Rugby : building a brand

First topic message reminder :

There are a number of methods available some of which are more successful than others:

Pile it high sell it cheap. The Tesco's motto coined by it's founder Jack Cohen. The idea is to cut the individual margins to the very minimum (with some loss leaders). The idea is to create a brand loyalty but it depends on product quality. Tesco, Saisbury's, Asda, Waitrose etc. hace managed with varying degrees of success to do this.
A model being explored by Sarries and most recently, the Ospreys.
Sell the basic product and hopefully you can earn higher margins from impulse purchases from additional sales points.

Premium marketing. As exploited by Knightsbridge stores, Land Rover etc. This concept is to build and maintain a product range that is reliable and which can on reputation command premium prices. The best stores can become destination shopping sites. The essential trick is to maintain product standards.

Local specialist outlets. Here the customers must be prepared to pay a premium for a reasonable product as the danger is that the consumer may go on-line to access a superior, cheaper alternative.

Monopoly suppliers. Strictly illegal under EU competition Laws, but can go under the radar. A single supplier owns the entire local market and creates any artificial barriers to entry. But as with any market, the consumer will dictate market prices dependant on the product available.

Cartel agreements. Similar to Monopoly suppliers (above) under European competition laws, illegal , but by mutual agreement ensure that each partner maintains a share of any business on a pre-agreed basis. In it's nature barriers to entry to the market must be rigid.

Sin é wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

Sin é wrote:Fly, the point I would make is that only kids under 10 would jump ship because all their friend are supporting such and such a team. not grown-ups.

I dunno about that. Who's Cari favouring these days?

Cari has an emotional attachment to one player (not a team).

Would that be Tommy who displaced Gav in her affections?

"the point I would make is that only kids under 10 would jump ship because all their friend are supporting such and such a team. not grown-ups"

The point I'm making here is not personal, but some people who never found a bond to a team in their formative years are more likely to switch affections (brand loyalties).
My mum only ever bought Hotpoint appliances when she could - because they were considered the best in the early 1920s (and her dad worked for them).

Sin é wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Sin é wrote:
Not really, unless you are confusing them with event goers. According to Neil Francis yesterday, his Lunster friends are not going to Leinster matches.

I don't really know how many former Lunsters have converted to following Leinster but I'd be looking for a bigger sample size than Neil Francis' friends before I made a definitive judgement one way or the other.

The main point about that bit of info was that Francis couldn't understand why they were not jumping onto the Leinser bandwagon!

edit: they now have an emotional attachment to Munster.

Yeah that would probably be the reason they wouldn't jump ship it would be a bit like a Liverpool supporter changing to Man Utd whe they became successful.If they're bandwagoners it's far more likely that they'll just scale back on their interest in rugby waiting until Munster get back to the top,while some of them will stay as true Munster fans.

Mickado wrote:

Portnoy wrote:Neil Francis. Is this the same NF (no 8) who faded into the oblivion 15 or so years ago?

Is this on-topic or should I create an article Neil Francis is a great Irish rugby reporter - Discuss?

Talk to yourself if you don't like what people are saying. It's clearly relevant to brand loyalty.

Do you just not want Irish people to comment?

I have absolutely no problem with Irish posts. All I want to do is steer the Article on course (on topic).

I am astonished that no-one has challenged my charge about monopolistic controls of markets.

The thing about Lunsters was that they were so vociferous in their support of Munster and derision of Leinster that it's too embarrassing to switch alligiences now. They're currently all hiding in a cave in Edenderry.

Sometimes you're emotionally trapped and you can't but form a bond. Instincts prevent you from making a rational decision to follow.

National allegiance is a tough one to go against...and you follow those guys through success and miserable, miserable failure...naturally.

Regional rugby can have the same imperative. It's difficult to rationally say you don't follow a side that is made up of people from your area, district, region, province. It's kind of a natural yearning to feel you have a vested interest in your side. So whilst it might not be natural for a Cavan man to follow Liverpool, it is considered natural that a Liverpudlian might, if into football in the first place.

So how much of club/regional loyalty is really our rational choice to make based on the success of branding, and how much of it is inbred tribal instincts that are oblivious to any branding.

