Looks like it's over for Holdens Blimp:P

[aualright]

Originally Posted by RedXR8220

Fact: Ford don't pay for getting the cricket to T.V, how do you think everything else is paid for? Charity, no from sponsors.

Sorry RedXR8220 but you have lost me re "Ford don't pay for getting the cricket to TV...".

I would assume revenue is generated from varied sponsorship agreements, attendances, merchandising, etc.

How a Holden blimp in the scenario outlined previously will have an effect on this is unclear in my view.

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by aualright

They are there for the exposure on TV more so than for the crowd at the game.

FACT...If you were the sponsorship manager would you give up sponsoring an event because 100,000 people at the stadium were ambushed by Holden, despite the 2 million people sitting at home having no idea (about the Holden ambush). I'm thinking no.

MATHS...Nothing about going off, just simple Maths most companies would calculate in favour of not withdrawing their funds.

****

I'd probably argue there's a little from "column A" and a little from "column B"...

Yes, its fairly straightforward that more people will be reached via Television as a media than attendees at the actual ground. This will form the basis for a significant portion of the sponsorship contract fee.

But its nowhere near that simple.

A marketing strategy, such as sponsoring a major event, is a multi-pronged approach. It's not about reaching one audience or the other - its a combined strategy.

For example, pictures taken and published in the print media will capture many things - including sponsor's signage. Naming rights - the "3" test series - are a big part of it. Leveraging brand awareness off a large sporting event means a LOT more than the number of 'hits' received on-air.

How pi**ed would you be if you'd paid X million dollars for primary sponsorship rights... there was a nice colour photo of Joe Sportsplayer on the back page of the paper... but there was half a dozen articles in the front of the paper talking about an airship (from a non sponsoring company) and the controversy its created.

So you've got a company, who hasnt paid a cent, pi**ing off major sponsors and jeapordising the ability of event organisers to secure the big dollars needed to make the sport 'happen' at that level.

The risk of complete withdrawal is minor IMO. But the probability that a sponsor might be looking for a discount next year? Likely. The probability of the sponsor being pretty pi**sed off? Very likely.

It's clear - in my mind - that this 'ambush' advertising has the potential to materially reduce the value of a key sponsor's deal. And that's what the sponsorship fee is based on - value.

When you have a sponsor, paying large amounts of money to sponsor an event... they will want everything "just so". They demand they be treated like royalty (and lets face it - if you're cutting cheques for millions of dollars to make a game of cricket happen... you probably deserve it).

[Dazza XLT]

Originally Posted by T_Terror

Why dosnt Ford or whoever just build their own blimp?>

I said it before... I will say it again...
Lets have a Blimp Off. :evil_laug

[Scott]

Sponsors must be protected to the highest level. Ambushing another sopnsors event is just plain...... Holden.

[RG]

Originally Posted by aualright

Sorry RedXR8220 but you have lost me re "Ford don't pay for getting the cricket to TV...".

I would assume revenue is generated from varied sponsorship agreements, attendances, merchandising, etc.

How a Holden blimp in the scenario outlined previously will have an effect on this is unclear in my view.

Channel 9 pay for the right to broadcast.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by RedXR8220

Channel 9 pay for the right to broadcast.

Yep, they all do..... so they can get sponsors (advertisers).

[T_Terror]

But wait...

What happens when a cloud comes overhead and casts a shadow across the field distracting players and turning mere mortals to stone OMFGG!!11!!111!!!

[WhiteKnight]

Bracks is targetting the blimp for unauthorised advertising ,does this mean that any overflying aircraft such as Westpac Helicopter or Qantas Jets with legible markings will all have to deviate so as to not cause undue advertising which would uset the game day sponsors?
What about the taxis etc out side the venue and the signwriting on the drinks and food sold a the venues? Maybe they can introduce special permits for them as well.
MAKE POLITICAL DECISIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE

[Scott]

Originally Posted by WhiteKnight

Bracks is targetting the blimp for unauthorised advertising ,does this mean that any overflying aircraft such as Westpac Helicopter or Qantas Jets with legible markings will all have to deviate so as to not cause undue advertising which would uset the game day sponsors?
What about the taxis etc out side the venue and the signwriting on the drinks and food sold a the venues? Maybe they can introduce special permits for them as well.
MAKE POLITICAL DECISIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE

Is this your best attempt at being clever?

[RG]

Originally Posted by WhiteKnight

Bracks is targetting the blimp for unauthorised advertising ,does this mean that any overflying aircraft such as Westpac Helicopter or Qantas Jets with legible markings will all have to deviate so as to not cause undue advertising which would uset the game day sponsors?
What about the taxis etc out side the venue and the signwriting on the drinks and food sold a the venues? Maybe they can introduce special permits for them as well.
MAKE POLITICAL DECISIONS FOR THE GOOD OF THE PEOPLE

What a simplistic, silly thing to say. Are they directly trying to advertise at a major event that is sponsored by their main rival? No they aren't so there is NO comparison in what you are saying. Oh and no qantas jets won't have to deviate, i'm pretty sure that the MCG isn't under a flight path.

[Brute6]

About friggin' time.....I'm sick of seeing the bloody thing....

I tried shooting the thing with my nail gun while it was flying low over Geelong one arvo.....But obviously the nials didn't quite reach..... :

[V8R]

lol you guys make me laugh...... there is a simple solution, dont LOOK A THE FUGGIN THING!
good on Holden for going one up on anyone else and doing the whole blimp thing.. anyone could have done it, no one else did.. suck eggs to the haters

[Gaz]

not denying it was a good marketing ploy. infact its probably one of the best ideas.

however, ambushing someone elses marketing is just plain dirty. but hey, they do it in the v8's to. must be company policy.

it would be like a company paying for bus stop ads, then another company paying people to go stand in front of the bus stop ads holding a giant board.


as for the shadow issue, clouds may make a little shadow. but generally its not noticeable to a person on the ground. however, the blimp makes a fast moving shadow, that is actually a distraction.

anyone see a problem. Red cricket ball in the air, red holden blimp passes behind it. player can no longer see ball and cops it in the face.

[aualright]

This is the initial step to what they apparently enforced at the soccer world cup...banning advertising logos on people's hats, shirts etc and denying offenders entry into the precinct. Don't quote me as this was heard on the radio, but it wouldn't surprise me.

****

[aualright]

Originally Posted by Gaz

anyone see a problem. Red cricket ball in the air, red holden blimp passes behind it. player can no longer see ball and cops it in the face.

Like the time I dropped a 'bomb' in footy and blamed it on the sun being in my eyes?

****