Is there going to be a new name

[Dux]

I do understand that from the clubs view point money is money. However, consider why companies advertise.

Association is also a big part of advertising, beer adverts have people in groups in hot places so you associate drinking alcohol with being with friends and being on holiday, this is why at the magic weekend when it is hot we bring some mates along and get smashed. Because that is what years on beer adverts has taught us this is the norm. Now we could just as easily get smashed at home or in the pub but advertising has told us that with friend/while hot like a festival is much better for some reason. It makes no sense, if you actually think about it. Smoking advertising or product placement in films is usually done at moments when someone looks cool and confident. Usually after banging a Super Model or shooting the bad guy with an oversized gun. Now we associate smoking with self confidence and looking sexy, while the two have no logical association.

So that being said what does it say for St Helens the Rugby Club as a brand to have these sponsors. What if you were a blue chip company with a healthy or family image to uphold would you want to to have the second degree association?

It is a two way thing, if a Premier League Football team has a household name sponsor it shows what a big deal this team is. Arsenal and PSG among others are sponsored by Emirates, Arab Royalty pay to have their brand on these teams shirts. How important must these clubs be? Equally it is the same the other way around, Chelsea by a Toyo Tire company so they must be a big impressive company rather than just rubber molders. If we were more selective maybe we could enhance our brand and associate better brands in the future.

While I agree with a lot of this I’m not sure I agree about the extent of the power of advertising. Do we drink on sunny bank holiday weekends because Carling adverts have created that desire? Or because there’s an extra day off work to recover from the hangover and it’s nice to be out and about with your mates in the sun? I suspect it’s the latter, and that advertisers know that and simply reinforce an association that already exists and try to turn it into an association with their particular brand.

For me the situation is simply that the club, which has a predominantly working class support base, has main sponsors which also have a predominantly working class customer base. It would be good to get away from companies that have an aura of delinquency about them, but for the next couple of years clubs will probably just have to take whatever they can get their hands on - I can’t see sponsorship being a top priority of many firms after this crisis.

[Webbo Again]

I do understand that from the clubs view point money is money. However, consider why companies advertise.

Association is also a big part of advertising, beer adverts have people in groups in hot places so you associate drinking alcohol with being with friends and being on holiday, this is why at the magic weekend when it is hot we bring some mates along and get smashed. Because that is what years on beer adverts has taught us this is the norm. Now we could just as easily get smashed at home or in the pub but advertising has told us that with friend/while hot like a festival is much better for some reason. It makes no sense, if you actually think about it. Smoking advertising or product placement in films is usually done at moments when someone looks cool and confident. Usually after banging a Super Model or shooting the bad guy with an oversized gun. Now we associate smoking with self confidence and looking sexy, while the two have no logical association.

So that being said what does it say for St Helens the Rugby Club as a brand to have these sponsors. What if you were a blue chip company with a healthy or family image to uphold would you want to to have the second degree association?

It is a two way thing, if a Premier League Football team has a household name sponsor it shows what a big deal this team is. Arsenal and PSG among others are sponsored by Emirates, Arab Royalty pay to have their brand on these teams shirts. How important must these clubs be? Equally it is the same the other way around, Chelsea by a Toyo Tire company so they must be a big impressive company rather than just rubber molders. If we were more selective maybe we could enhance our brand and associate better brands in the future.

You make good points. But half of all Premier League clubs are sponsored by gambling companies. Doesn't stop other companies clambering over themselves to also be associated with those clubs.

[eddiewaringsflatcap]

While I agree with a lot of this I’m not sure I agree about the extent of the power of advertising. Do we drink on sunny bank holiday weekends because Carling adverts have created that desire? Or because there’s an extra day off work to recover from the hangover and it’s nice to be out and about with your mates in the sun? I suspect it’s the latter, and that advertisers know that and simply reinforce an association that already exists and try to turn it into an association with their particular brand.

For me the situation is simply that the club, which has a predominantly working class support base, has main sponsors which also have a predominantly working class customer base. It would be good to get away from companies that have an aura of delinquency about them, but for the next couple of years clubs will probably just have to take whatever they can get their hands on - I can’t see sponsorship being a top priority of many firms after this crisis.

Whilst your correct that the sport has a high number of blue collar workers, the commercial portfolio can and should be more aspirational and/or respectable. For example, in the past some of the partners of the sport were mutuals or investment savings companies. They ticked both of those boxes.