The only people who are truly open to brand methods are those floaters; - so.... how many of us distinctly follow a side that doesn't come from the area we were born in or have lived most of our life in?

How many Dubs (living in Dublin) boo Leinster when they clash with Leicester (their side of choice rather than lineage)? Only those kind of guys can really comment on the power of branding and the branding reasons they chose to support a club/region outside of their own.

Mickado wrote: Do you just not want Irish people to comment?

This thread is becoming too Hiberno-Centric

Well put fly, I have no choice about what team I support.

PenfroPete wrote:

Mickado wrote: Do you just not want Irish people to comment?

This thread is becoming too Hiberno-Centric

You're right! I think Irish people should be considered Off-Topic for the purposes of this topic

Is this topic too cerebral for our English, Welsh and Scottish buddies????

Only Irish people are talking because only Irish people understand the deeper complexities of absolute nonsense

SecretFly wrote:Is this topic too cerebral for our English, Welsh and Scottish buddies????

Only Irish people are talking because only Irish people understand the deeper complexities of absolute nonsense

Oi, who are you calling Irish

SecretFly wrote:

PenfroPete wrote:

Mickado wrote: Do you just not want Irish people to comment?

This thread is becoming too Hiberno-Centric

You're right! I think Irish people should be considered Off-Topic for the purposes of this topic

In a decent debate, you should be able to concentrate on a subject.

Any Hiberno-centric comments I have made were in or about the pub from which I removed myself.

Can we now reconvene the discussion sensibly?

Kiwireddevil wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Is this topic too cerebral for our English, Welsh and Scottish buddies????

Only Irish people are talking because only Irish people understand the deeper complexities of absolute nonsense

Oi, who are you calling Irish

Welcome to the party Kiwi - and if you could make enough sense of this load of rubbish to leave a comment then you deserve to be called an Irishman!

Cardiff should hire the guys who rebranded Skoda cars.

SecretFly wrote:Is this topic too cerebral for our English, Welsh and Scottish buddies????

NO, it's just we learnt our lessons as long time ago

SecretFly wrote: Only Irish people are talking because only Irish people understand the deeper complexities of absolute nonsense

Are you related to Gibbo ?

Portnoy wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

PenfroPete wrote:

Mickado wrote: Do you just not want Irish people to comment?

This thread is becoming too Hiberno-Centric

You're right! I think Irish people should be considered Off-Topic for the purposes of this topic

In a decent debate, you should be able to concentrate on a subject.

Any Hiberno-centric comments I have made were in or about the pub from which I removed myself.

Can we now reconvene the discussion sensibly?

But Portnoy, you're not involving yourself in the 'discussion'. You made a statement...looked at all the off-topic responses and complained that things aren't going according to plan. Just how does one discuss your initial point? I asked that question of you earlier and you obviously regarded the question as off-topic and didn't reply. You can only have a discussion when people engage in one.

What exactly is the subject then Portnoy,in the OP you make some statements but don't really tell us what you want to discuss.

You can't blame people for going off in their own direction when you have failed to point the way.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:What exactly is the subject then Portnoy,in the OP you make some statements but don't really tell us what you want to discuss.

You can't blame people for going off in their own direction when you have failed to point the way.

It says it on the tin "Rugby : building a brand" supported by some analogies from the retail market, asls.

I certainly don't recall any references to random hacks' unattributed comments via social networks or whatever.

Nor the relevance of direct or oblique personal attacks.

What about building a brand do you want to discuss,several people have tried different approaches and they've all been wrong so please direct us to the right discussion.

I think Portnoy would like us to talk about the provinces being monopoly suppliers and the Pro 12 countries being cartels. Both of which are illegal in commerce.

I think the IRFU clearly has a monopoly in supplying pro rugby teams to the the Irish people. But who else would? If I was a billionaire, and set up a pro rugby team called the Feckless Rogues, could the IRFU stop me? No. They'd probably even let me play their teams if I waved enough money at them.

The Pro 12 countries have obviously grouped together to avoid being consumed by the two giants. England and France. Which would have inevitably happened if they hadn't acted as they did. All the best players from Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy would be playing for English and French clubs. And the Heineken Cup would be a poorer tournament. I think it's a good thing for the broader health of European rugby and world rugby that the Pro 12 countries have escaped their fate of being eaten by the giants. Although Welsh rugby seems to be, again slipping towards a grizzly demise. No doubt, they'll be fighting and name calling among themselves as the French pick over the regions corpses.

