Various: Mike Ashley in talks with Sheikh Khaled bin Zayed Al Nehayan

[Jamie87]

You work in PPC, right. When you're reporting to your clients what are the main metrics the client is interested in?  Conversions, cost per conversion and conversion rate for the most part, particularly when it's an ecommerce site.

If reports are showing a slight reduction in cpc. but a big drop in conversions, big jump in avg. CPA and reduction in conversion rate that's something that will be noticed.

 

Yes, i'm making assumptions, as are you. The whole point here is disruption and this will disrupt.

I would wager my house on Sports Direct not having an uncapped daily budget. I've worked with some huge companies and they all had a daily spend limits, and when I say big i'm talking about huge high street retailers that dominate their sectors.

The only way that would be happening is if their cost per conversion is so low that they've just said to their PPC Manager 'get as many sales as you can at that CPA or under.'. So if we drive up the CPA what happens? Disruption and investigation into why their CPA is going up.

 

Yes, Retailers are predominantly interested in returns for sure. Return on Ad Spend (ROAS = Revenue generated/Ad spend) is the normal metric they're interested in. But let's keep it simpler with Cost Per Acquisition (CPA = Cost/Sales).

 

I gave you an example where costs were reduced and sales not increased. That's still an improvement in average CPA. They'd be happy with that.

 

Totally agree that I'm making assumptions. As we both are. But I would take you up on your wager. Spend limits are a naive way to control spend. Bid and CPC is a much better way. If you're capping out and losing impression share to Budget, you're leaving money on the table. You could have got the same spend away with more clicks at a lower CPC, or you've missed out on potentially profitable clicks that could have been had later in the day.

 

The truth is though, that neither of us know for sure. Unless one of happens to work on their account?! 

 

So at absolute best, all we can say is that clicking on their ads fraudulently might make their account less efficient, and it might make it more efficient. At the moment we're sitting on the two opposite sides of the fence, based on our own vast experience. And I'd hazard you're an expert in the field. I'd consider myself one too. If we're not in agreement, then it's because it's impossible to say what the definite outcome will be.

 

In which case I think the best course of action would be to agree it's uncertain and not do it.

 

As an aside, I'm not trying to create confrontation or cause problems. This is just my informed opinion on the topic and I'm not trying to belittle the views of others. Maybe we even know each other IRL, PPC is an incredibly small and incestuous world afterall!

[Darth Crooks]

you 69'd_steve like?

[Darth Crooks]

^

 

My outstanding contribution to this digital marketing socratic discussion

[Jamie87]

you 69'd_steve like?

 

No comment.

[steve_69]

You work in PPC, right. When you're reporting to your clients what are the main metrics the client is interested in?  Conversions, cost per conversion and conversion rate for the most part, particularly when it's an ecommerce site.

If reports are showing a slight reduction in cpc. but a big drop in conversions, big jump in avg. CPA and reduction in conversion rate that's something that will be noticed.

 

Yes, i'm making assumptions, as are you. The whole point here is disruption and this will disrupt.

I would wager my house on Sports Direct not having an uncapped daily budget. I've worked with some huge companies and they all had a daily spend limits, and when I say big i'm talking about huge high street retailers that dominate their sectors.

The only way that would be happening is if their cost per conversion is so low that they've just said to their PPC Manager 'get as many sales as you can at that CPA or under.'. So if we drive up the CPA what happens? Disruption and investigation into why their CPA is going up.

 

Yes, Retailers are predominantly interested in returns for sure. Return on Ad Spend (ROAS = Revenue generated/Ad spend) is the normal metric they're interested in. But let's keep it simpler with Cost Per Acquisition (CPA = Cost/Sales).

 

I gave you an example where costs were reduced and sales not increased. That's still an improvement in average CPA. They'd be happy with that.

 

Totally agree that I'm making assumptions. As we both are. But I would take you up on your wager. Spend limits are a naive way to control spend. Bid and CPC is a much better way. If you're capping out and losing impression share to Budget, you're leaving money on the table. You could have got the same spend away with more clicks at a lower CPC, or you've missed out on potentially profitable clicks that could have been had later in the day.

