There seems to be a course called Sports Marketing 101 that is offered at some unknown university with the same subject around the world.
While many sports follow some aspects of this, rugby in Australia, and especially the Super 14, seem to use every line from every lecture.
First of all, the term “franchise.”
Without giving a dry explanation and exact terminology, a franchise is a business which sells a brand and its products with some autonomy for the independent owner.
At what point does a sporting team and all its emotions and loyalties become a franchise?
Does this evoke passion? “Hey my franchise beat your franchise on the weekend!”
The traditional sports team is locality based and tribal.
Yes, that can be limiting in terms of geography, and therefore population and potential new converts. But it also inspires loyalty, especially in Sydney where public transport has been so dire that people are tied to their suburbs.
For example, the Newtown Jets have been out of a front line competition for many years yet still have many fiercely loyal fans.
Can that be said for the East Coast Aces. The East Coast, which crosses three states and has and countless cities and towns, inspires fans from Bombala to Cooktown? I think not.
And why are they Ace?
There are countless other examples of this, and yes you can argue that sports is a business. But as the ultimate expression of a business, Manchester United is publicly listed, yet its ties are firmly rooted in Manchester.
So the questions are, has there been comparisons where this new marketing has massively improved revenue but still enjoyed die hard fans? Or has it turned into a commodity with no “brand loyalty”?
Recommend this story.
- Explore:
- Rugby Union
March 18th 2009 @ 11:09am
Andystath said | March 18th 2009 @ 11:09am | Report comment
Sorry Dimebag,there was no intended inference that you were picking on rugby and my post wasn’t mean’t as a critism of the A-League.
March 18th 2009 @ 11:20am
David V. said | March 18th 2009 @ 11:20am | Report comment
Franchising is a product of a disgustingly commercialised society, but there is an end in sight to all this, namely the global economic crisis.
Why? Because the commercialisation and prostitution of everything for more money is what’s led to the current mess, and people will soon demand a back to basics approach in response.
March 18th 2009 @ 11:58am
Who Needs Melon said | March 18th 2009 @ 11:58am | Report comment
I think there is a Seinfeld episode where he asks what exactly you are supporting when you support a sporting team. Since over the years you follow a team:
– the players will change
– the coach will change
– the uniforms will change
– the owners/administration will change
Two things that change the least are:
– the location or geographical affiliation
– the style/culture
But then again even these things may change.
Personally I believe I follow a team because of it has a style/culture that appeals to me. It’s got nothing to do with its location. As an example, I have for some time supported the Brumbies yet I’ve never lived anywhere near the ACT. Since their inception I liked their style. If the Brumbies ‘moved’ somewhere else I would still follow them so long as they retained their style of play.
I have this year started to become a bit of a follower of the Queensland Reds because again I like their style/attitude.
Why should I follow NSW because I happen to have been born there?
Having said that, I follow Australia and can’t imagine following any country other than Australia. I know a lot of expats are the same – i.e. they will continue to follow their ‘home’ country.
In summary: I think your notion of tying a “club” to a “location” is extremely antiquated (and not in a good way) given that people these days tend to move around a lot and we are not limited to only watching our ‘local’ team.
March 18th 2009 @ 12:14pm
Sam said | March 18th 2009 @ 12:14pm | Report comment
WNM
Yes I remember that Seinfeld episode very well. A lot of truth in what he said.
The term ‘franchise’ is just a word. It is however the langauge of the new world of sport, and was influenced by the Americans who are a big player in world culture. I suppose people can call it team or club if they like. The gathering of masses or tribes to support their own one cause or identity has existed since early civilization. The only thing that has changed is the terminology used and the wealth acquired.
March 18th 2009 @ 12:31pm
DaniE said | March 18th 2009 @ 12:31pm | Report comment
At least franchises haven’t gone the way of the Philippines Basketball Association, where you have team names like the Burger King Titans, the Rain or Shine Elasto Painters, the Talk and Text Tropang Texters or the Purefoods Tender Juicy Giants! As much as it seems to work over there, I personally am not a fan of it… I hate the fact that I can’t associate the South African Super Rugby sides with a location. It’s not that I have to live in an area to like its team, but at least I know where they belong. That’s why I still like club rugby – you know where the clubhouse is and where to go after a game!
March 18th 2009 @ 12:42pm
Michael C said | March 18th 2009 @ 12:42pm | Report comment
WNM -
I used to support the West Indies in the cricket – - I loved their ‘style/attitude’ back in the post WSC era. They were also about the best there was, so, it’s nice watching the best do their thing.
re WHAT is it you support?