What would you call the American NFL model? It's completely ring-fenced. I'm pretty sure that TV money is spread equally among the teams. And in fact, the weakest teams get first pick of the best young new players to help them get stronger. Ironically, the yanks are practically communists when it comes to football. But they're obviously not in real life. But football is just a game. And the overall health of everybody is important, for the game to be fun to watch.

I think there are a few other points to consider.

Rugby is not only a product. It is a deep seated love for a sport same as any other sport that you have learn't to love becuase of your experiences.

Rugby is to a certain extent also area or region focused and most of the time you will support your club/province/region that you grew up.

You need to think outside the box here.

I think what Portnoy is aimiing at here is how the "branding" or "methods of branding" can increase fan base.

To talk about teams have to perform before they can effectively brand their product in my view isn't entirely correct.

In SA there is loyalty to the extreme for each of the various provinces and irrespective of whether people move away to other areas they remian loyal to their provinces, even in bad times.

Branding categories or methods may differ from province to province, but overall I would think it is very difficult to categorise a club/province in only one specific one.

When a team is doing badly a club cannot use "Premium marketing" as their preferred marketing method, they need to use "Pile it high and sell it cheap" etc.

So different times would require different methods.

Loyalty of course will always be there.


Just my point of view.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:What about building a brand do you want to discuss,several people have tried different approaches and they've all been wrong so please direct us to the right discussion.

There is no point sniping asls, the debate is either worthy of contributing to (on-topic) or not. It's that easy.

All I've tried to do is divert it away from localised Lunster feuds, what local hacks are 'reported' to have said and it has now been reduced to a snidy harangue on me personally or by inference.

I thought we were all having a little irreverent ironic fun with the idea that nobody was staying on track (including Portnoy)... but it seems Portnoy is taking it seriously and thinks he has been obliquely attacked.

For my part, I certainly didn't set out to personally attack anyone. Apologies if any of my funnin' appeared to be condecending - I really did think Portnoy was in on the fun.

But if he was making the point Feckless now alludes to, then perhaps a less oblique way of saying so might have helped us all.

Portnoy do you not see that the Munster-Leinster thing is relevant. So is the Lunster debate. So is the remarks Neil Francis made.

They all all about building a brand.

They are on topic.

Feckless Rogue wrote:I think Portnoy would like us to talk about the provinces being monopoly suppliers and the Pro 12 countries being cartels. Both of which are illegal in commerce.

I think the IRFU clearly has a monopoly in supplying pro rugby teams to the the Irish people. But who else would? If I was a billionaire, and set up a pro rugby team called the Feckless Rogues, could the IRFU stop me? No. They'd probably even let me play their teams if I waved enough money at them.

The Pro 12 countries have obviously grouped together to avoid being consumed by the two giants. England and France. Which would have inevitably happened if they hadn't acted as they did. All the best players from Ireland, Wales, Scotland and Italy would be playing for English and French clubs. And the Heineken Cup would be a poorer tournament. I think it's a good thing for the broader health of European rugby and world rugby that the Pro 12 countries have escaped their fate of being eaten by the giants. Although Welsh rugby seems to be, again slipping towards a grizzly demise. No doubt, they'll be fighting and name calling among themselves as the French pick ove6r the regions corpses.

What would you call the American NFL model? It's completely ring-fenced. I'm pret4ty sure that TV money is spread equally among the teams. And in fact, the weakest teams get first pick of the best young new play2ers to help them get stronger. Ironically, the yanks are practically communists when it comes to football. But they're obviously not in real life. But football is just a game. And the overall health of everybody is important, for the game to be fun to watch.

Most professional sports tend to reside outside the aegis of competition laws. Under normal and fair commercial (non-sporting) legal restrictions (US Anti-Trust Laws, UK Monopolies regulations (and their Irish equivalents, no doubt) plus the EU Competition Laws, Monopololistic and cartel controls are technically forbidden (but often overridden (as in sport for their unique local partisan consumer preferences) or more normally (outside sport) for territorial advantage - try buying out a significant German producer and you'd hit a brick wall whatever the current legislation states).

red_stag wrote:Portnoy do you not see that the Munster-Leinster thing is relevant. So is the Lunster debate. So is the remarks Neil Francis made.