 

The truth is though, that neither of us know for sure. Unless one of happens to work on their account?! 

 

So at absolute best, all we can say is that clicking on their ads fraudulently might make their account less efficient, and it might make it more efficient. At the moment we're sitting on the two opposite sides of the fence, based on our own vast experience. And I'd hazard you're an expert in the field. I'd consider myself one too. If we're not in agreement, then it's because it's impossible to say what the definite outcome will be.

 

In which case I think the best course of action would be to agree it's uncertain and not do it.

 

As an aside, I'm not trying to create confrontation or cause problems. This is just my informed opinion on the topic and I'm not trying to belittle the views of others. Maybe we even know each other IRL, PPC is an incredibly small and incestuous world afterall!

 

Fair enough, let's call it 1-1.

 

69?

[Jamie87]

You work in PPC, right. When you're reporting to your clients what are the main metrics the client is interested in?  Conversions, cost per conversion and conversion rate for the most part, particularly when it's an ecommerce site.

If reports are showing a slight reduction in cpc. but a big drop in conversions, big jump in avg. CPA and reduction in conversion rate that's something that will be noticed.

 

Yes, i'm making assumptions, as are you. The whole point here is disruption and this will disrupt.

I would wager my house on Sports Direct not having an uncapped daily budget. I've worked with some huge companies and they all had a daily spend limits, and when I say big i'm talking about huge high street retailers that dominate their sectors.

The only way that would be happening is if their cost per conversion is so low that they've just said to their PPC Manager 'get as many sales as you can at that CPA or under.'. So if we drive up the CPA what happens? Disruption and investigation into why their CPA is going up.

 

Yes, Retailers are predominantly interested in returns for sure. Return on Ad Spend (ROAS = Revenue generated/Ad spend) is the normal metric they're interested in. But let's keep it simpler with Cost Per Acquisition (CPA = Cost/Sales).

 

I gave you an example where costs were reduced and sales not increased. That's still an improvement in average CPA. They'd be happy with that.

 

Totally agree that I'm making assumptions. As we both are. But I would take you up on your wager. Spend limits are a naive way to control spend. Bid and CPC is a much better way. If you're capping out and losing impression share to Budget, you're leaving money on the table. You could have got the same spend away with more clicks at a lower CPC, or you've missed out on potentially profitable clicks that could have been had later in the day.

 

The truth is though, that neither of us know for sure. Unless one of happens to work on their account?! 

 

So at absolute best, all we can say is that clicking on their ads fraudulently might make their account less efficient, and it might make it more efficient. At the moment we're sitting on the two opposite sides of the fence, based on our own vast experience. And I'd hazard you're an expert in the field. I'd consider myself one too. If we're not in agreement, then it's because it's impossible to say what the definite outcome will be.

 

In which case I think the best course of action would be to agree it's uncertain and not do it.

 

As an aside, I'm not trying to create confrontation or cause problems. This is just my informed opinion on the topic and I'm not trying to belittle the views of others. Maybe we even know each other IRL, PPC is an incredibly small and incestuous world afterall!

 

Fair enough, let's call it 1-1.

 

69?

 

Your place or mine?

[steve_69]

You work in PPC, right. When you're reporting to your clients what are the main metrics the client is interested in?  Conversions, cost per conversion and conversion rate for the most part, particularly when it's an ecommerce site.

If reports are showing a slight reduction in cpc. but a big drop in conversions, big jump in avg. CPA and reduction in conversion rate that's something that will be noticed.

 

Yes, i'm making assumptions, as are you. The whole point here is disruption and this will disrupt.

I would wager my house on Sports Direct not having an uncapped daily budget. I've worked with some huge companies and they all had a daily spend limits, and when I say big i'm talking about huge high street retailers that dominate their sectors.

The only way that would be happening is if their cost per conversion is so low that they've just said to their PPC Manager 'get as many sales as you can at that CPA or under.'. So if we drive up the CPA what happens? Disruption and investigation into why their CPA is going up.

 

Yes, Retailers are predominantly interested in returns for sure. Return on Ad Spend (ROAS = Revenue generated/Ad spend) is the normal metric they're interested in. But let's keep it simpler with Cost Per Acquisition (CPA = Cost/Sales).

