6Ns Sponsorship Down Again

From the Rugby Paper

The Six Nations are resigned to taking another hefty hit this season over the depreciating value of their title sponsorship.

Last year the Unions running the tournament rejected an offer of £14m-a-year from RBS after Scotland and Wales objected, claiming the event was worth more. Within months the value had shrivelled by a third to £9m. Now it has fallen again, by as much as a third.

Tournament organisers are ready to accept £6m for this year’s 15 matches.

Only 18 months ago they believed their title sponsorship was worth £100m over six years, the equivalent of £16.6m a year.

Looks like Scotland and Wales have Frak things for everyone.

https://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/latest-news/31192/six-nations-cash-will-drop-to-just-6m-as-rugbys-sponsorship-market-shows-signs-of-decline/

If the most valuable annual tournament in the world has dropped how does this bode for the rest of them.

Brendan wrote:If the most valuable annual tournament in the world has dropped how does this bode for the rest of them.

One problem with the Six Nations for a title sponsor is that it is called the Six Nations. If I replace Gallagher as sponsor of the premiership it will be called the Exiled Premiership and TV pundits etc will call it that. If I sponsor the Six Nations it will be officially called the Exiled Six Nations but it will generally be called the Six Nations. If the countries want more money they will have to give up the Six Nations title.

Another problem is that half the games now appear on ITV and the sponsor of the programme gets more obvious exposure than the title sponsor.

Finally the market has moved against sponsorship. Spend the same money with Google and you get measurable click through to actual purchases. That is a lot easier to sell to finance directors than nebulous measures like brand name recognition.

It was a poor tournament this year with most sides in transition in the lead up to the World Cup. Removing Italy and returning to 5 Nations would be a massive improvement in quality and make every game meaningful. Selling games vs a woeful Italy is a burden the tournament doesn’t, and shouldn’t, have to bear.

Steve Brown, RFU head, said in a Telegraph interview that the Premier League football deal in December, though still a large figure, was an indicator of the weaker trend for sports because it was less than expected.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Brendan wrote:If the most valuable annual tournament in the world has dropped how does this bode for the rest of them.

One problem with the Six Nations for a title sponsor is that it is called the Six Nations.  If I replace Gallagher as sponsor of the premiership it will be called the Exiled Premiership and TV pundits etc will call it that. If I sponsor the Six Nations it will be officially called the Exiled Six Nations but it will generally be called the Six Nations. If the countries want more money they will have to give up the Six Nations title.

Another problem is that half the games now appear on ITV and the sponsor of the programme gets more obvious exposure than the title sponsor.

Finally the market has moved against sponsorship. Spend the same money with Google and you get measurable click through to actual purchases. That is a lot easier to sell to finance directors than nebulous measures like brand name recognition.

I don't like 'the Exiled Six Nations' and would probably boycott it if you ever coughed up enough money, Exiled.

I prefer the much more dynamically sexy Fly's Fantastic Fighting Foursome.  (I'd drop Scotland and Wales coz de world does be ever so confused with too many 'Celtic' sides in it )

Anyway,,,, wasn't the RBS Six Nations known as the RBS Six Nations?  I guess you can't force fans to say it though.  Plus it's all very well saying a competition would get more primary sponsor money if it just named itself exclusively after a company or product, for example, "The Nike"  or "The McFeast"...but if potential viewers scratch their head and move on to another channel, then what's the point in the extra dough if the viewership declines?  

The Six Nations is an iconic title in rugby circles.  Just look at how the European Championship Cup has returned to the more iconic sounding Heineken Champions Cup.  It's a product name for sure but it works because it's the iconic title - the history of the competition resounds in the name Heineken.

I blame ITV's role for any downgrading of interest in 6N.  The Six Nations isn't a party anymore in the UK - it's just biz...do the thing coldly and functionally.  Have the ad breaks during half time to kill off any continuity and involvement in any meaningful discussion, have the five second soundbites, do the second half and get on to the other 'Amazing' Saturday 'family viewing' shows.  ITV are just a grey format.  BBC should get the whole thing back again.

Rugby Fan wrote:Steve Brown, RFU head, said in a Telegraph interview that the Premier League football deal in December, though still a large figure, was an indicator of the weaker trend for sports because it was less than expected.

I was just thinking about that this week...

The Ryder Cup..... did it/does it really have the pomp it once did even for the TV audiences?  Maybe it does (I was never a great Golf watcher but even from the outside looking in I could appreciate how much the golf watchers loved the Ryder Cup.  
This year though...hmmm, - I sensed it had less 'fanatical' build up or following.  Like I say, that might be a wrong impression from a guy who doesn't watch the thing but I was thinking about the Ryder Cup in overall sporting terms too and I came to the conclusion that SPORT, as a whole, may be losing its grip on the masses.  
I feel its role as an antidote from the pressures of life is dwindling.  Saturation coverage - not just of events themselves but the endless media chatter about sport, in blogs, printed media, Tv etc..... much too much of a good thing.  I really do think a love affair is ending or at least, the bickering has started.