They all all about building a brand.

They are on topic.

Not in a debate about business models they're not Staggy.

The Muster / Leinster / Lunster debate should be about how they achieved and can maintain their current their prestige marketing slots. I tried to stop that because it was showing all the normal signs of deteriorating into a same old, same old squabble which has been aired oh so often.

Neil Francis was so far off-topic it would need a telescope to see the relevance.

As soon as I saw them I tried to stymie the tangents.

There are so many positive inputs from Irish posters that I had no qualms about as they introduced relevant points about the tugs and pulls in the marketing mix.

So NO, I'm not anti-Hibernic, I'd just like a relevant debate once in a while...

Portnoy its relating to brand awareness.

The "tangent" is how sucess affects brand loyalty.

Pretty relevant in a thread entitled building a rugby brand

Portnoy wrote:
Most professional sports tend to reside outside the aegis of competition laws. Under normal and fair commercial (non-sporting) legal restrictions (US Anti-Trust Laws, UK Monopolies regulations (and their Irish equivalents, no doubt) plus the EU Competition Laws, Monopololistic and cartel controls are technically forbidden (but often overridden (as in sport for their unique local partisan consumer preferences) or more normally (outside sport) for territorial advantage - try buying out a significant German producer and you'd hit a brick wall whatever the current legislation states).

It seems the idea of borders and the political peculiarities of individual countries are only tolerated by unelected trans global ("fairly" commercial) companies for as long as their political puppets pretend to the people that it's they who make the decisions and not the lawyers and boardroom heads of the big companies who now control them.

Legislation should be nation-centric and if that means protectionism is a fairer concept of fair competition then so be it - I'll buy that deal. Europe complains about Irish corporate tax rates and yet refuses to offer better rates in a fair and free competitve field of free-thinking. English rugby head complains about the Pro12 'structure' and yet refuses to see the solution in changing his own. There is nothing 'fair' about big legally buying-out small. Legal? - perhaps. Fair? - No.

Seems to me that in Rugby it's more of a local competition. A rugby fan in Galway isn't going to start going to Toulouse home games over Connacht; but he might be tempted by a drive to Limerick if he perceives it as a superior product. Into the mix are tribal loyalties. This is less a target of marketing but more part of the brand that can be sold, because these fans are steadfast and add a great deal to the club in terms of the matchgoing experience in the stands week after week. They aren't going to defect if you don't market the club well but the can be used as a selling point to attract others.

The only difference is merchandising. Stade Francais are far from my favourite French side but i have a SF branded hoodie (and an ASM scarf, but that was swapped for my Ulster one at Ravenhill earlier this season- I wouldn't have bought it). The image of the brand is massively important in rugby merchandising as opposed to attracting supporters; supporters will follow success but won't travel. With the right distribution channels, you can sell your gear all over Europe.

Basically it's about an identity that people can latch onto. Wales failed miserably to do this with the super clubs - I know t was about keeping benefactors money in the game, but most benefactors would like a return. The way they went about marketing was all wrong.

I'm neither an Os nor blues fan but went to the recent derby - the Blues fans chanted "Cardiff" - don't know why but I was surprised. As a Bridgend or ponty supporter there's just no Club identity. The players and f ans want to go back to Cardiff Arms Park so there's no feeling of home ground <- nothing to market there. (I couldn't even get a pie and the benefactors industry is pies - sums it up)

Whatever the brand in Wales - the product's not working and is going to get "re nationalised" soon.

The Os and Scarlett's do seem to be getting that identity going - which coincides with them playing better rugby - funny that.

Until Newport and Cardiff drop the town names they're going to struggle to pull in any support other than The pre region crowds. They have to go on tour to the "feeder clubs" and market themselves to build the brand.

Most of the brands mentioned in this thread that have gone bust did so because ultimately the product was tat! MFI v Ikea for example.

