08-30-2017, 12:26 PM
|
#41
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erick Estrada
The Scotiabank deal runs through 2030 so the timelines match at the rate things are going with the negotiations for a new facility. Seems a little short sighted to sign such a long term deal when the organization knew it was looking at building a new arena. Maybe there's fine print that voids the deal if the Flames move to a new arena but that doesn't sound like a great deal at all for the Flames.
|
I don't know how the contract is structured but I would assume that the naming rights are for the Saddledome so if a new rink was built and the Flames moved there a new sponsor could be chosen for that building. Scotiabank would maintain naming rights for the existing building. Maybe that is too simplistic though and they could have rights to first refusal on sponsoring a new building.
I've always thought that Telus, Shaw or Westjet should have the naming rights on the Flames rink because they are local businesses.
|
|
|
08-30-2017, 04:17 PM
|
#42
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flames Draft Watcher
It's called brand recognition. Most advertising is merely making you familiar with the name of the brand. If you recognize the name then it has worked. When shopping you are more likely to buy brands you are familiar with.
|
Is there anybody in this country who hasn't already heard of Scotiabank?
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
|
|
|
08-30-2017, 04:40 PM
|
#43
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary, AB
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
Is there anybody in this country who hasn't already heard of Scotiabank?
|
It's more of who do you think of first when deciding which bank to use when opening an account? The Scotiabank name on the Saddledome would move their name up on that list for many people, especially hockey fans.
|
|
|
08-30-2017, 04:43 PM
|
#44
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire
It's more of who do you think of first when deciding on opening a bank account? The Scotiabank name on the Saddledome would move their name up on that list for many people, especially hockey fans.
|
Or, more importantly, need a loan, a mortgage, etc.
|
|
|
08-30-2017, 06:24 PM
|
#45
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire
It's more of who do you think of first when deciding which bank to use when opening an account? The Scotiabank name on the Saddledome would move their name up on that list for many people, especially hockey fans.
|
How many people are going to switch banks because of the name of an arena? Colour me extremely skeptical that Scotiabank will see any meaningful return on their ego money, especially when they have one arena named after them already.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
|
|
|
08-30-2017, 06:26 PM
|
#46
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Calgary, AB
|
A lot of armchair marketing experts here.. LOL
|
|
|
08-30-2017, 06:30 PM
|
#47
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler
A lot of armchair marketing experts here.. LOL
|
And you're one of them, I presume?
Look – when I'm spending money on marketing, the #1 thing I want is measurable results. I want to know whether my money is being spent effectively or not. That data is available now for media, for targeted promotions, for all kinds of advertising and PR. It is not available for putting your name on a building. I know of no metric that can reliably answer the question: ‘How much extra business did we get by having our logo plastered over two NHL arenas instead of just one?’
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
|
|
|
08-30-2017, 06:42 PM
|
#48
|
A Fiddler Crab
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Taipei, Taiwan
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
And you're one of them, I presume?
Look – when I'm spending money on marketing, the #1 thing I want is measurable results. I want to know whether my money is being spent effectively or not. That data is available now for media, for targeted promotions, for all kinds of advertising and PR. It is not available for putting your name on a building. I know of no metric that can reliably answer the question: ‘How much extra business did we get by having our logo plastered over two NHL arenas instead of just one?’
|
It must exist though, right? I mean huge, huge corporations are willing to shell out billions and billions of dollars combined for the rights to name stadiums, championships, and slap their logos on jerseys. The research must be there to support this expenditure? I can't imagine that GE doesn't have someone in marketing who thought they should look into the data about the value of their logo on the Celtics jersey, or Chevrolet and Man United, or Scotiabank and the ACC.
None of these companies are altruistic, the only thing that matters to any of them is the bottom line, and they aren't just going to throw millions of dollars at something without some pretty good data to back it up.
So, while I agree that - on the surface - it's confusing and doesn't seem to be a good way to spend money; the simple fact that so many companies are willing to spend so much money to do it indicates that there must be really, really good evidence that it works.
|
|
|
08-30-2017, 07:07 PM
|
#49
|
Franchise Player
|
The thing is, most of those companies have a long history of spending money on marketing efforts without any proof at all that they work. The history of the advertising business, pre-Internet, was essentially a gigantic exercise in buying pigs in pokes. The only thing that the advertising business ever proved its ability to sell was… advertising. (The mail-order business was the only major exception – and the first rule of mail-order marketing is never to pay full price for ad space.) Once the Internet came along, and Big Data after that, it became possible to track the effectiveness of ad buys and other marketing efforts – and it turned out that corporations were wasting untold billions every year on ineffective methods. It was that discovery that rang the death knell for the newspaper and magazine businesses.
But the people at the top of most Fortune 500 businesses, to this day, are my age or older – that is, they are people whose habits and thought processes were formed in the world of old media. A lot of them are still willing to sign cheques for things that cannot produce measurable results.
I find it highly significant, on the other hand, that neither Apple, Amazon, nor Google has ever spent a dime on the naming rights to an arena. I name those three companies advisedly: they are huge businesses with huge marketing budgets and the technical knowhow to measure their effectiveness and spend them efficiently.
