Disturbing comments re Revenue & Sponsors

[kaos theory]

A couple of key comments made by RB last week seemed to have gone by without any analysis. During RB’s defence of his board’s failure to maintain a quality sponsors (e.g. recent loss of Vondafone) & generate new revenue, he claimed that the saints can’t compete with the big clubs for sponsors, and that we are best suited to go after companies in ‘niche’ markets.

These comments are very disturbing.

Let’s be clear about this, RB is saying that we can only attract small companies & small investments because we do not have the profile of the ‘bigger’ clubs. Hmm…last time I looked, over the last 4 years we have been part of those bigger clubs in terms of members, game attendances, finals appearances and television audiences.

Also, why can other smaller or comparable clubs secure and maintain big sponsors? The Roos have Mazda, & the hawks have HSBC, hardly small companies playing in ‘niche’ markets….

We are all aware that our club has not been able to secure and maintain a single major sponsor for a prolonged period of time, but we also have a current sponsor suing the club for not providing the service level it promised!

This is a major & critical failure of the current board. We have a president who believes we have no ability to attract a major sponsor, and has no idea how to improve revenues (one of the lowest in the league), and has also failed to service whatever sponsors it’s able to secure.

You cannot build a business without revenue, and a recipe for failure is to keep your revenues constant at low levels while your competition continues to grow its revenues. We all understand the concept of profit & cash flow. What we want to see is an ability to lift this club to a new level. RB strikes me as a ‘business 101’ guy. He understands some basics, but doesn’t seem to have the understanding, ability, and relationships/networks to build a complex business in a highly competitive market.

Increasing our revenue base should be a key focus of a board at the saints (especially given its current low-levels).

This current board has made it clear it can’t do that or doesn’t know how to do that.

[Otiman]

I don't recall hearing or reading about those comments.

For some reason I'm feeling like SS is the front line for a political campaign.

[kaos theory]

Otiman,

He absolutely made those comments, that floored me when I heard it.

[saint66au]

Intersting comments.

At the start of 2006 our Marketing and Sponsorship Depts were "aiming high" and full intended to postion themselves right up there with the "big clubs" or more precisely to BE a big club..was told that by a very senior member of

Seems the sights have been lowered somewhat.

[saintspremiers]

Intersting comments.

At the start of 2006 our Marketing and Sponsorship Depts were "aiming high" and full intended to postion themselves right up there with the "big clubs" or more precisely to BE a big club..was told that by a very senior member of

Seems the sights have been lowered somewhat.

Yes I heard that also.....seems like RB is backpeddling now to try and justify very poor revenue returns the club has suffered recently.

Perhaps he is really trying to say we are again at the bottom of the pile re 2007 Revenue - remember all the SFF spin is based on 2006 data, not 2007....

[saintsRrising]

Let’s be clear about this, RB is saying that we can only attract small companies & small investments because we do not have the profile of the ‘bigger’ clubs. .

Well if you want to be clear about then perhaps you need to actually state what RB said and not your quite radical alteration of it.



While yes he made the point that the sponsors that were attracted to us tended to have niche market or campaigns (ie short lived ones) in mind.

He did not say that we could only attract small companies....and indeed if you look at who has sponsored the Saints over the alst 7 years there are many big companies.



What he indicated was that the larger companies tended to use us for a while....rather than want a long term relationship. ie Tooheys who wanted to gain market share in Victoria for a NSW Brand.

Yes we have had good ratings of late....however at this point in time the facts are;

*That the Pies and Dons have vastly more people that follow them than follow the Saints....and here I am talking about the hundreds of thousands who are not members....and not just members. These numbers will not change anytime soon as once some starts to "follow" a club they do not readilly change. A new Board at St Kilda will not alter that.


*That Brand wise our long term brand is not as strong as some other clubs.





Sponsors when paying big$$$ ntaurally look forst at the Clubs that can deliver the biggest bang for their buck.

This means that the bigger clubs with more powerful brands get first pick....and this also allows them to get longer term deals.

This is the law of supply and demand.



This is why the Saints are next rung down the ladder.....and why there is regular turnover of our larger sponors.


This is not to say that our sponosrship management cannot be better. It can.

