Fed Up.......

What message about your company, aside from its name, can you send to viewers via a jersey sponsorship?

From a marketing standpoint, it doesn't do much for you unless it is reinforced with other messages that contain more content (i.e., regular commercials).

 

Yep, hasn't done much for Nike, Adidas, Puma......

 

....Herbalife, Carling, Newcastle, Mercedes, Volkswagen,....

 

........UNICEF, Pirelli, Carlsberg, Fly Emirates, Gazprom, Samsung (blech).....

 

....last, but not least, LG.

I wouldn't know who or what half of these Sponsors were if they were not on a shirt (including AIG). And the message it sends, at least to me, is quite clear. Besides the obvious, we have a lot of money (even if we don't know what to do with it in many cases), the message is "We are strong and fit, and dialed in to the world's most poular game and teams. We'll pay BIG bucks to help your club. Support us and support your club, or league."

 

posted in error. I deleted the content.

 

Actually NONE, and in some cases it's negative. Take Samsung. Don says he'll never buy Samsung cause it pays Chelsea for shirt-space.
Well, I have an LG phone I like but I'd buy/recommend Samsung any day of week over LG OR Sony when it comes to TV's. Add up all the Chelskum haters and the actual advert on the shirt effect on sales is upside down.

The signboards are a different matter. Scrolling the brand down the pitch does near-nothing.
But I think I saw American Airlines advertise cheap Miami flights, one game recently. That's the beauty of 'racer-boards', they are infinitely programmable. It just requires imagination on part of marketers...

Sidenote, you know they are now selling one-second tv ads? Initial response looks good. Think 'subliminal'.

- Let me explain a little further: The effect of a non-major brand buying adverts on small club shirts is positive. On big-club shirts it's negative.
Likewise aint no one gonna buy Bud Lite because InBev buys 1 second blurbs.
But if you see a blip saying 'St Pauli Girl - available everywhere!', that is gonna have some effect. And it's going to eat into Bud Lite sales.

 

All of the brands you mention advertise heavily, including LOTS of "traditionally American attention deficit marketing promos" to back up their jersey sponsorships. Nike didn't get where they are by being a jersey sponsor. They "polluted" (your word) sports broadcasts with endless commercials creating their brand. Some of them very clever and memorable.

You're using straw-man tactics, shooting down arguments that I did not put forth. I didn't say that jersey sponsorships weren't effective...I said they aren't effective by themselves...they aren't effective if not backed up with commercials and other adversisments.

Works with an established team/league. For AIG, the message is (or at least was) "we're big and successful like Man U." But this thread is ostensibly about the MLS. These are not "the world's most popular teams." That's a much harder sell. But if I could offer an advertiser a combination of a jersey sponsorship with 3-4 minutes of in-game commercial time, then I might have something worth big bucks.

And that might be good for all concerned, including (especially?) the MLS and the popularity of soccer in America.

 

Jersey sponsors without the context of supporting ads can be downright confusing...especially when seen from across the pond.

What is "Acorns"? Are the folks at Aston Villa promoting the community organizing group that used to employ Obama?

...and "Chang"? Is that a chain of chinese restauarants in the Liverpool area?

These are rhetorical questions, by the way. If I actually wanted to know what these companies do/produce, I could easily look it up.

 

Chang is one of those who probably has a POSITIVE ROI for shirts. How many people really HATE Everton? Liver pool is another matter and I dunno about Acorns

 

ESPN is making money showing Champoins League/Euro Cup/World Cup - or else they wouldn't be doing it. So how to bridge the gap to the MLS (which ESPN is backing away from, as evidenced by no longer running the Game of the Week)?

Well firstly the MLS needs to get better talent-wise, and money is the first way to accomplish that. Not all teams have sponsors on their shirts, which constantly surprises me (my Rapids being one of the last holdouts, which they will continue to be in 2009-10). That needs to change.

What I also haven't been able to figure out is why, with so many Americans owning EPL clubs, there aren't a steady stream of MLS-EPL friendlies going on in the US each summer? If you had big time Euro clubs touring the US, playing MLS teams, that would bring some serious legitimacy to the MLS. Why can't Stan Kroenke, who owns the Rapids and 12% of Arsenal, get Arsenal over here to play the Rapids in July? Or why can't Lerner get Villa to play the Crew? The same for Gillette (Liverpool vs. the Revs. Where is the cross marketing gents? Start off with one of these 'Super-Friendlies' for each team per season, showcase it on ESPN/ABC and see how it goes. After all, the MLS' only real competition is the MLB, and I get bored just thinking about watching a baseball game on TV these days.

I'm thinking that, regardless of what happens inbetween, the MLS will be in a great place in 10-15 years by the sheer factor of the improvement in the development and quality of US born players. If it can survive that long.