 

I gave you an example where costs were reduced and sales not increased. That's still an improvement in average CPA. They'd be happy with that.

 

Totally agree that I'm making assumptions. As we both are. But I would take you up on your wager. Spend limits are a naive way to control spend. Bid and CPC is a much better way. If you're capping out and losing impression share to Budget, you're leaving money on the table. You could have got the same spend away with more clicks at a lower CPC, or you've missed out on potentially profitable clicks that could have been had later in the day.

 

The truth is though, that neither of us know for sure. Unless one of happens to work on their account?! 

 

So at absolute best, all we can say is that clicking on their ads fraudulently might make their account less efficient, and it might make it more efficient. At the moment we're sitting on the two opposite sides of the fence, based on our own vast experience. And I'd hazard you're an expert in the field. I'd consider myself one too. If we're not in agreement, then it's because it's impossible to say what the definite outcome will be.

 

In which case I think the best course of action would be to agree it's uncertain and not do it.

 

As an aside, I'm not trying to create confrontation or cause problems. This is just my informed opinion on the topic and I'm not trying to belittle the views of others. Maybe we even know each other IRL, PPC is an incredibly small and incestuous world afterall!

 

Fair enough, let's call it 1-1.

 

69?

 

Your place or mine?

 

[Sho Time]

Shameless piece on the Sky Sports website titled ‘Hope yet for Newcastle Academy’ with a big spread on all th local players that featured when we beat a League 1 clubs U-19s because their U23’s are actually playing in the senior squad. Sad thing is plenty of mongs akin to Sunderland fans will lap this up.

[Charlies]

[TooonDoom]

I wholeheartedly and genuinely think this will be a futile exercise.

 

Given you know more than me about this I will take your word  Thanks for the info.  The only thing I don't understand is if there were enough people doing this(and I accept that getting the number of people to do it is unlikely/impossible) would it be possible?  Let's say 100,000 people evenly distributed in the UK who were all in and clicked the ad's.  How would google be able to distinguish these to real people?

 

 

 

[Mr Logic]

Thing is, he only owns 61% of SD so if we can get at them enough and have a material affect on their business and marketing then he'll be getting pressure from the other shareholders too.

That's the key, empty stadium is unrealistic unfortunately so this is the best approach.

 

Previously owning nufc was a benefit to SD with no major drawbacks.

With the social media stuff it's still a benefit but currently must be an annoyance.

The next step is to turn that annoyance into something more where it has a financial impact.

 

 

 

This all kicked off around 18th July....

https://www.newcastle-online.org/forum/index.php?topic=99882.11450

 

And this has happened to the SD share price since, a share price which was previously going up....

 

Of course, maybe this is all coincidence, but I really don't think so. I am utterly convinced this is having an impact, it's the only notable thing which has happened to SD since 18th July which could explain this continued descent of the share price, unless someone would like to tell me otherwise? And Ashley will be 100% aware of the connection too. He'll wake up every single morning and the first thing he'll do is check the share prices.

 

I believe there's a connection between the 2, but what's way more important is that he'll believe there's a connection too and he'll be fucking furious.

 

There are several factors involved in SD share price downturn, unfortunately none of them are directly attributable to the protests.

 

The Annual figures released around that time showed a downturn in profit.

 

Search engine results for "Ashley interest in HoF" produces a lot of results starting around August.

 

and finally..

 

https://www.ft.com/content/6c15270e-a618-11e8-926a-7342fe5e173f

 

..as posted earlier - https://www.newcastle-online.org/forum/index.php?topic=99882.msg6806746#msg6806746

 

 

 

Sports Direct’s billionaire founder Mike Ashley and his chairman Keith Hellawell face a fraught annual meeting in September after independent shareholders were urged to vote against the re-election of the two men to the board.

 

Glass Lewis, a shareholder advisory company, has made its recommendation ahead of the company’s annual meeting on September 12, following years of “poor governance” and disappointing responses to shareholder worries.

