events, they control their own CRM databases and they have the biggest influence in the quality of the 'product'.

The clubs also own the image rights to the players themselves. In my view, it is right to put the onus on them to increase the national profile of our players. The Premier League isn't the one putting forward players for interviews with national newspapers and magazines - it's the clubs. The clubs know their players better than most, they know the stories that they have to tell and they have PR people who are (supposedly) there to try and get those stories in the public eye.

When it comes to commercial and broadcast deals, the only tangible thing that the RFL has to sell is "access to our audience". The problem is that the RFL largely has its hands tied as to what audience it can offer - the clubs are the biggest driver in who watches the sport because it is massively influenced by the audiences that they speak and market to.

We're about to enter a phase where the SL clubs are very much responsible for the commercial success of this sport. They wanted greater control, and now they have it. But if and when things start going pear shaped, do you think Elstone and the SL chairman are going to jump in front of the bullets as they get fired towards Red Hall?

Re: Eddie Hearn : Fri Oct 05, 2018 8:39 am  

bramleyrhino wrote:

One feeds the other in my view.

Don't get me wrong, I will happily critique the RFL as much as I do the clubs. My issue is that by using the RFL as this convenient lightning rod for the game's failings, it moves the focus away from the real issue.

The clubs are the primary point of consumption for the sport. They collectively sell tickets to all but four RFL-controlled club events (the GF, CC Final, Semi Finals Day and Magic Weekend), the clubs control the matchday experience at all but these four events, provide the spectator facilities at all but these four events, they control their own CRM databases and they have the biggest influence in the quality of the 'product'.

The clubs also own the image rights to the players themselves. In my view, it is right to put the onus on them to increase the national profile of our players. The Premier League isn't the one putting forward players for interviews with national newspapers and magazines - it's the clubs. The clubs know their players better than most, they know the stories that they have to tell and they have PR people who are (supposedly) there to try and get those stories in the public eye.

When it comes to commercial and broadcast deals, the only tangible thing that the RFL has to sell is "access to our audience". The problem is that the RFL largely has its hands tied as to what audience it can offer - the clubs are the biggest driver in who watches the sport because it is massively influenced by the audiences that they speak and market to.

We're about to enter a phase where the SL clubs are very much responsible for the commercial success of this sport. They wanted greater control, and now they have it. But if and when things start going pear shaped, do you think Elstone and the SL chairman are going to jump in front of the bullets as they get fired towards Red Hall?

There's not much to disagree with in theoretical terms - but realistically, which SL club has a Marketing Dept of sufficient calibre and capacity to manage all of that? You're describing a 6 figure role, plus a team of people to do the busy-work - which is just not practicable for most (if not all) clubs.

I've long thought that there should be a central function - paid in part by holding back some central funding - that can create and disseminate marketing & PR campaigns and material for the whole sport; which is then backed up by local marketing activity from within the clubs themselves. We got pretty close to it for a brief period with the 'Extraordinary Rugby' campaign - which I thought was very good - but it soon fizzled out.

I wholeheartedly agree that clubs are at the forefront - but I also believe that, given all of your serious points about the primary point of consumption etc, that the governing body should be much more demanding, and take control of marketing the *whole* sport - whilst guiding and supporting clubs to market themselves in their local areas; including handing down style and content guides that ensure a consistent message and branding.

Re: Eddie Hearn : Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:18 am  

bren2k wrote:

There's not much to disagree with in theoretical terms - but realistically, which SL club has a Marketing Dept of sufficient calibre and capacity to manage all of that? You're describing a 6 figure role, plus a team of people to do the busy-work - which is just not practicable for most (if not all) clubs.

I've long thought that there should be a central function - paid in part by holding back some central funding - that can create and disseminate marketing & PR campaigns and material for the whole sport; which is then backed up by local marketing activity from within the clubs themselves. We got pretty close to it for a brief period with the 'Extraordinary Rugby' campaign - which I thought was very good - but it soon fizzled out.

