• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Tottenham Hotspur Stadium - Licence To Stand

nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
Im thinking much like r-u-s-x




Surely it would be preferable to have the "opening" name of the stadium? Even if it later changes it will always have the legacy of being "The Nike Stadium" (for example).

Equally, if its originally "WHL MKII" then any further branding/naming would be devalued wouldnt it?
Click to expand...

Does anyone remember what St Mary's was opened as?
 
milo said:
I think that you are right, I was one of the people banging on about renaming stadiums having less value than new ones. If everyone gets used to calling it WHL, then the naming rights will be worth less.
Click to expand...

Im not sure about that, surely in the grand scheme of things sponsors aren't aiming their brand at the supporters of the team but the wider public and the professional world and they'll reach those by having their name associated with the stadium in an official sense through the media, which will get pushed regardless of what a relatively small amount of people refer to it as. The Saudi Sportswashing Machine example doesn't really hold weight for me, for a number of reasons
 
billyiddo said:
Im not sure about that, surely in the grand scheme of things sponsors aren't aiming their brand at the supporters of the team but the wider public and the professional world and they'll reach those by having their name associated with the stadium in an official sense through the media, which will get pushed regardless of what a relatively small amount of people refer to it as. The Saudi Sportswashing Machine example doesn't really hold weight for me, for a number of reasons
Click to expand...

It's about brand recognition. A new stadium, in a new location has a far better chance of being called by the sponsors name than a renamed stadium that people are used to being called something else.
 
milo said:
It's about brand recognition. A new stadium, in a new location has a far better chance of being called by the sponsors name than a renamed stadium that people are used to being called something else.
Click to expand...

Of course and that makes sense when arguing why Saudi Sportswashing Machine, when renaming a stadium with over a hundred years with one name may not get a particularly good deal in sponsorship but a new state of the art multi use stadium is a different kettle of fish and a year being called by a generic title won't really impact that in the same way. imo
 
The brands have to match the plan, you can't have Nike, the NFL, the PRemier League and then have a brand that does not fit the markets, it would make no sense.
 
billyiddo said:
Of course and that makes sense when arguing why Saudi Sportswashing Machine, when renaming a stadium with over a hundred years with one name may not get a particularly good deal in sponsorship but a new state of the art multi use stadium is a different kettle of fish and a year being called by a generic title won't really impact that in the same way. imo
Click to expand...

I'll probably still call the new stadium WHL
 
Stolen from Twitter:

532848_b0dfc8f8ed13a01999414e41055977f7.png
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
Why? If Panda Cola or Rainham Steel outbid everyone else, what would be the problem?
Click to expand...

The total sum of the deal with appeal to the US market is worth more in the long run than a brand that does not fit paying more. I can't be bothered to go into it but I work in marketing and was in Sports marketing and it fits. Its why Levy wants a brand that is selling to Consumer not Companies because it captures the audience which is key when the NFL is playing and then the long term pay off is conversion to Spurs as fans in the market.
 
Grays_1890 said:
The total sum of the deal with appeal to the US market is worth more in the long run than a brand that does not fit paying more. I can't be bothered to go into it but I work in marketing and was in Sports marketing and it fits. Its why Levy wants a brand that is selling to Consumer not Companies because it captures the audience which is key when the NFL is playing and then the long term pay off is conversion to Spurs as fans in the market.
Click to expand...

So, not just a B2C brand, but one which is powerful, relevant and attractive enough to confer a halo effect on Spurs, at least as far as US sports fans are concerned?

Meaning that EA, Nike or Apple would cut it, but FedEx or Audi wouldn't?
 
For example you might have a UK brand thats doing very well for itself, made huge profit and feel the next stage is sponsor ship so they say to Spurs "200m for 10 years done deal" and that brand turns out to be Cash Convertors for example, that brand will in the long term bury the over arching project Spurs are trying to achieve, its not just about the short term money its about the long term goal.
 
Grays_1890 said:
For example you might have a UK brand thats doing very well for itself, made huge profit and feel the next stage is sponsor ship so they say to Spurs "200m for 10 years done deal" and that brand turns out to be Cash Convertors for example, that brand will in the long term bury the over arching project Spurs are trying to achieve, its not just about the short term money its about the long term goal.
Click to expand...


I think we all get the issue of negative brands, whether it's gambling, dodgy operators like Brighthouse or Cash Convertors, fly-by-night VC-pumped tech B2B, or pikey B2C like Panda Pops. We'd all see the disadvantage of tying the Spurs brand to a bunch of bastards.

Your point is really interesting because Brits - or, at least, brand-literate, forum-posting, middle-aged ones - don't tend to see any mega-brand as casting a halo effect. Say Nike to one of us, and we will say "sweatshop". Mention EA and we will talk about better, more obscure sports sims. Apple? We'll fulminate about walled gardens and designed-in obsolescence. But the rest of the world doesn't have the same cynicism reflex, and in a global brand marketplace I think you're going to be absolutely right.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Yeh exactly
Click to expand...

I don’t agree that FedEx or Audi, or similar brands, wouldn’t work. Cash Convertors, sure, that doesn’t suit at all. But you only need to look at the Emirates and Etihad for examples of traditional non-sports brands doing well. And no coincidence both are premium brands in their field.
 
tommysvr said:
I don’t agree that FedEx or Audi, or similar brands, wouldn’t work. Cash Convertors, sure, that doesn’t suit at all. But you only need to look at the Emirates and Etihad for examples of traditional non-sports brands doing well. And no coincidence both are premium brands in their field.
Click to expand...

Would (do) those brands have much resonance with the US market though? (Genuine question. I sense not, but might be wrong).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back