SecretFly wrote:
The Six Nations is an iconic title in rugby circles.  Just look at how the European Championship Cup has returned to the more iconic sounding Heineken Champions Cup.  It's a product name for sure but it works because it's the iconic title - the history of the competition resounds in the name Heineken.

I blame ITV's role for any downgrading of interest in 6N.  The Six Nations isn't a party anymore in the UK - it's just biz...do the thing coldly and functionally.  Have the ad breaks during half time to kill off any continuity and involvement in any meaningful discussion, have the five second soundbites, do the second half and get on to the other 'Amazing' Saturday 'family viewing' shows.  ITV are just a grey format.  BBC should get the whole thing back again.

This is very true. The name is very important and the format, split coverage in both comps seems to have taken some of the glitz from them, itv in particular are just so full.

I think it's a combination or things - firstly sport sponsorship is not the headline item it once was, we've reached saturation point. Secondly in the current financial climate and the likely direction of the economy businesses are possibly worried that sponsorship may lead to adverse publicity "RBS repossessed my home for missing three months mortgage payments while giving rugby £16 million", and finally the much tighter rules in the city about hospitality and corporate entertainment may be giving some companies concern.

yappysnap wrote:From the Rugby Paper

The Six Nations are resigned to taking another hefty hit this season over the depreciating value of their title sponsorship.

Last year the Unions running the tournament rejected an offer of £14m-a-year from RBS after Scotland and Wales objected, claiming the event was worth more. Within months the value had shrivelled by a third to £9m. Now it has fallen again, by as much as a third.

Tournament organisers are ready to accept £6m for this year’s 15 matches.

Only 18 months ago they believed their title sponsorship was worth £100m over six years, the equivalent of £16.6m a year.

Looks like Scotland and Wales have Frak things for everyone.

Good on Scotland and Wales I say - you English would only fritter it away, Yappy!

Speaking of Ryder cup I have no idea who the sponsor was for that all I know is they called it the Ryder cup.

If the 6 Nations is struggling to get money how will the fancy 12 nations bring in more money than the AIs do. All the nations currently sell tv rights so can't be much more plus most have a sponsor for the AIs as it is

I have an idea then on name change.

So Heineken are back as main sponsors of the European Championship.

So persuade them to go the whole nine yards on European Rugby.

The Heineken Champions Cup
The Heineken International Championship (6N).

One main sponsor for both contests so that promos and interviews and websites would include info on both contests, connecting up the dots, linking up the natural relationship between both contests.  Surely a company would be induced to offer much more for exclusive naming rights to both contests - one sector promoting the other throughout the year - streamline.

I know that both contests have a set of different 'owners' but surely even they, who might stab each other in the back on a normal day's biz, would be able to cast aside distrust and see that one main sponsor through European Rugby Union Might be a goer.

PS - if that does happen at any time in the future, I want my 30%!

Cyril wrote:It was a poor tournament this year with most sides in transition in the lead up to the World Cup. Removing Italy and returning to 5 Nations would be a massive improvement in quality and make every game meaningful. Selling games vs a woeful Italy is a burden the tournament doesn’t, and shouldn’t, have to bear.

munkian wrote:

Cyril wrote:It was a poor tournament this year with most sides in transition in the lead up to the World Cup. Removing Italy and returning to 5 Nations would be a massive improvement in quality and make every game meaningful. Selling games vs a woeful Italy is a burden the tournament doesn’t, and shouldn’t, have to bear.

Don't Italy bring in large sums of tv broadcasting revenue?

marty2086 wrote:

munkian wrote:

Cyril wrote:It was a poor tournament this year with most sides in transition in the lead up to the World Cup. Removing Italy and returning to 5 Nations would be a massive improvement in quality and make every game meaningful. Selling games vs a woeful Italy is a burden the tournament doesn’t, and shouldn’t, have to bear.

Don't Italy bring in large sums of tv broadcasting revenue?

They do plus it was a cracking tournament...

yappysnap wrote:From the Rugby Paper

The Six Nations are resigned to taking another hefty hit this season over the depreciating value of their title sponsorship.

Last year the Unions running the tournament rejected an offer of £14m-a-year from RBS after Scotland and Wales objected, claiming the event was worth more. Within months the value had shrivelled by a third to £9m. Now it has fallen again, by as much as a third.

Tournament organisers are ready to accept £6m for this year’s 15 matches.