I asked that question 1.5 years ago with the debate for North Melbourne supporters around relocation to the Gold Coast (and no doubt old Fitzroy and South Melbourne supporters have asked similar questions re how much of the Brissie Lions or Sydney Swans is ‘enough’ to be deemed a continuance??).
I ended with the jumper/colours, and the history and the team song.
Now, I recognise that our team song culture in the AFL is a little unique, so, that probably doesn’t apply outside of these circles.
I figured re location, for now, with young kids, I only get to attend so many games anyway, that the club could move to the Gold Coast and I’d still probably be able to see as many live games as I do. Reality is that you watch ‘em on tele. And, often it’s ones own or owns kids clubs that absorb your live attendance/involvement time.
The style/culture – - I guess as it may be interwoven through the club history and how that presents itself in the present. However, it really comes down to the Board at any time to seek to perpetuate or not a certain ‘ethic’. Sometimes clubs seek to re-invent themselves to effectively rid themselves of an old ‘defeatest’ culture.
Do we simply look for the 1 or 2 ‘handles’ that we can latch our support on to. Seeking the perfect ‘ethical’ fit for your political/social viewpoint is going to be nigh on impossible. So, perhaps just the combination of club colours is enough. Or the team with the most ranga’s.
March 18th 2009 @ 12:46pm
Michael C said | March 18th 2009 @ 12:46pm | Report comment
DaniE -
I remember back in the early 80s when I first saw Pakistani cricketers who played for “PIA”………….”Pakistan International Airways”,
…and “Habib Bank” etc.
the current group A list in Pakistan domestic cricket :
Khan RL
National Bnk
PIA
Sui Gas
Zarai TBL
Habib Bank
WAPDA
Sui Sthn Gas
Karachi Whites
Lahore Shalimar
Pakistan Customs
March 18th 2009 @ 3:24pm
Johnny R said | March 18th 2009 @ 3:24pm | Report comment
I am surprised no one has really mentioned the franchise system in the US. While not perfect with teams moving all over (for example the LA Rams to St Louis Rams, then LA Raiders to Oakland Raiders, now no team in LA) a huge majority of the population follows a team. They sell out nearly all the games and merchandising is huge. This is also the same for Baseball, Basketball and Hockey. They end up with cities fighting for new teams or trying to steal ones from other cities.
Dimebag if your ever in the states go to the carpark of an american football game a few house before kick off and see for yourself. I think the real problem in Australia is we don’t really have any die hard sports fans (except some AFL supporters).
March 18th 2009 @ 8:32pm
brad said | March 18th 2009 @ 8:32pm | Report comment
if you tie a club to a location then the premier League can only have 1 london club. Manchester City Or Manchester United? as the manchester club. The problem with rugby is they try and invent new teams without any history or affiliation to existing clubs. take Randwick they are big enough a name to form their own super rugby franchise fi they had the financial backing. Australia should follow the welsh rugby way and oublically amalgamate existing clubs to form “franchises” the Ospreys are Neath and Swansea big teams like Cardiff stayed the same. this model can be used for a domestic comp and these bigger amalgamated clubs can then feed the 4 existing provinces. aces and rays? WTF! just give them normal club names
March 18th 2009 @ 9:12pm
Katipo said | March 18th 2009 @ 9:12pm | Report comment
Good article Dimebag. I agree with you.
Plenty of people replying to your post have confused ‘franchise’ with other things like commercialism, sponsorship, professionalism, business and gone off on tangents. That’s what good blogs are made of I suppose! Anyway there are plenty of professional sports clubs/teams that are businesses with sponsors but are not “franchises”. Some have even twisted the argument to be about locality of teams. They missed your point. I think what you are saying is that the idea of a ‘franchise’ is bad PR for professional sports teams. Talking about ‘franchises’ disconnects one from a team. It’s jargon. Fans don’t really want to hear about franchise performance. That’s best kept to the business pages!
I’m in marketing as a day job. (Not sports marketing though). The first thing you learn in Marketing 101, if my memory serves me correctly, is to “understand your customers wants and needs”. This means ‘find out what people want and give it to them’. IMO the afl do a great job of understanding their customers and marketing their sport. They understand the value of their traditions, their values’ culture and character. They tell their fans everything that is good about their sport. Soccer is getting to grips with where they need to go to. I think they realise how to differentiate themselves.
Some sports marketing is done really badly. Rugby Union is the weakest of all the Australian football codes at positioning and marketing itself. My observation is that they APPEAR to want to please the broadcasters first, fans later. They have alienated their supporters by and large. Rugby is experiencing growing pains. It is new to professionalism. Things will improve… eventually.