Ethical sponsorship

First topic message reminder :

In the news recently Newcastle United have been embroiled in the ethics of taking the money from the usurers Wonga in a city where payday loans apparently are a problem. Indeed Papiss Cisse made right berk of himself by being exposed as a total hypocrite after taking religious leaders' advice to reject wearing the sponsorship logo then being snapped gambling in a casino.

I have said before that the 6Ns sponsorship by RBS and therefore rugby's image in its association by proxy to RBS's appalling conduct in the lead-up global economic downturn. Effectively it's the 6Ns sponsored by a bunch of careless crooks.

Then there's Leicester Tigers who are sponsored by Caterpillar whose earthmoving gear is used by Israel to subjugate the Palestinians in their horrific acts of inhumanity over poor and oppressed peoples.

What about Ulster's sponsorship by BT? The very company that is at the core of threatening to tear down the very edifice of the Heineken Cup?

Is ethical sponsorship by global or national corporations of whatever description a credible option?

Legitmate and beloved by many. Not taking sides in that one.

If you apply one of the central tenets of marxist theory, the idea that 'property is theft' (i.e. that the ownership of property by private individuals is by its nature theft from the people), then all private firms who make a profit are doing so through the exploitation of the workers. Thus, following a marxist line, there is no such thing as an ethical company, and therefore no such thing as ethical sponsorship.

Now, I'm not a marxist. I don't think that generating a profit is an immoral act by itself (though listening to Harriet Harman, you'd think millionaires were a bunch of war criminals), and each firm has to be viewed on its own merits. We say, rightly in my opinion, that the supporters should have an influence on what sponsorship deals their club generates, but I can't see how this would be practicable in any direct sense.

I would hope (though the SRU often give me reason to question...) that someone at the helm of a club or union would think '"Hmmm... would my supporters buy a shirt with 'NaziCorp PLC' on the front, and if we changed the club's colours to red and black? Probably not...", thus giving the supporters at least a vicarious influence over the deals.

In reality, particularly with the RBS example, a return to moral relativism is the only way to get out of this ethical quandry.

Dorothy_Mantooth wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Elephant

Could be a good idea.... some people may bid £5 for a £40 ticket and win. £5 is better then £0 and an empty seat.

As a one off this may work.  But if it becomes a regular thing, why would anybody bother buying tickets at full price.  Let the seat go empty and buy a ticket in the auction.

Well how many tickets for matches at the big clubs are non season tickets? Some clubs like Leicester are in a situation where demand outstrips supply right? It would only apply to non season ticket seats etc.

If thats the case then game theory would come into place.

If there is genuine demand for these tickets then if it is indeed blind you'd not only decide your bid on what you want to pay but also what you think will be a a successful bid. Its the problem with not knowing the true value of a product due to unknown information (i.e. actual demand, number of bidders etc). In these cases people often over bid for items.

Its all about what you're prepared to pay for the tickets in relation to other bidders.... but you don't have information on the number of bids or their valuations... its like house buying in Scotland.... well at least it used to be right???

Morals and ethics don't come into it for me. Wonga provides a perfectly legal and transparent service. People are responsible for their own lives, and whether they choose to utilise a pay day loan service or not. There's always a choice.

Rugby clubs are businesses at the end of the day.

fa0019 wrote:

Dorothy_Mantooth wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Elephant

Could be a good idea.... some people may bid £5 for a £40 ticket and win. £5 is better then £0 and an empty seat.

As a one off this may work.  But if it becomes a regular thing, why would anybody bother buying tickets at full price.  Let the seat go empty and buy a ticket in the auction.

Well how many tickets for matches at the big clubs are non season tickets? Some clubs like Leicester are in a situation where demand outstrips supply right? It would only apply to non season ticket seats etc.

If thats the case then game theory would come into place.

If there is genuine demand for these tickets then if it is indeed blind you'd not only decide your bid on what you want to pay but also what you think will be a a successful bid. Its the problem with not knowing the true value of a product due to unknown information (i.e. actual demand, number of bidders etc). In these cases people often over bid for items.