Only 18 months ago they believed their title sponsorship was worth £100m over six years, the equivalent of £16.6m a year.

Looks like Scotland and Wales have Frak things for everyone.

The WRU and SRU are money grabbers, loyalty went out the window re the 2028 RWC Bidding process too when they bent over to France's sugar daddy offer.

munkian wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

munkian wrote:

Cyril wrote:It was a poor tournament this year with most sides in transition in the lead up to the World Cup. Removing Italy and returning to 5 Nations would be a massive improvement in quality and make every game meaningful. Selling games vs a woeful Italy is a burden the tournament doesn’t, and shouldn’t, have to bear.

Don't Italy bring in large sums of tv broadcasting revenue?

They do plus it was a cracking tournament...

Us Irish definitely agree with that sentiment

Cyril wrote:It was a poor tournament this year with most sides in transition in the lead up to the World Cup. Removing Italy and returning to 5 Nations would be a massive improvement in quality and make every game meaningful. Selling games vs a woeful Italy is a burden the tournament doesn’t, and shouldn’t, have to bear.

Haha, 5th isnt that bad Cyril because it was such a competitive tournament. Such a sore loser.

marty2086 wrote:

munkian wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

munkian wrote:

Cyril wrote:It was a poor tournament this year with most sides in transition in the lead up to the World Cup. Removing Italy and returning to 5 Nations would be a massive improvement in quality and make every game meaningful. Selling games vs a woeful Italy is a burden the tournament doesn’t, and shouldn’t, have to bear.

Don't Italy bring in large sums of tv broadcasting revenue?

They do plus it was a cracking tournament...

Us Irish definitely agree with that sentiment

I can't think of a 'bad' game - even the Ireland/Wales game was close despite the final score, very nervy.

Collapse2005 wrote:

yappysnap wrote:From the Rugby Paper

The Six Nations are resigned to taking another hefty hit this season over the depreciating value of their title sponsorship.

Last year the Unions running the tournament rejected an offer of £14m-a-year from RBS after Scotland and Wales objected, claiming the event was worth more. Within months the value had shrivelled by a third to £9m. Now it has fallen again, by as much as a third.

Tournament organisers are ready to accept £6m for this year’s 15 matches.

Only 18 months ago they believed their title sponsorship was worth £100m over six years, the equivalent of £16.6m a year.

Looks like Scotland and Wales have Frak things for everyone.

The WRU and SRU are money grabbers, loyalty went out the window re the 2028 RWC Bidding process too when they bent over to France's sugar daddy offer.

Hmmm.  I have very clear recent memories of the Irish talking about securing the most tv money possible with whichever broadcaster was the highest bidder, and f**k free to air and non-paying rugby viewers (Pro14 chat).  I think we're all guilty of money grabbing really.

The Oracle wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

yappysnap wrote:From the Rugby Paper

The Six Nations are resigned to taking another hefty hit this season over the depreciating value of their title sponsorship.

Last year the Unions running the tournament rejected an offer of £14m-a-year from RBS after Scotland and Wales objected, claiming the event was worth more. Within months the value had shrivelled by a third to £9m. Now it has fallen again, by as much as a third.

Tournament organisers are ready to accept £6m for this year’s 15 matches.

Only 18 months ago they believed their title sponsorship was worth £100m over six years, the equivalent of £16.6m a year.

Looks like Scotland and Wales have Frak things for everyone.

The WRU and SRU are money grabbers, loyalty went out the window re the 2028 RWC Bidding process too when they bent over to France's sugar daddy offer.

Hmmm.  I have very clear recent memories of the Irish talking about securing the most tv money possible with whichever broadcaster was the highest bidder, and f**k free to air and non-paying rugby viewers (Pro14 chat).  I think we're all guilty of money grabbing really.

When did the IRFU say that?

marty2086 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

yappysnap wrote:From the Rugby Paper

The Six Nations are resigned to taking another hefty hit this season over the depreciating value of their title sponsorship.

Last year the Unions running the tournament rejected an offer of £14m-a-year from RBS after Scotland and Wales objected, claiming the event was worth more. Within months the value had shrivelled by a third to £9m. Now it has fallen again, by as much as a third.

Tournament organisers are ready to accept £6m for this year’s 15 matches.

Only 18 months ago they believed their title sponsorship was worth £100m over six years, the equivalent of £16.6m a year.

Looks like Scotland and Wales have Frak things for everyone.

The WRU and SRU are money grabbers, loyalty went out the window re the 2028 RWC Bidding process too when they bent over to France's sugar daddy offer.

Hmmm.  I have very clear recent memories of the Irish talking about securing the most tv money possible with whichever broadcaster was the highest bidder, and f**k free to air and non-paying rugby viewers (Pro14 chat).  I think we're all guilty of money grabbing really.