I know this is a welsh slant, but I think "brand" is a result of affordability, identity and success - you can't have a brand otherwise - they are your building blocks.

But the brand has to evolve

red_stag wrote:Portnoy its relating to brand awareness.

The "tangent" is how sucess affects brand loyalty.

Pretty relevant in a thread entitled building a rugby brand

The tangent is not relating to general awareness of the marketing mix. But about whether Persil is better than Surf.

People are tribal and most will support their local team. Especially in the 6 big European nations, who have teams in the HC. I'd say that when Munster won the Heineken Cup, everyone in Munster, even people who don't watch rugby, was glad that their "tribe" had achieved something big. The Irish provinces have a very strong tribal place in Irish minds. It's no surprise that they've been far more successful at selling their brand and drawing crowds than the the Welsh regions or Aironi. Biltong says the South African teams are similar. What about New Zealand? Is there Welsh style trouble between the old clubs and the Super franchises?

I don't think you could convert people from abroad on mass to support an Irish province. But if you can create a successful and glamorous brand, then you can be successful with merchandising and the like. When I was a kid I played football with a Brazil jersey and had a ball with a Brazil flag on it. Because I liked to pretend I could play with the skill of the Brazilians. And I see plenty of Barcelona jerseys around these days, even though the kids mightn't even follow Barcelona. The brand is attractive. People want some of the Barca stardust to rub off on them.

And I don't think the people running our rugby teams would be averse to the legions Asian fans that the big European football clubs have. There are some countries who have pockets of passionate rugby fans, but no top flight professional teams. A clever owner would be marketing his team there. I'm sure there are people in Georgia who follow a French club because their favourite Georgian player plays there. Irish people follow English football teams. And the ones who have had the most famous Irish players and been successful, like Liverpool and Man Utd, tend to have more Irish support.

slartibartfast wrote:Basically it's about an identity that people can latch onto. Wales failed miserably to do this with the super clubs - I know t was about keeping benefactors money in the game, but most benefactors would like a return. The way they went about marketing was all wrong.

I'm neither an Os nor blues fan but went to the recent derby - the Blues fans chanted "Cardiff" - don't know why but I was surprised. As a Bridgend or ponty supporter there's just no Club identity. The players and f ans want to go back to Cardiff Arms Park so there's no feeling of home ground <- nothing to market there. (I couldn't even get a pie and the benefactors industry is pies - sums it up)

Whatever the brand in Wales - the product's not working and is going to get "re nationalised" soon.

The Os and Scarlett's do seem to be getting that identity going - which coincides with them playing better rugby - funny that.

Until Newport and Cardiff drop the town names they're going to struggle to pull in any support other than The pre region crowds. They have to go on tour to the "feeder clubs" and market themselves to build the brand.

Most of the brands mentioned in this thread that have gone bust did so because ultimately the product was tat! MFI v Ikea for example.

I know this is a welsh slant, but I think "brand" is a result of affordability, identity and success - you can't have a brand otherwise - they are your building blocks.

But the brand has to evolve

Wales have a superb national team as brand leader. I'd say that alongside New Zealand, Wales would be identified with rugby as their premier sport (even though it isn't).

But the failure in my opinion is that established club outlets were summarily closed to be replaced by a few superstores. But the management completely lost the thread on brand loyalty. How many Welshmen in their hearts really feel that the regions have been a success - compared to a comparatively thriving structure that was based on the units of the likes of Cardiff, Swansea, Neath, Llanelli, Newport, (need I go on?)?

Mind you, they are better off than Scotland where not only were the clubs merged into a nebulous mush, they had one place shut down in the area that traditionally was a major nursery area and the National side has gone into serious reverse.

Portnoy wrote:

red_stag wrote:Portnoy its relating to brand awareness.

The "tangent" is how sucess affects brand loyalty.

Pretty relevant in a thread entitled building a rugby brand

The tangent is not relating to general awareness of the marketing mix. But about whether Persil is better than Surf.

Bollox. You want the OP to dominate the topic instead of allowing it to evolve naturally- it may evolve in a negative direction, but give it a chance.