Its all about what you're prepared to pay for the tickets in relation to other bidders.... but you don't have information on the number of bids or their valuations... its like house buying in Scotland.... well at least it used to be right???

Not in an open auction like EBay.
Otherwise a closed bid option might be appropriate.
Or a Dutch auction where the price drops until someone is first to bid and buy.

Then no one would buy tickets. They would wait til close to the game to get them cheap. STHs would question the "value" of buying a seat etc.etc.

beshocked wrote:Sarries are sponsored by Domino's Pizza. Pizza isn't exactly the healthiest food around is it? It's encouraging people to be lazy and unhealthy.

Not if you jog to the store to collect it.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

beshocked wrote:Sarries are sponsored by Domino's Pizza. Pizza isn't exactly the healthiest food around is it? It's encouraging people to be lazy and unhealthy.

Not if you jog to the store to collect it.

This also encourages a social interaction twixt seller and sellee. Domino's are a force for good i tell ya!!!

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:Then no one would buy tickets. They would wait til close to the game to get them cheap. STHs would question the "value" of buying a seat etc.etc.

You've not really thought through the marketing/psychology of STs have you, Jen?.

Cheap routine entry, guaranteed known seats, the bonhomie with those familiar people around, added benefits for ST re-applicants, first dibs for seat upgrades if available each year etc. etc.

Portnoy, I think there are two main drivers for a season ticket - firstly as you say the guarantee of the same seat, next to family, friends, the external benefits, etc.
The other is the cost - if you are going to all the games it makes financial sense to have a season ticket compared to the cost of buying tickets for individual games - thus even clubs that don't sell out have a core of ST holders.
However if you are a more casual supporter on the cusp of getting a ST the prospect of cheap tickets for unpopular games and full price tickets for big games will work out cheaper and if you miss a few games not a problem as they are likely to be on tV anyway.
 
And after all I can always get a ticket for the big games via my season ticket holding mate - Portnoy!

Irish Londoner wrote:Portnoy, I think there are two main drivers for a season ticket - firstly as you say the guarantee of the same seat, next to family, friends, the external benefits, etc.
The other is the cost - if you are going to all the games it makes financial sense to have a season ticket compared to the cost of buying tickets for individual games - thus even clubs that don't sell out have a core of ST holders.
However if you are a more casual supporter on the cusp of getting a ST the prospect of cheap tickets for unpopular games and full price tickets for big games will work out cheaper and if you miss a few games not a problem as they are likely to be on tV anyway.
 
And after all I can always get a ticket for the big games via my season ticket holding mate - Portnoy!

I wouldn't count on any Tigers' ST holder to get you a ticket for any game, IL.
Even if you paid them, additional tickets for premier Jeff or HC games both at WR and HQ Internationals are like hen's teeth.

But Jeff finals really ought to be part of the standard offering.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Morals and ethics don't come into it for me. Wonga provides a perfectly legal and transparent service. People are responsible for their own lives, and whether they choose to utilise a pay day loan service or not. There's always a choice.

Rugby clubs are businesses at the end of the day.

I do love these meandering debates.  
They remind me of those which occur in the pub over a few pints.
"define ethics" - as if such a normative concept could be pinned down and taking guidance from professional military doctors opens another avenue of discussion.

Lurvely.

But

fES wrote:Wonga provides a perfectly legal and transparent service. People are responsible for their own lives, and whether they choose to utilise a pay day loan service or not. There's always a choice.

Takes the biscuit so far...

Ozzy3213 wrote:I have to say this is an interesting debate, if a slightly problematic one.

FC Barcelona for years had no kit sponsor, then in 2006 announced that they would advertise UNICEF on their shirts, and pay 1.5 million Euros a year to UNICEF for the privilege.

That deal expired in 2011 and Barcelona are now sponsored by the Qatar Foundation to the tune of 150 million Euros over 5 years.