But if you think that just chaging to FF will magically producea Tier One sponosr that will signh on for 10 years then you are blind to the way Sponosrship deals are down.

At the top Level Sponsorships area marketing tools aand corporations seek the best deal possible.



I have been involved with Sponos0rships for two decades professionally and I can assure you that this is the way of the business world.


This is the way it is.....so unless Westaway is going to do a Pratt or Gutnick and through in vast sums of his own money...then this is the it is going to continue to be.


There are no magic wands....just hard nosed business men who see Sponsorships as a way to drive their marketintg campaigns and brand awareness.


If you think not....them check utr who the major Sponsor of the Melbourne F1 has been each year........or even the AFL Competition.

[Brewer]

If we looked like we were half a chance to play in a grand final we'd be a lot more attractive.

[saintsRrising]

If we looked like we were half a chance to play in a grand final we'd be a lot more attractive.

Exactly so....and this also is evidence that we do not have a "Mega-brand"....a brand so powerful that Sponosrs are clamberng to be on board irrespective of our ladder position.

[Behind Play]

RB's comments were made on the Footy Show last Thursday. I also found it a strange thing to say. Obviously he was putting a spin on why we keep losing sponsors.

RB needs to remember not to try and treat the club's members as fools........because it will come back and bite him on the bum.

[Saints Premiers 2008]

there is merit in what rb is saying but targetting sponsors in niche markets and to a degree i agree with him

i.e. when piping hot was our clothing sponsor both parties worked well in identify that the saints were the new kids on the block and piping hot was a fashion brand (in my opinion lack there of) trying to re-invent themselves into the market

vodaphone could be seen as the same with the introduction of thier maxi caps to accel in their pre-paid phone market

however preferably i would want a solid well known sponsor offset by some of the more transition or niche sponsors

what rb has said he much merit although if entirely applied is placing all our sponsorships eggs in seemingly the same type of undiversified basket

[aussierules0k]

[kaos theory]

Some here are missing the point of RB's statement.

It was clearly an attempt to sugar coat a bad situation with BS. Chasing ‘niche’ market players is a tactic a small player does to survive against the big players - basically looking to pick up the scraps. Therefore, he is admitting he & his board have limited ability to attract a major long term sponsorship, or bring new sponsorship revenues. Under their stewardship, they are confining the st.kilda football club to a small revenue club…

While yes he made the point that the sponsors that were attracted to us tended to have niche market or campaigns (ie short lived ones) in mind.

He did not say that we could only attract small companies....and indeed if you look at who has sponsored the Saints over the alst 7 years there are many big companies.

SR that is garbage. I don’t know of any business that has a deliberate policy of introducing more cost & uncertainty in the revenue generation process. And that is exactly what happens if a company takes your or RB’s suggestion (if that’s what he is saying).

If we looked like we were half a chance to play in a grand final we'd be a lot more attractive.

Exactly so....and this also is evidence that we do not have a "Mega-brand"....a brand so powerful that Sponosrs are clamberng to be on board irrespective of our ladder position.

So how come the hawks have had HSBC as a stable long-term sponsor? We need a board capable of taking us forward to become a bigger club, which we have the potential for. The current board has shown it has no vision or talent for doing that.

[saintsRrising]

HSBC is nota major bank in Australia.

They are a niche player trying to get a slice of the action that the 4 pillars have.

[rexy]

All I know is that we are a foundation club with the best colors in the comp and some of the most marketable players going around, including arguably the most recognisable man in Football in Reiwoldt. We have a large enough membership and a very large supporter base and it is also fair to say that we do not have as many detractors in the opposition supporter bases as say a Collingwood or Essendon. To me we seem to appeal to a good cross section to from working class to celebrity trendie arty types.

We should not have as much trouble attracting sponsorship as we do IMO.

[saintsRrising]

While yes he made the point that the sponsors that were attracted to us tended to have niche market or campaigns (ie short lived ones) in mind.

He did not say that we could only attract small companies....and indeed if you look at who has sponsored the Saints over the alst 7 years there are many big companies.

SR that is garbage. I don’t know of any business that has a deliberate policy of introducing more cost & uncertainty in the revenue generation process. And that is exactly what happens if a company takes your or RB’s suggestion (if that’s what he is saying).