Feckless Rogue wrote:People are tribal and most will support their local team. Especially in the 6 big European nations, who have teams in the HC. I'd say that when Munster won the Heineken Cup, everyone in Munster, even people who don't watch rugby, was glad that their "tribe" had achieved something big. The Irish provinces have a very strong tribal place in Irish minds. It's no surprise that they've been far more successful at selling their brand and drawing crowds than the the Welsh regions or Aironi. Biltong says the South African teams are similar. What about New Zealand? Is there Welsh style trouble between the old clubs and the Super franchises?

I don't think you could convert people from abroad on mass to support an Irish province. But if you can create a successful and glamorous brand, then you can be successful with merchandising and the like. When I was a kid I played football with a Brazil jersey and had a ball with a Brazil flag on it. Because I liked to pretend I could play with the skill of the Brazilians. And I see plenty of Barcelona jerseys around these days, even though the kids mightn't even follow Barcelona. The brand is attractive. People want some of the Barca stardust to rub off on them.

And I don't think the people running our rugby teams would be averse to the legions Asian fans that the big European football clubs have. There are some countries who have pockets of passionate rugby fans, but no top flight professional teams. A clever owner would be marketing his team there. I'm sure there are people in Georgia who follow a French club because their favourite Georgian player plays there. Irish people follow English football teams. And the ones who have had the most famous Irish players and been successful, like Liverpool and Man Utd, tend to have more Irish support.

The bolded part is why I think the provincial model is a far better way of branding your team than the club model used in most other countries.There is not one Irish person who doesn't have a team to follow as our 4 teams envelope the entire island.

I suppose Irish rugby is a cartel,we have 4 teams and they have a monopoly on the population with no prospect of further competition.They have even divided the country up between them so each team has a clearly defined area of interest and there is little competition for fans between the varying teams.The 4 teams are growing at varying rates depending on history/success/marketing and other factors but I think our model is close to perfect for expanding the Irish rugby brand.

Wales doesn't have a natural provincial model to tap into - but nevertheless I think we could have achieved strong regional 'brands' as people readily identify with being a West Walian, North Walian or South Walian. I think East is a bit different, but anyway, that ship (North, South, East & West teams) appears to have sailed off for a while.

The current teams are so closely identified with their home town and cities that no amount of 'creative marketing' will generate any significant brand loyalty from elsewhere.

The only team that tried to do some 'regional' branding was the Ospreys, and that was more by luck than judgment after a period as the snappily titled 'Neath-Swansea Ospreys'. Marketing executives dream, that one.

The funny thing is, the region Aironi has failed, but the super club Treviso has been competitive. Maybe the Irish model is perfect for Ireland. But the super club model might be better for others. The city of Cardiff alone should be able to get 10-15k supporters in the gates, without the surrounding areas.

But in their last game they got 3,580. That's awful. Worse than Treviso. Similar to Aironi, who've just gone down the pan. Cardiff Blues low attendances run deeper than people from outside Cardiff not going. People from inside Cardiff aren't going either.

I agree with a lot of what KRD said. If you establish yourself in your area you can then look to gather support from further afield. Exeter for me are a brilliant example of this, they're building themselves up "properly" and they're on the verge of Heineken Cup rugby. Could be the worst thing for clubs such as Cornish Pirates or Plymouth, as supporters of those clubs (and I'm obviously not talking about the hardcore fanatics) might be tempted to follow just a better standard of rugby.

Saracens on the other hand seem to be doing something different. They don't have that local support, but they're trying to build their brand on their success. Taking games to Wembley (and trying to take one to South Africa) they are trying to establish themselves as a big club, the kind of club people want to support. I think their new stadium might really help them, as they move people might be drawn to the new stadium and if they keep winning they can keep people coming.

Clubs aim to be monopolies though. They want to create such intense brand loyalty that there is no substitute for their goods - a problem the Welsh regions seem to have is that there are substitutes (with established brand loyalty) for the regions. Once clubs have that brand loyalty, they just have to keep the standard of rugby high enough not to turn their fans off rugby completely. Even if they won't support another top level club, they could just leave the game or follow their local park side.

In terms of people changing their minds about who and what to support - lots of people do that all the time - some people just take longer.
Who supported the idea of a rugby world cup in 1987 - now who doesn't?
Who supported the idea of a rankings system in 2003 - now who doesn't?