 

It also sounded a warning note about the circumstances of the company’s recently announced acquisition of department store chain House of Fraser for £90m. It said the timing of the announcement, which came just hours after House of Fraser went into administration, had drawn the attention of regulators.

 

“Shareholders should be concerned with any type of regulatory investigation involving the company, as such matters could potentially expand in scope and prove to dampen shareholder value,” it said. The UK Pensions Regulator has already confirmed it is looking at the circumstances of the group’s administration and subsequent sale.

 

Sports Direct has had several years of revolts at its annual meetings, with independent shareholders voting against Mr Hellawell’s re-election at the 2016 meeting and a subsequent extraordinary general meeting.

 

    [Ashley’s] constant presence in negative news stories and his sometimes petulant reactions to questioning do little to ingratiate him to interested parties

  Glass Lewis

 

On that occasion, the former senior police officer held on to his role thanks to the backing of Mr Ashley, who owns more than 60 per cent of the company’s stock. Mr Hellawell again narrowly retained his chairmanship last year — just over half of independent shareholders backed his re-election.

 

A bonus scheme in 2014 provoked so much anger that Mr Ashley later withdrew himself from it, while an attempt to pay Mr Ashley’s brother £11m in back pay for his previous role as the company’s IT director was blocked by independent shareholders in December last year.

 

Glass Lewis accused several of the board’s directors, including Mr Hellawell, of a poor response to shareholder dissent. It also recommended votes against Simon Bentley and David Brayshaw. Mr Bentley is nominated for re-election despite serving as a non-executive since 2007. The revised corporate governance code states that non-executives should not serve more than nine years.

 

 

It also said a vote against Mr Hellawell was merited because of the lack of diversity at the company. The retailer has no women on its board. Mr Ashley said at the company’s recent annual results presentation that it intended to nominate more women, but did not indicate a timeframe for doing this.

 

“We are currently interviewing a number of female candidates to join the board as non-executive directors,” the company said at the time, adding that “women hold approximately 35 per cent of senior leadership roles.”

 

The influential proxy adviser, which is the second-largest in the world, was also highly critical of Mr Ashley personally, arguing his “constant presence in negative news stories and his sometimes petulant reactions to questioning do little to ingratiate him to interested parties”.

 

However, some investors regard Mr Ashley as fundamental to the group’s success and argue that Sports Direct’s idiosyncratic corporate governance is a price worth paying.

 

The company declined to comment on the recommendations.

 

Additional reporting by Jonathan Eley

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2018. All rights reserved.

 

And listen to Jamie87. The ad clicks are doing nothing.

But keep going with all the visible protests that media cameras will pick up on, they always inflence opinion.

[TheGuv]

I’m at work and can’t get out unfortunately.

 

Imagine if we had a few Magpie Group etc there to stand up and say “we won’t stop until he goes”. That may throw the cat amongst the pigeons

[SEMTEX]

American cunts - did yee knaa this wanker bought EMS?? Was wandering round in one and some marra was talking about how supercool euro store SportsDirect had taken over and was stocking the place with cool new brands. Immediately exited. Sad I had no AO stickers or something.

[Paully]

Another pathetic embarrassing load of utter shit!

 

 

Andy Gray- Mike Ashley has done a good job at Newcastle

 

August 22, 2018 17:27

 

beIN SPORTS pundit Andy Gray is unsure what the fans want from Newcastle owner Mike Ashley

 

Mitch Freeley

 

beIN SPORTS pundit Andy Gray has backed Newcastle owner Mike Ashley in his ongoing feud with Rafa Benitez and the fans, suggesting that the fans do not know what they want from Ashely.

 

Newcastle has only picked up one point from their opening two Premier League games, amid increasing fan frustration that the club did not spend big to attract players to the club and build from their encouraging tenth place finish last season.

Gray opens the interview suggesting that Newcastle fans have big expectations, especially in relation to the major trophies the Magpies have won over the years.

 

“You have to be very careful because Newcastle fans have an expectancy maybe beyond what they should have.”

They haven’t won a domestic trophy since 1955, that’s a long time since they haven’t won any trophy since the Fairs cup in 1968.

 

“Yet they (the fans) still think they are entitled to whatever Mike Ashley has got, whatever his millions are. I think Mike Ashley has done a really good job with them, they finished tenth last year.”