I wholeheartedly agree that clubs are at the forefront - but I also believe that, given all of your serious points about the primary point of consumption etc, that the governing body should be much more demanding, and take control of marketing the *whole* sport - whilst guiding and supporting clubs to market themselves in their local areas; including handing down style and content guides that ensure a consistent message and branding.

I agree that the branding and style needs to be consistent, but I wouldn't necessarily want to see all club marketing become centrally controlled. The clubs should know their audiences and markets better than the RFL (and remember that the clubs have recently fought to have more control over the marketing in general), and clubs will have different priorities for their marketing. Leeds at the moment seem to be putting their efforts into the corporate and premium market, which makes sense for them - they'll have a lot of corporate and premium capacity to sell very soon. But does that work for Huddersfield - a club that is still selling season tickets at less than a tenner a game?

I don't necessarily agree that what we're asking for here is beyond the financial reach of clubs. I have seen small marketing teams with relatively small budgets produce a hell of a lot more than some of the stuff descibed there, but it does require those marketing operations to think carefully about their strategies and work smarter. How many clubs, for example, are using relatively cheap tools like CRM and marketing automation as best they can? Probably not many. Too many clubs have fallen into lazy habits like cheap tickets, and haven't thought about how they actually contribute to long-term growth. I know people think that cheap tickets are a good way to get people into the grounds, but they way they have generally been used has meant that we've basically given discounts to people who would have paid full price anyway.

We've got a hell of a lot of content that we could share with the wider world, and it doesn't take masses of resources (either time or budget) to do that. It just needs clubs to think smarter about how they do that. How much resource goes on producing matchday programmes in this day and age, and for what impact, when we have free and 24 hour access to content?

Re: Eddie Hearn : Fri Oct 05, 2018 10:03 am  

bramleyrhino wrote:

I agree that the branding and style needs to be consistent, but I wouldn't necessarily want to see all club marketing become centrally controlled. The clubs should know their audiences and markets better than the RFL (and remember that the clubs have recently fought to have more control over the marketing in general), and clubs will have different priorities for their marketing. Leeds at the moment seem to be putting their efforts into the corporate and premium market, which makes sense for them - they'll have a lot of corporate and premium capacity to sell very soon. But does that work for Huddersfield - a club that is still selling season tickets at less than a tenner a game?

I don't necessarily agree that what we're asking for here is beyond the financial reach of clubs. I have seen small marketing teams with relatively small budgets produce a hell of a lot more than some of the stuff descibed there, but it does require those marketing operations to think carefully about their strategies and work smarter. How many clubs, for example, are using relatively cheap tools like CRM and marketing automation as best they can? Probably not many. Too many clubs have fallen into lazy habits like cheap tickets, and haven't thought about how they actually contribute to long-term growth. I know people think that cheap tickets are a good way to get people into the grounds, but they way they have generally been used has meant that we've basically given discounts to people who would have paid full price anyway.

We've got a hell of a lot of content that we could share with the wider world, and it doesn't take masses of resources (either time or budget) to do that. It just needs clubs to think smarter about how they do that. How much resource goes on producing matchday programmes in this day and age, and for what impact, when we have free and 24 hour access to content?

Just for clarity - I'm not suggesting that *all* clubs marketing should be centrally controlled; I'm saying that the overarching style, branding and content should be - but that clubs should still be responsible for doing their own work in their local market - within prescribed style and branding guidelines.

It makes sense to me to invest in one really talented team to handle the bigger picture stuff related to the whole game that, quite frankly, is too serious and important to leave in the hands of any single club. And that by extension, that team could also support and train their counterparts at club level to do local marketing campaigns that tie in with the bigger picture strategy - and maybe achieve some economies of scale both in financial and knowledge terms, around things like CRM, materials, video content, advertising etc.

For me, we're missing so many tricks, and having 12 - 14 hard-pressed individuals, with little reach or network outside their own locality, doing pretty much the same things to try to flog ST's, corporate boxes and shirts, *and* giving them stewardship of the promotion of the entire sport, is not just unrealistic, but irresponsible.