I've said before that sponsorship does'nt really exist anymore, not in its old form. Its dead.

Any branding department see the products/services it produces as an identity and as NC infers it looks for partners that promote its values, ideally both should be of similar stature. Hence when Justin Thomas came out with a homophobic remark, Ralph Lauren did'nt say "we've stopped sponsoring JT to display our name everyewhere...." rather they said "while we acknowledge that he has apologised and recognises the severity of his words, he is a paid ambassador of our brand and his actions conflict with the inclusive culture that we strive to uphold."

Thats branding and commercial partnership and rugby league clubs just don't get it.

They cheapen their own identity and value when for example their replica shirts are plastered with skip hire, cheap lager, bingo and taxi companies. The money is nice in the short term but it damns them to a bargain basement hand to mouth cycle.

As a post script, I must add the point on brand synergy.... Its why I was amused to say the least that anyone seriously ever thought the Toronto venture could work and worse, that the same barmpots who believed in it should espouse that it meant a deathknell to the sport. As if the failure of a transworld competition for a sport that has failed to spread itself adequately should ever be as such. If we were'nt looking to Canada prior to Perez turning up as a key driver for RL why had it become so crucial after Toronoto were booted out. Utter nonsense.

[retro74]

While I agree with a lot of this I’m not sure I agree about the extent of the power of advertising. Do we drink on sunny bank holiday weekends because Carling adverts have created that desire? Or because there’s an extra day off work to recover from the hangover and it’s nice to be out and about with your mates in the sun? I suspect it’s the latter, and that advertisers know that and simply reinforce an association that already exists and try to turn it into an association with their particular brand.

For me the situation is simply that the club, which has a predominantly working class support base, has main sponsors which also have a predominantly working class customer base. It would be good to get away from companies that have an aura of delinquency about them, but for the next couple of years clubs will probably just have to take whatever they can get their hands on - I can’t see sponsorship being a top priority of many firms after this crisis.

You may underestimate the power of marketing. Take cider for example, when I was young literally no-one drank cider in the pub, everyone gets brainwashed into thinking it's hip and trendy and suddenly everyone is drinking. They may not tell us to drink alcohol on a sunny day but they massively influence what the mass market drinks. There's a lot of people (most of them) that don't really think for themselves in this country and just follow trends. Look at pink gin now, no one drank that a few years ago - now there's 30 different types in every supermarket

Another example is Red Bull, people think they make energy drinks but they don't. They are a marketing company who specialises in brand events, someone else makes the energy drink for them and they stick their brand on it like they do a Formula 1 team or a football team

By and large we're told what to like, what to consume, what to buy and the vast majority go along with it without asking too many questions

[Gray77]

I would concur with Retro. Cider was something we used to get in £2 plastic litre bottles when we were trying to get drunk at 16, but nowadays it's hip and cool to drink it. Coffee is another thing, people who wouldn't have been seen dead drinking anything but a brew or an instant coffee now insist on having a grande latte with soy milk with not a trace of embarrassment. People go with the crowd, they follow trends and what marketing bods tell them is in. Look how much people spend on mobile phones to send a few whatsapps and check their Facebook or Twitter everyday.

[Angry Dave]

Whilst your correct that the sport has a high number of blue collar workers, the commercial portfolio can and should be more aspirational and/or respectable. For example, in the past some of the partners of the sport were mutuals or investment savings companies. They ticked both of those boxes.

I've said before that sponsorship does'nt really exist anymore, not in its old form. Its dead.

Any branding department see the products/services it produces as an identity and as NC infers it looks for partners that promote its values, ideally both should be of similar stature. Hence when Justin Thomas came out with a homophobic remark, Ralph Lauren did'nt say "we've stopped sponsoring JT to display our name everyewhere...." rather they said "while we acknowledge that he has apologised and recognises the severity of his words, he is a paid ambassador of our brand and his actions conflict with the inclusive culture that we strive to uphold."

Thats branding and commercial partnership and rugby league clubs just don't get it.

They cheapen their own identity and value when for example their replica shirts are plastered with skip hire, cheap lager, bingo and taxi companies. The money is nice in the short term but it damns them to a bargain basement hand to mouth cycle.