.

Sponosrship is buta marketing tool.....and many companies raise and lower what they spend on sonsorship and other marketing tools from year to year depending what they are trying to achieve...and what they have to sell.

Take TV ads....you will see some companies advertisng all the time.....whereas other will just runa campain for short period of time.



In my personal case I have some sponsors who use my services year in year out......and I have others who just use it occassionally...and yet other who use them rarely for a spot campaign. Their needs and goals are different...and hence the level and length of the sponsorship is different.


And here is a novel thought for you...some find that they are not getting the marketing response that they need...and so they eitheer move on to other marketing tools.....or realise that the product/ service that they are promoting is not viable and move on.

[rexy]

Apparently if you advertise on radio during the day as well as TV it can be much more effective?

[ausfatcat]

20% more effective

[saintsRrising]

PS...yes agree that RB was trying to sugar coat things....but there was some truth to it...

[Otiman]

So let's buy into SEN?

[Carl Mynott]

Which sponsor is suing the St Kilda Football club...?

[rexy]

So let's buy into SEN?

Why not. Half the staff are saints fans anyway.

[kaos theory]

Sponosrship is buta marketing tool.....and many companies raise and lower what they spend on sonsorship and other marketing tools from year to year depending what they are trying to achieve...and what they have to sell.

Take TV ads....you will see some companies advertisng all the time.....whereas other will just runa campain for short period of time.



In my personal case I have some sponsors who use my services year in year out......and I have others who just use it occassionally...and yet other who use them rarely for a spot campaign. Their needs and goals are different...and hence the level and length of the sponsorship is different.


And here is a novel thought for you...some find that they are not getting the marketing response that they need...and so they eitheer move on to other marketing tools.....or realise that the product/ service that they are promoting is not viable and move on.

SR - You are missing the point.

It is far more profitable and less risky to have a stable set of happy sponsors. If you have to work hard to seek & secure new sources of revenue each year, then you are adding significantly more cost to your sales & marketing activities, relative to your competition. You also add more uncertainty and unpredictability, because you have no certainty you will get a similar deal with a new 'niche' player, or that you will even find an appropriate sponsor.

Our competitors have the prefered model, i.e stable major sponsor, while we, because of board & management failings apply an inferior more costly approach.

[GrumpyOne]

Which sponsor is suing the St Kilda Football club...?

Vodaphone.

[saintsRrising]

It is far more profitable and less risky to have a stable set of happy sponsors. If you have to work hard to seek & secure new sources of revenue each year, then you are adding significantly more cost to your sales & marketing activities, relative to your competition. .

Indeed...which is stating the obvious......but NOT all companies that Sponsor want to be long term sponosrs of a club or a major event for ever...and others have changes in conditions or market opportunities.


No I am not missing the point...I am just saying that wanting something is not enough.


Do you really think that the current Board would not have preferred not to have had a stable long term sponsorship???????



Look at the Melbourne Grand Prix

Look at the AFL itself

Look at the Rising Star Award (I think Ansett even had it when Kosi one it and they went out of business before he could get his prize to the US)


Sponosrships tend to move...


Look at the Melbourne Cup.

look at the major Golf Tournaments....or the Australian Tennis Open




It is one thing wanting stable sponsors.....but if you want sponosrs chipping in $millions they are not that plentiful.



And if you then say...well we can have many smaller ones instead...well you still get back to niche marketing.






times and conditions change.



Some of the guys & companies that I have had excellent relations with and who were very happy with their sponosrship spend & value obatianed......have later had to can it due to a change in company direction (sometimes driven by what is happening overseas when they are multinational).

Indeed that is exactly what is occuring with me at present...I have a Mutinational that is a household name, and virtually all adult Saintsationalists would have used theire products, have had to radically decrease their sponosrship due toa change in Corprate Direction driven by Head Office overseas.

The particular event the local aussie guys have been happily sponosring for DECADES....and yet they have had to decrease due to directions from overseas.

[saintsRrising]

If Emirates for example pull out of flying to Oz....then Emirates will pull out of sponosring the Pies.




But also for example...YES Eddie does a wonderful job of servicing the Pies Sponsors...and due to this Eddie adds more value that any other AFL President.