__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.
|
|
|
08-30-2017, 07:12 PM
|
#50
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frequitude
Surprised its not "Rogers ____".
|
No kidding Pretty much all the stadium's name these days are Roger's Place or Scotiabank... okay not quite but it is getting there.
|
|
|
08-30-2017, 07:16 PM
|
#51
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Singapore
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RM14
|
That's it?! Man it would be cool if a local business and long time Flames supporter had sponsored the Saddledome instead of a faceless conglomerate:
Japanese Village Saddledome
Saddledomes by Avi
Tom's Saddledome of Pizza
__________________
Shot down in Flames!
|
|
|
08-30-2017, 09:47 PM
|
#52
|
In the Sin Bin
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Random
Is there anybody in this country who hasn't already heard of Scotiabank?
|
Hey man, I hate advertising and find it a lot of dubious at best as well. I wish it didn't exist personally. Part of the reason I cut cable out long ago was a desire to get rid of advertising.
That said its not just about having heard of it once. Volume in advertising carries a certain weight as well. The more often I hear about you as a business, the more legitimate you seem. For example if I hear 20 scotiabank ads, 20 CIBC ads, 20 HSBC ads, 20 TD ads, and then 1 ad for ING Direct, my brain isn't going to see ING Direct in the same light as the others. The high volume advertising companies appear as heavyweights, as established, as safe. The company you've barely heard of you're probably going to be skeptical about unless you actually choose to inform yourself and look up comparisons, deals, offers, etc. You may be skeptical of them until somebody you trust recommends them. You may not realize this bias towards heavyweight advertisers is going on because its at the subconscious level.
As for naming rights themselves, it can reach an interesting audience. The stadium names are in EA Sports NHL series and announced over and over again to video game players. This reaches a worldwide audience pretty easily. The stadium names are announced when the Flames play anybody so worldwide viewers of any match involving the Flames will hear the name. You just moved to Canada and need a bank? Well you'll probably have heard of Scotiabank.
I'm not trying to argue its extremely effective. I'm not trying to argue its cost efficient. But it's doing a lot more for their name brand recognition than some are willing to admit.
Last edited by Flames Draft Watcher; 08-30-2017 at 09:51 PM.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Flames Draft Watcher For This Useful Post:
|
|
09-02-2017, 12:07 PM
|
#53
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Calgary
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by icarus
That's it?! Man it would be cool if a local business and long time Flames supporter had sponsored the Saddledome instead of a faceless conglomerate:
Japanese Village Saddledome
Saddledomes by Avi
Tom's Saddledome of Pizza
|
Pengrowth got in on their naming contract for one reason...they wanted a private box in the lower bowl didn’t want to wait. Flames said you can get a box if you put your name on the arena (was Canadian Airlines at the time, and was expiring).
There are a number of factors at play.
1) The consistent and repeated brand recognition in Canada’s largest market,and in Canada as a whole with a strategy of having multiple venues across the country (and sponsoring things like Hockey Day in Canada, and Hometown Hockey weekly etc) to associate Scotiabank with hockey as much as they can, and wrap the company up in the cozy blanket of Canadiana like Tim Horton’s tries to do.
Companies pay probably millions in a market like Toronto to have a couple rink board ads each year, which cost that much as they are seen on national tv broadcasts every week and 41 times at least in local markets and on highlight shows nightly and digital content etc. And NBA too. And the smaller sponsorships like branding a lounge in the arena or sponsoring the intermissions etc etc. It’s justified at that level by various corporations, though smaller deals like that are almost harder to quantify the value gained out of that, corporately, than this.
This is a larger scale. Every ticket to any event on tickmaster or things such as a stubhub website your company name on it, every video game will have your name associated with the arena, every announcer, host, tv reporter in North America will be saying your company name in relation to the event (hockey game,basketball game, concert) at the arena. Your company name is getting direct and indirect exposure world wide, continually reinforcing its name into people’s brains...looks at how many people talk about the ACC rolling of the younger after this many years of hearing it, and associating Air Canada indirectly each time. Whether that changes people’s decision making habits or not is entirely subjective, as it could be a bad connotation or a positive one, but it’s in front of people at the very least, which is obviously an important factor in messaging/marketing to people, target audiences or not.
2) There is also the more basic element of outbidding competitors. I am sure Rogers and the other banks, Air Canada, probably Molson and Labatt all were bidding on this. So definitely some ego involved. And my guess is that companies would bid more if they didn’t reach a limit where they know they would feel shareholder or board backlash for spending money.
3)Like above, now Scotiabank and their executives get treated like royalty at the arena itself, to schmooze Bay Street clients and other corporations with automatically getting probably a couple top end suites and a bunch of top end tickets. Suites are probably worth 4$million a year in Toronto. So take that off the overall cost, and the justification at some level is, if Scotisbank execs or their brokerage arm can secure a couple investor deals due to the prestige of having a their name on the building and entertaining their top clients in the best seats in the facility, that $40m per year investment could pay for itself with a couple of deals they gained out of this. Again, this plays into the ego thing at a corporate and executive level to outlay that amount of money...but really is $40 million a year is a drop in the buckets for banks.
And given how the market for this is escalating, probably not a bad deal in a decade or so. Staples got a pretty good deal as it looks now with the LA arena, but that was consider way too high at the time, for a building that is used for 3 pro teams and higher profile events that in Toronto.
Last edited by browna; 09-02-2017 at 12:23 PM.
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:00 AM.
|
|