As a post script, I must add the point on brand synergy.... Its why I was amused to say the least that anyone seriously ever thought the Toronto venture could work and worse, that the same barmpots who believed in it should espouse that it meant a deathknell to the sport. As if the failure of a transworld competition for a sport that has failed to spread itself adequately should ever be as such. If we were'nt looking to Canada prior to Perez turning up as a key driver for RL why had it become so crucial after Toronoto were booted out. Utter nonsense.

It certainly didn't make me want to rush out and buy more RL gear. It's pathetic to be honest.

[Dux]

You may underestimate the power of marketing. Take cider for example, when I was young literally no-one drank cider in the pub, everyone gets brainwashed into thinking it's hip and trendy and suddenly everyone is drinking. They may not tell us to drink alcohol on a sunny day but they massively influence what the mass market drinks. There's a lot of people (most of them) that don't really think for themselves in this country and just follow trends. Look at pink gin now, no one drank that a few years ago - now there's 30 different types in every supermarket

Another example is Red Bull, people think they make energy drinks but they don't. They are a marketing company who specialises in brand events, someone else makes the energy drink for them and they stick their brand on it like they do a Formula 1 team or a football team

By and large we're told what to like, what to consume, what to buy and the vast majority go along with it without asking too many questions

But the fact that tastes and fashions change doesn’t necessarily mean that advertising changed them. When I was at uni hardly anyone drank real ale, and it was often quite tricky to find a pub that served any. About ten years later it was everywhere and breweries were popping up all over the place, but I don’t remember any advertising campaign. Since then that change in taste has been jumped on by market savvy brands like Punk, but I’d say that came second, not first.

I don’t mean to say that I completely disagree - advertising must be effective, as they wouldn’t spend all that money on it if it wasn’t, and I accept that some trends are the result of - or at least kickstarted by - advertising/marketing (I think the Red Bull example is a good one). There’s also the classic ‘create a problem then provide a solution’ formula (my favourite example being an advert which featured that age old scenario where you’re a couple of steps ahead of a handsome guy on an escalator, you’re wearing strappy shoes and you remember with terrific shame that you have cracked heels ... if only you’d bought cracked heel cream). But I’m just a bit sceptical that it’s as straightforward as adverts telling us what to like and us liking it.

[Webbo Again]

But the fact that tastes and fashions change doesn’t necessarily mean that advertising changed them. When I was at uni hardly anyone drank real ale, and it was often quite tricky to find a pub that served any. About ten years later it was everywhere and breweries were popping up all over the place, but I don’t remember any advertising campaign. Since then that change in taste has been jumped on by market savvy brands like Punk, but I’d say that came second, not first.

I don’t mean to say that I completely disagree - advertising must be effective, as they wouldn’t spend all that money on it if it wasn’t, and I accept that some trends are the result of - or at least kickstarted by - advertising/marketing (I think the Red Bull example is a good one). There’s also the classic ‘create a problem then provide a solution’ formula (my favourite example being an advert which featured that age old scenario where you’re a couple of steps ahead of a handsome guy on an escalator, you’re wearing strappy shoes and you remember with terrific shame that you have cracked heels ... if only you’d bought cracked heel cream). But I’m just a bit sceptical that it’s as straightforward as adverts telling us what to like and us liking it.

Some all-encompassing trends arise out of a movement to reject corporate influence. The whole IPA-drinking, beard-sporting hipster thing a few years ago wasn't a response to an advertising campaign - yet it soon became corporatised as corporations latched onto the trend as a marketing opportunity. The fashion is expanded from a niche to the mainstream.

Advertising may not provide the spark to a trend, but it massively widens the take-up - and resultant opportunity for profit.

[retro74]

That's fair enough Dux, however advertising is only one part of marketing - all those breweries popping up all over the place is part of a marketing strategy to create the grassroots market first, then follow it up with the mass market products once everyone starts thinking it's cool and that they want to be part of it

Another good example is Sony with the PlayStation in the 1990s, they knew they could not compete with Sega and their incredible back catalogue of games. The PlayStation and the Sega Saturn went head to head with the geeks predicting a comfortable Sega win, they had the better machine, better games, a place in the market already

Sony went and put PlayStations into the super clubs such as Ministry of Sound. They gave out small perforated strips of cardboard with PlayStation symbols on them at all the music festivals - strips of card that were exactly the same size as a roach from a marijuana joint incidentally. Just small things but they were influencing the right groups and everyone wanted a PlayStation from that point forward

Despite Sony being the new kid on the block their innovative marketing approach enabled them to destroy Sega, taking them out of the videogame hardware market forever