When did the IRFU say that?

Irish posters, on here.

The Oracle wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

yappysnap wrote:From the Rugby Paper

The Six Nations are resigned to taking another hefty hit this season over the depreciating value of their title sponsorship.

Last year the Unions running the tournament rejected an offer of £14m-a-year from RBS after Scotland and Wales objected, claiming the event was worth more. Within months the value had shrivelled by a third to £9m. Now it has fallen again, by as much as a third.

Tournament organisers are ready to accept £6m for this year’s 15 matches.

Only 18 months ago they believed their title sponsorship was worth £100m over six years, the equivalent of £16.6m a year.

Looks like Scotland and Wales have Frak things for everyone.

The WRU and SRU are money grabbers, loyalty went out the window re the 2028 RWC Bidding process too when they bent over to France's sugar daddy offer.

Hmmm.  I have very clear recent memories of the Irish talking about securing the most tv money possible with whichever broadcaster was the highest bidder, and f**k free to air and non-paying rugby viewers (Pro14 chat).  I think we're all guilty of money grabbing really.

When did the IRFU say that?

Irish posters, on here.

Bit of a difference between unions and fans not to mention between taking the highest bid and rejecting the highest bid in the hope of another bid will materialise

The Oracle wrote:

yappysnap wrote:From the Rugby Paper

The Six Nations are resigned to taking another hefty hit this season over the depreciating value of their title sponsorship.

Last year the Unions running the tournament rejected an offer of £14m-a-year from RBS after Scotland and Wales objected, claiming the event was worth more. Within months the value had shrivelled by a third to £9m. Now it has fallen again, by as much as a third.

Tournament organisers are ready to accept £6m for this year’s 15 matches.

Only 18 months ago they believed their title sponsorship was worth £100m over six years, the equivalent of £16.6m a year.

Looks like Scotland and Wales have Frak things for everyone.

Good on Scotland and Wales I say - you English would only fritter it away, Yappy!  

We can barely afford the man servant now

SecretFly wrote:I have an idea then on name change.

So Heineken are back as main sponsors of the European Championship.

So persuade them to go the whole nine yards on European Rugby.

The Heineken Champions Cup
The Heineken International Championship (6N).

One main sponsor for both contests so that promos and interviews and websites would include info on both contests, connecting up the dots, linking up the natural relationship between both contests.  Surely a company would be induced to offer much more for exclusive naming rights to both contests - one sector promoting the other throughout the year - streamline.

I know that both contests have a set of different 'owners' but surely even they, who might stab each other in the back on a normal day's biz, would be able to cast aside distrust and see that one main sponsor through European Rugby Union Might be a goer.

PS - if that does happen at any time in the future, I want my 30%!

Is the Heineken Cup the H Cup in France? Is there something over there about alcohol sponsoring sports?
Most likely sponsor would come from a large mutlinational financial services group that operates across the 6 markets. I doubt very many of those would commit to a 5-6 year sponsorship deal if a hard Brexit in March were to take away 3(.5) of those markets. The egg on face in corporate circulars if a marketing department were to fall into that disaster would be huge.
Reckon there will be one-off annual deals until the post brexit landscape is in clear view in 2-3 seasons time.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

SecretFly wrote:I have an idea then on name change.

So Heineken are back as main sponsors of the European Championship.

So persuade them to go the whole nine yards on European Rugby.

The Heineken Champions Cup
The Heineken International Championship (6N).

One main sponsor for both contests so that promos and interviews and websites would include info on both contests, connecting up the dots, linking up the natural relationship between both contests.  Surely a company would be induced to offer much more for exclusive naming rights to both contests - one sector promoting the other throughout the year - streamline.

I know that both contests have a set of different 'owners' but surely even they, who might stab each other in the back on a normal day's biz, would be able to cast aside distrust and see that one main sponsor through European Rugby Union Might be a goer.

PS - if that does happen at any time in the future, I want my 30%!

Is the Heineken Cup the H Cup in France? Is there something over there about alcohol sponsoring sports?
Most likely sponsor would come from a large mutlinational financial services group that operates across the 6 markets.  I doubt very many of those would commit to a 5-6 year sponsorship deal if a hard Brexit in March were to take away 3(.5) of those markets. The egg on face in corporate circulars if a marketing department were to fall into that disaster would be huge.
Reckon there will be one-off annual deals until the post brexit landscape is in clear view in 2-3 seasons time.

This.

Brexit itself might do the sponsorship... after all, it gets great airtime already and has practically become the most talked about product on the planet.

How does £350m a week sound?

Now that's why I hang around the 606 corner