I don't believe for one minute that there is a rugby club in the world for whom paying out for the privilege of a logo on their shirt is viable, and therefore they essentially have to take what they can get.

Sport and ethics in the professional arena are sadly become further and further apart I suggest.

TBF to Barca they continue to support Unicef, still paying the 1.5M a year and offering other support.

Also the Unicef Logo has always appeared on their kit since the Qatar deal as well. Its on the back of this years kit:
http://www.footyheadlines.com/2012/12/fc-barcelona-1314-home-away-shirt-real.html

Mind you, I doubt there are many club rugby teams get paid 1.5m a year for Shirt sponsorship let alone paying out that amount!!

http://www.ospreysrugby.com/News/Article/30123 wrote:Global coffee giant to partner Ospreys
By Ospreys Rugby | 01/08/2013
Ospreys Rugby today announced details of a new commercial partnership with one of the world’s largest coffee companies.

Segafredo Zanetti UK, part of Massimo Zanetti Beverage Group, the largest privately owned coffee company in the world with group sales exceeding €950million in 2012 alone, will feature on the new-look Ospreys jersey which is launched on Friday, with the logo on both shoulders.

Good news for the Ospreys? I believe Segafredo Zanetti UK will give the Ospreys a lot of money for this. I wonder how much the deal is worth.

international197 wrote:

http://www.ospreysrugby.com/News/Article/30123 wrote:Global coffee giant to partner Ospreys
By Ospreys Rugby | 01/08/2013
Ospreys Rugby today announced details of a new commercial partnership with one of the world’s largest coffee companies.

Segafredo Zanetti UK, part of Massimo Zanetti Beverage Group, the largest privately owned coffee company in the world with group sales exceeding €950million in 2012 alone, will feature on the new-look Ospreys jersey which is launched on Friday, with the logo on both shoulders.

Good news for the Ospreys? I believe Segafredo Zanetti UK will give the Ospreys a lot of money for this. I wonder how much the deal is worth.

Absolutely. I'm sure that every bean will be produced ethically and organically and under Fair Trade contracts. Well done you Os for not sponsoring slash and burn deforestation agripolicies!

If Segafredo Zanetti UK aren't conducting their business ethically, I believe that's their problem, not the Ospreys'.

However, the most unethical entity in the UK, by a country mile, is the Bank of England. They have the legal power to print money out of thin air which unethically manipulates the market and unethically diminishes the value of every sterling held by persons all over the world. It's plain robbery, like stealing someone's car, or computer, or television set, is plain robbery.

international197 wrote:If Segafredo Zanetti UK aren't conducting their business ethically, I believe that's their problem, not the Ospreys'.

However, the most unethical entity in the UK, by a country mile, is the Bank of England. They have the legal power to print money out of thin air which unethically manipulates the market and unethically diminishes the value of every sterling held by persons all over the world. It's plain robbery, like stealing someone's car, or computer, or television set, is plain robbery.

Who are they sponsoring then? Strawman?

Effervescing Elephant wrote:Who are they sponsoring then? Strawman?.

Segafredo Zanetti UK are sponsoring the Ospreys for the 2013/2014 season.

international197 wrote:

Effervescing Elephant wrote:Who are they sponsoring then? Strawman?.

Segafredo Zanetti UK are sponsoring the Ospreys for the 2013/2014 season.

No, who are the Bank of England sponsoring. You introduced them to this debate as a riposte to Portnoy's gentle probing of your coffee chaps.

Effervescing Elephant wrote:No, who are the Bank of England sponsoring. You introduced them to this debate as a riposte to Portnoy's gentle probing of your coffee chaps..

I don't know, they 'print' a lot of money and hand them out to whoever they want to hand it out to, so, if they want to give the England National Rugby Union Side a million pounds, I suppose they could do that within a few seconds. But, they don't appear on anyone's shirt if that's what you mean, they don't need to because they're in most British residents' wallets and they kind of own the £ sign which can be seen nearly 'everywhere' in the UK.

