It's the one thing the cretins haven't done. Don't you think they would have done it the second it was feasible?
Thanks Dave, this is complete nonsense though. If you genuinely think that fans aren't the primary factor in any sports marketing campaign then you need to revisit the basics. There is a classic example of how all angles need to be considered when a company gets involved with a sportsman/club and it's taught to all sports marketing students/execs. Remember Sugar Puffs and Kevin Keegan? Good for sales in Newcastle, killer for sales in Sunderland and, to a lesser degree, Middlesbrough.
It's not only feasible but also fits the owners cultural approach. Just for NOF because he's not so bright - look up Sun Capital Partners
They've been at United 8 years and have whored the club around the market at every opportunity. Why haven't they sold the stadium naming rights? Why Dave, why? Just why? Keep on coming with the insults, it's what you do best!
Do you really need to keep exposing your complete and utter non-understanding of marketing strategy. What we are discussing here is corporate marketing and that is a very different beast to branded personality marketing. Do you honestly think that Emirates loose passengers because they sponsor Arsenal's stadium? If you are going to argue then get your facts right and then study your argument a little more. Let's take your irrelevant Keegan example. As a national brand I doubt that any boycott of Sugar Puffs in Sunderland or Middlesborough had any real bearing on the effectiveness or otherwise of the promotion.
This is absolutely epic Dave. So brands associate themselves with football clubs NOT to appeal to the fans but to appeal to the non-fans. When AIG sponsored United's shirts who do you think they were targeting? United fans or non-United fans? The assumption was that they were targeting the US market as they were an American company but they were already quite well known in the US. The sponsorship decision was made as the company were targeting the Asian market. Not the Liverpool fans in Asia, or the Arsenal fans in Asia, or even the Chelsea fans in Asia but the United fans! General brand awareness is important but by picking a specific club a sponsor is targeting their fans in particular. The brand is aware that their sponsorship could have a negative impact amongst certain groups who dislike the club they are sponsoring and they have to weigh up the pros and cons. With regards to Sugar Puffs, for the money they invested in the ad campaign they saw a nominal increase in sales in Newcastle but their sales in Sunderland flatlined. Overall it was a negative exercise. Do I think people boycott, or at least try to, boycott brands because they are associated with a rival club? Yes, definitely. Football fans can be ferociously tribal apparently.
If you don't understand even the basic elements of promotional strategy NOF then don't argue. AIG don't want to be associated with the paltry number of idiots who infest Old Trafford. What they are after is the access to the wider global audience that comes with having their name on United's shirts. You are right about their target market but they didn't care who's fans saw their brand displayed as this was a minute number compared to the tv audience and the general person in the street who wasn't even slightly interested in football. If you knew anything about advertising then you would understand that you cannot evaluate success or failure of a campaign purely in sales terms as there is no way of ensuring that increases or decreases are a direct result of the campaign. Any basic primer on advertising will confirm that statement.
No no no dave, NOF's point sounds far more sensible to me, AIG spent tens if not hundred of millions just to appeal to united fans even though according to him it also puts at risk that non manu fans will then boycott the company.
Thanks Dave, this is interesting but it's also nonsense. However, you have put the time into putting some words together to create sentences so in the same way that I encourage my 4 year old I will encourage you. "AIG don't want to be associated with the paltry number of idiots who infest Old Trafford" - interesting comment, why sponsor United, there were much cheaper alternatives who were also televised in Asia? Also, paltry? Bearing in mind attendances in English football, please elaborate. "What they are after is the access to the wider global audience that comes with having their name on United's shirts" - the shirts worn by the paltry number of idiots who infest Old Trafford and who are visible in every match televised across the world? "You are right about their target market but they didn't care who's fans saw their brand displayed as this was a minute number compared to the tv audience and the general person in the street who wasn't even slightly interested in football." - I know I'm right, it's part of what I do for a living, but why would a brand spend so much money on a football related sponsorship to try and reach people who, as you say, aren't "even slighly interested in football"? Surely there are cheaper ways to reach non-football fans than spending money on sponsoring a football team? "If you knew anything about advertising then you would understand that you cannot evaluate success or failure of a campaign purely in sales terms as there is no way of ensuring that increases or decreases are a direct result of the campaign. Any basic primer on advertising will confirm that statement." - This is a remarkably stupid statement.
terrif, your counter intuitiness knows no bounds! You could possibly have cracked AIG's decline. It wasn't the 2007 crash at all it was that they relied solely upon United fans!!! Silly of me not to have figured that out
tell you what go and do some marketing study and then come back when you think you know something about the basics. Then we'll begin. Until then there's no point in trying to discuss something with you that you clearly don't understand.
And this from the man who uses "you're ignorant" as a way to close an argument. As for AIG, suggest you Google the reasons for their decline!
pedant. Now run off and do some marketing study you clearly need it. You do actually know what Marketing is don't you?
Thanks Dave but it would be more beneficial to your "argument" if you came up with something more substantive than "you're ignorant, I'm not listening to you la la la". It just makes you look like a stupid, old fart who's out of his depth, especially as it's what you revert to on pretty much every debate you get into.
Yes, marketing is when you spend money to target an audience with no interest in the product you are investing money in. You taught me that this evening Dave. Before you took me under your wing and showed me the truth I had wasted years mugging companies into paying me for what I thought was the real marketing!
NOF, you have continually proved you haven't got a clue about the strategies and philosophies that you are attempting to use. I can't put in what God left out. Now if you wish to continue demonstrating your ignorance on these matters so be it. You can of course bugger off as an alternative the choice is yours.
