Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

St James' Park

Delima

by Delima
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

ohmelads

ohmelads

Posted
Posted

Interesting piece from International Marketing Reports, 'a sports marketing and digital television intelligence publisher...best known for publishing Europe’s best selling and most highly acclaimed sponsorship report, Driving Business Through Sport (editions 1 & 2) and for the International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship.'. The company is based some 388 miles from SJP.

 

http://www.imrpublications.com/commentdetails.aspx?nid=38

COMMENT

Naming rights - a tale of two cities

14/11/2011

 

Excellent article. It begs the question: is Ashley really that naive and stupid as to damage the very brand he is trying to sell? There are obviously better ways to attract sponsorship. Or is it all a smokescreen by Ashley to gain free sponsorship for Sports Direct?

 

Let's face it, by "showcasing" his own sponsor all over the stadium he has probably deterred investors and I'd be surprised if he's stupid enough not to know that. The aim from the outset I believe was to use the "showcase" as a smokescreen - the sponsor has already been found and it is Sports Direct. If I am wrong and a company walks into this whole messy situation and pays a fortune to have its name across the stands, I still don't believe any significant money will be injected into the club as a result. It's win win for Ashley but the club has nothing to gain in my view and will sacrifice 130 years of history into the bargain.

 

If the club was gaining something substantial from the deal, such as a new stadium or a major improvement to the current stadium it would be easier to sell the idea to fans. But the fans aren't stupid to believe that this will see increased transfer budgets, espescially just a few months after Carroll's 35M sale and similar promises of reinvestment. The team is doing well in the league but Ashley is trying to exploit that. 10 games unbeaten doesn't give you the right to change the stadium name with no tangible benefit to the club.

Link to post
Share on other sites
ohmelads

ohmelads

Posted
Posted

 

If we are successful on the pitch, i dont see why not but there is still the suspicion that the plan was to have SD all along. I think i mentioned on here someone told me that they were discussing SD as the next shirt sponsor weeks ago. Someone may remember correcting me on the NR deal coming to an end this year, at the time i just heard that and assumed the deal was ending. Now its clear it been on the table for the last couple of months. In which case, i find it hard to see which company would want to come in and have a stadium name which is clearly (from a branding perspective) completely drowned out by all the SD branding, on shirts, stands, roofs and billboards.

 

My view is that they do want to sell it all and will if they can find someone to pay them what they want. Whether we can find that or not is the question, for me the key driver of that is success on the pitch which is where i would differ from what was written in that article. So, basically multiply the chances of us having an amazing season by the chance of a stadium naming fitting with a major company's business plan.

 

I agree the article gives too much weight to small factors when success on the field is what attracts sponsorship far more than anything else. Your Man Utd example is a good one, the sponsors won't worry too much about PR disasters if the club is flying high in the league and their brand is assosciated. However don't you think that a club that was recently relegated and has seen minimal investment in players over recent seasons would be viewed cautiously by sponsors looking to ally their brand with a "successful" club? Man Utd are a consistent success story, but even if we do finish high up the table this year, it may still be viewed as a one-off season.

 

As the article rightly points out, changing a stadium name is a long-term investment and I just don't see sponsors committing to that on the back of 1 successful season. I think the author has used bad examples but I think his point remains that sponsors will look at the bigger picture and will likely look beyond the results of one season, especially when the club sold its star players just this summer and may well do so again. If the club isn't viewed as ambitious then one successful season may not be enough to attract investors to a long term investment. As you say, their investment is a gamble on the success of the club and their brand being associated with it. Anyone who has followed Newcastle over recent years will know the club has an erratic owner and has hardly been the most ambitious in the transfer market. That's where we differ from Man Utd who are a much safer investment.

 

I also believe that by already changing the stadium name the club has weakened the impact of another stadium name change happening a year down the line. Fans, the media and everybody else will think "here we go again, they've changed the bloody name". For a sponsor looking to get a bang for their buck I think it was the wrong decision to rename the stadium temporarily, and that's what makes me suspicious of the real motives behind it. If the club does secure a deal Ashley will have an extra revenue stream and if it doesn't, his company gets free advertising. For him it's win-win but I don't believe the club will see increased investment either way. After all that's gone on I think we'd be stupid to believe Llambias' promises of new players. Without any proven, tangible benefits for the club they're never going to sell a stadium name change to the fans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
AyeDubbleYoo

AyeDubbleYoo

Posted
Posted

I also believe that by already changing the stadium name the club has weakened the impact of another stadium name change happening a year down the line. Fans, the media and everybody else will think "here we go again, they've changed the bloody name". For a sponsor looking to get a bang for their buck I think it was the wrong decision to rename the stadium temporarily, and that's what makes me suspicious of the real motives behind it.

 

I think that too, it's an often-overlooked point I think. People are just going to be getting used to the Sports Direct Arena when it becomes the Easyjet Arena or the Sainsburys Taste The Difference Arena or whatever the fuck else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sifu

Sifu

Posted
Posted

ESPN's Jon Champion:

"Next time I commentate on them I certainly have no intention of calling it the Sports Direct Arena, it has always been and will always be St James’ Park."

 

There's another one  :clap:

 

:thup:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest BlacknWhiteArmy

Guest BlacknWhiteArmy

Posted
Posted

Virgin St James´Park.

 

Virgin @ St James' Park

 

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/nejournal/oct2011/2/1/pete-toogood-522761405.jpg

 

Nice :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...