Effervescing Elephant wrote:

international197 wrote:If Segafredo Zanetti UK aren't conducting their business ethically, I believe that's their problem, not the Ospreys'.

However, the most unethical entity in the UK, by a country mile, is the Bank of England. They have the legal power to print money out of thin air which unethically manipulates the market and unethically diminishes the value of every sterling held by persons all over the world. It's plain robbery, like stealing someone's car, or computer, or television set, is plain robbery.

Who are they sponsoring then? Strawman?

Get down to GAP, I197, to dress the strawman.
But to really get the full experience it'd be better to fly off to the sweatshops of the Far East and you'd certainly get them way, way cheaper there.

And the banking issue was alluded to in the OP.

Not a fan of fairtrade coffee. Imho, coffee tastes better when the people who pick it have been brutalised severely every morning before picking it.

I think 'everything' would be solved if we used only gold and silver as money, not worthless pieces of paper.

Gold and silver have no innate value either. You'd be swapping one artificially inflated system for another. Like returning to the gold standard. What you want is your basic barter system chip chap. I'll give you 3 sheep if you give me half a ton of potatoes etc. Of course that means that the farmers would then become the evil banker types. Hmmm what to do.

Plus of course that if today's global economy where the aggregate GP is thousands times greater than a hundred years (near enough) ago when the gold standard was abandoned, if the non-fiduciary issue of all nations' currencies was reimplemented, it would be like balancing a ping-pong ball on a marble on a pea.

Some interesting comments here.

I'd just highlight that companies don't spend money on sponsorship for nothing.  They have a motive of advertising their product/service/goal.  Those companies see the supporter base of a club and league, along with its associated media coverage, and they decide to target that potential customer base.

That infers that the sponsor thinks that your fans might buy their product.  So for Wonga they must believe that either newcastle fans tend to be broke and might need their service, or else that they believe soccer fans who will watch a lot of soccer will be somehow made aware of their service and could be likely to look to use it.

To me that means that while the chairman or board might just grab money from whoever comes to their door offering sponsorship, the company (if they are anyway savvy) that wants to sponsor your team is doing so as they see a significant portion of that fanbase (be it the team or league) as potential customers.

This is the first, and crudest, part of sponsorship. Even before ethics comes into it.  Payday loan merchants, bookies, drinks companies, middle eastern foundations, financial institutions and insurance groups will only even consider putting money in if they believe that it will generate profit and returns.

If that is the case, and RBS have been sponsoring the 6Ns, then it might not be as easy to say lets save money and not sponsor the rugby. They might have reports that say 'x' amount of business is generated by spending this money on sponsorship.  If they do, then they would be foolish to the tax payer, not to generate that business, turn around that bank and make it more appealing for someone to come in and buy it (allowing the proceeds to flow back to the taxpayer/government budget).

I don't think every team is grabbing the quick sponsorship money.  Many clubs and national teams are in long term relationships.  England with O2, Saints with Travis-Perkins, Leicester with Caterpillar, just to name a few.  I would guess about 50% are stable.

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:

fa0019 wrote:ok, sure thats your dream situation, your preference right.

But given that, wouldn't you agree that in itself would lower the revenue received as Doc asked? Where would you want the pick up to come from? Increased ticket prices?

There are of course different ways of thinking about the problem.

Tigers are a rarity in rugby in that they are profit-making so passing the begging-bowl to the corporates is not a life-or-death issue.

What I would like to see is any un-sold seats in the ground auctioned to the highest bidder with tickets collected on the match day at the ticket office on production of the bidder's credit/debit card.

That should raise a bob or two.

Not every club has the luxury of your lofty views.

Most clubs don't have an established fanbase like Tigers built up from constantly being in the running for silverware.

Sponsorship is a much needed financial boost.

For example Saracens' 6 year deal with Allianz is worth £8 million.

Of course a line has to be drawn. I wouldn't want most banks sponsoring my club.