 

Whilst Gray further backed Ashley further insisting that the millionaire owner has spent money on players to help Newcastle finish tenth and backed Rafa again this summer with more signings to strengthen the squad.

 

“I heard last year that Mike Ashley was ridiculous he didn’t give Rafa enough money they were this, they were that they finished tenth. Rafa spent more money and brought more players in and they might finish ninth this year. I dunno what they want. Do they want Mike Ashley to say here’s a quarter of a billion pounds of my money you can have it and spend it how you want Rafa, it’s not going to happen, It’s not going to happen.”

 

“If you look at the investment he’s made in Newcastle I don’t get the stick he gets I really don’t. Then again, I’m not up there seven days a week the way the Newcastle fans are. I don’t know what they want from Mike I really don’t. He’s brought in Rafa Benitez he gets no praise for that, he brought him in he was the man that said I’m going to bring Rafa Benitez into the club and yet he gets no credit for that.”

 

Added the former Scottish international, noting that Ashley is never praised for his role in bringing Benitez to Tyneside. 

Gray did admit however that Newcastle will always find it tough to bring in the best players to compete in the upper end of the Premier League.

 

“It’s a difficult place to attract the very best players because most of the foreign players that come to the Uk want to play in London, Manchester or Liverpool they don’t want to play in the North East of England. So it’s difficult to attract the very best players up there.”

 

Concluding, Gray suggested that Newcastle fans should settle for a push in the cups and a top half finish in the Premier League as the clubs best level.

 

“If they finish between sixth and tenth most years and win a cup or have a cup run unless they do a Leicester and surprise us all, I think that’s where they are.”

 

 

[NG32]

I cant even read these opening lines 

 

 

“You have to be very careful because Newcastle fans have an expectancy maybe beyond what they should have.”

They haven’t won a domestic trophy since 1955, that’s a long time since they haven’t won any trophy since the Fairs cup in 1968.

 

“Yet they (the fans) still think they are entitled to whatever Mike Ashley has got

 

 

[Darth Crooks]

‘Concluding, Gray suggested that Newcastle fans should settle for a push in the cups and a top half finish in the Premier League as the clubs best level.’

 

What a conclusion. We’re. It even doing that you daft exiled mysoginist.

[Conjo]

What an awful piece.

[NG32]

I was about to fire up the twittercopter gunship but Andy Gray has no Twitter account.

[Paully]

https://twitter.com/bigchrisholt/status/1032378707799814145?s=21

 

 

[Minhosa]

'Concluding, Minhosa suggested Gray, should take his opinions and ram them up his fucking ringpiece, lodging them somewhere next to Keith Bishops tiny cock and Richard Keys filthy Gorilla-esque digits'.

[Shearergol]

Concluding, Gray suggested that Newcastle fans should settle for a push in the cups and a top half finish in the Premier League as the clubs best level.

 

“If they finish between sixth and tenth most years and win a cup or have a cup run unless they do a Leicester and surprise us all, I think that’s where they are.”

 

That's all we fucking want.

[Big Geordie]

Keith Bishop's stench all over that one! Awful piece.

[Hhtoon]

I dunno what they want. Do they want Mike Ashley to say here’s a quarter of a billion pounds of my money you can have it and spend it how you want Rafa, it’s not going to happen, It’s not going to happen.”

 

I don’t know what they want from Mike I really don’t.

 

Why do the keep on with these stupid values/comparisons? Ashley saying we can't compete with Man City - agreed, how about the other 18 clubs? £250b of his own money - no, just what the club generates. If he wants to make the best of the club and throw a 5th of that on top then that would be nice I suppose.

 

And he lets the familiar "Mike" slip in. Or maybe Keith made a typo on his script. 

[mrmojorisin75]

I was about to fire up the twittercopter gunship but Andy Gray has no Twitter account.

it's incredibly cathartic telling these cunts to fuck themselves mind

[HaydnNUFC]

All these cunts on the Bishop payroll coming out with this unmitigated bollocks and blatant lies is Ashley's response to the pressure. Absolutely pathetic.