 

Well, for one, Lerner DID bring in Villa for the Crew in 07. Best game ever arranged for the scenario. It was actually a good enjoyable match, Villa played up to their best for one half and spanked us, then our subs spanked their reserves.

And Gillette has nothing to do with the Revs, last I checked.
As to your other points... money and/or talent.. that just takes us back to the old chicken/egg scenario and I'm tired of that.

Research Lothar Matteus. MLS is in no way a 'retirement league'.

 

You may want to consider editing that little piece right above, as well.

 

And that hasn't happened anywhere else to my knowledge. I don't know if/how hard Kroencke has actually tried to bring Arsenal to play the Rapids, but it needs to happen, and on an annual basis. Or Anschutz, who has interests in Manchester, luring someone, such as Man City, to play the Galaxy. Perhaps make these games count, as in a competition. Would be far more interesting (and easier to sell) than anything CONCACAF related.

It's logical matchup. Kraft owns the Revs, the venue, and tried to buy Liverpool. There a good deal of Liverpool fans in Boston as well. If not, bring Liverpool to Montreal to play Toronto, or someone else. Canadian dollars spend just as well (or better) these days.

 

Except for those of us who enjoy soccer/fitba the way it is played and watched in Europe, Latin America, and pretty much the rest of the world. Even those of us who are actively involved with playing, teaching, and spreading the gospel here in the ol' US of A.

 

Well, this whole thing is just a brainstorming excersize in response to Ian's lament that American's don't watch/support soccer, and specifically the MLS. Just throwin' some ideas out. Obviously, you hate my idea!

But I still contend that we have a unique situation here in the USA. The game in your purist utopias of Euope and Latin America was hugely popular BEFORE television started broadcasting it. So TV audiences were garaunteed once the broadcast era began. And the earliest TV broadcasts there were on state-owned TV networks that had no need to generate profits.

...so your utopia of commercial-free games was created.

We don't have any of that. Here, the cart is pulling the horse. Rather than TV tapping into an existing demand, TV must CREATE the demand.

NFL is a good example. The NFL is the sports powerhouse it is today because it used TV so effectively to grow. In the 1940s, 50s and early 60s pro football struggled to fill stadiums. Starting in the late 1960s, the leagues (NFL and AFL) used TV to grow interest in their sport, and now the NFL is the dominant league in US pro sports.

I'm just trying to steal a page from their playbook. If the TV networks love your sport/league (because it is profitable), they will assure your success and growth.

Keep in mind, I'm not proposing ANY changes to the game itself. You say this would be a bastardization...I'm not sure what, exactly, you think is being bastardized. The game would remain unchanged. It is just the TV broadcast that would be different than it is in Europe/Latin America. When did TV become a sacred cow? As I said in my first post, the purists will howl...

 

I like the brainstorming, and anything that makes purists stop and think.

And I agree that the early NFL is a great model for success - especially the AFL. Books should be written about those pioneers.

However, the current state of sports television is maddening. There is so much commerical intrusion in American sports, and it's really a fairly recent phenomenon. Take the NFL, 1995 vs. present day. Count how many stadiums had names without sponsorship in 1995 (Municipal Stadium, Riverfront, Mile High) and compare to present day (Lucas Oil, Qualcomm, Invesco). In the grand scheme of things, this is a radical transformation that happened overnight. Now look at commericals during the telecasts. I've pretty much stopped watching the NFL because of this sequence: touchdown > commercial break > extra point > commercial break > kickoff > commercial break > offense takes the field. It's an intolerable affront. I think it's why Euros don't really like the NFL and why soccer will be huge someday in the US.

Basically my point is that I do not want soccer to change in any way shape or form to accomodate itself to American sports TV standards. End of rant.

 

I was going to say tail wagging the dog, but yes, I agree with this analogy. But I don't agre that it HAS TO BE that way. In fact, could see the argument that it hasn't been as successful here because of attempts to Americanize or marketing/broadcast people here just not getting it....yet (which I thought pettyfog was saying, but not so sure anymore).

Yep, guilty as charged (sort of, as I don't compare it to a constitutional strict constructionist). The game has changed over the many years, but not as much wholesale changes as it seems many Americans would like to make. If you have not heard this before, you will many times after I say it. There is a "flow", or perhaps "rhythm", to the game that is unlike any other sport I watch. Whether I am playing the game or watching the game, interruptions from it pisses me off royally. At any moment, a moment of pure magic can happen, that defies logic and physics. I don't think I am alone when I say, i don't want that interrupted by anything. As it is both the events, and crescendoing build up to the events that capture the infatuation and endearment of many of us. Whether watching or playing, thumbs down on distractions, commercial or otherwise.

 

Just brainstorming...thinking out loud. I'm a newbe at all this, and I'm still learning about the game and the culture that surrounds it.

Thanks for not flaming me when I proposed something that I guess was more radical than I realized.