Interesting question for you all - how many of your sponsors do you actually heard of? How effective do you think their sponsorship is?

For me - Nike,Domino's Pizza and Allianz very effective. Well known already. Great brand presence at Sarries.

I didn't even know Saracens were sponsored by two companies called Sanlam and Afex.

Would be interesting to know how much money each sponsorship gives but I am sure that's behind closed doors.

Running rogby wrote:London Irish claim that they have struck the longest sponsorship deal of any club in the Aviva Premiership by signing a renewed agreement with Pump Technology until the end of the 2017/18 season.

The contract with the Aldermaston-based business, which provides pumps to get rid of waste water and sewage, has been reported to be worth as much as £750,000 over the course of the five years and comes with various benefits such as the rebranding of the North-West segment of the Madejski Stadium, which has now been labelled ‘Poo Corner’.

http://www.runningrugby.com/marketing-and-sponsorship/london-irish-sign-lengthy-sponsorship-deal/

London Irish get in there! Your craic is our crack!

Ethical? Yes.
Compelling? Definitely not.

Also in the news Munster admit to being the poor man's Leinster

RR wrote:Munster have signed a new sponsorship deal with SEAT, part of the Volkswagen Group, which will see the brand sponsor the Munster Schools Senior and Junior Cups for the coming three years.

The agreement, which means SEAT will become the club's 'official car partner', also involves the firm supporting pre-season games and becoming title sponsor of the ‘SEAT Series’ with the action beginning against Gloucester on 24 August.

Another car manufacturer, Toyota, was the club's principal sponsor until the end of last season but it has now been replaced by Bank of Ireland and Munster Rugby CEO Garret Fitzgerald is pleased to have SEAT on board.

...

Volkswagen has existing relationships with the IRFU and Leinster under its main marque and Toyota’s rugby deals aren’t as extensive at present, although Munster winger Simon Zebo currently has a Toyota Ambassadors deal and it is uncertain whether that will continue.

http://www.runningrugby.com/marketing-and-sponsorship/munster-strike-deal-with-seat/?utm_source=mdm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Halifax+To+Make+Most+Of+World+Cup+Chance+Sale+To+Unveil+New+Samurai+Kit+and+Bulls+Get+New+Sponsor

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Breadvan wrote:The same shirts these sponsors have their names on being made in an Asian factory/ sweatshop by kids on 1$ a day? You can argue about ethics till sunset.

Boom.

I read somewhere that Tiger Woods gets paid $150000 a day for wearing Nike gear. The same gear that is made in India by people making $1 per day.

It would be hypocritical of me to say I don't wear clothing produced in this manner but after hearing that I made a pledge never to buy nike merchandise again.

That story put me off Nike too, but in general I try to avoid all the major named brands as most have some "supplier issues" but it is an absolute nightmare. Even just buying your clothes from Tesco or Primark is still a minefield as they are all made in china who's record on human rights is nearly as appalling as Ryan Air.

The only solution is not to wear any clothes at all.

Maybe when I was in my 20's but not anymore... things have sagged quite a bit since then

Beauty's in the eye of the beholder.  

Metal Tiger wrote:Maybe when I was in my 20's but not anymore... things have sagged quite a bit since then

It's when you can hold a pencil under your breast and you are a man. That'd be the time to worry, MT.

The trouble is that governments (Western democratic governments, anyway) are by nature de-selectable as they are funded by rich, self-interested individuals and/or by power-hungry groups they are therefore doomed to succumb to lowest common denominator policies and for all the rhetoric and charitable acts which may ensue, no socio-economic nor religio-political grouping has yet faced up to the painful realisation of the fundamental truth prediction of the greatest ever Scot, Thomas Malthus: population will be checked by famine and disease.

If verminous creatures are to be expunged from the Earth, best start with homo sapiens...

I remember reading Jason Robinson's book and he said he had moral objections to unethical sponsorship so he refused some. He only did things like (can't remember the specific but it was a Nike-type-company). I thought that was a bit rich at the time.