Go Back   RedCafe.net > Football Discussion > Manchester United Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 8th November 2009, 06:57   #41 (permalink)
Spam Alert!
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: selegna sol
Posts: 38,007
Plech is right to think United would get 250mil is downright laughable
Alex is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Old 8th November 2009, 08:51   #42 (permalink)
A Grade's partner
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Anderson is the future.
Posts: 16,021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex View Post
Plech is right to think United would get 250mil is downright laughable
Over a period of so many years, no it's not. Screw it, if it gets rid of almost a third of the debt, do it. I can live with a bullshit sponsors name, that only the yanks will think it's called. It will always be Old Trafford, Theatre of Dreams to me and to all the United fans out there.
gambit28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2009, 11:28   #43 (permalink)
First Team Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Paddy's gonna trip you up, Paddy's gonna mow you down, then he's gonna get the ball and desert you!!
Posts: 11,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammsky1 View Post
The fee piad by AIG was a snip compared to what it would have cost them to get such global brand awareness through the more traditional marketing routes. One can argue that AIG has done a very bad job at maximising the opportunity that association with Manchester United provided them and that they should have used that to establish themselves the the global leader in Insurance (global recession aside).
So you think AIG could have become the world's largest insurance company by maximising it's link with Manchester United?

That's absurd!

The United deal is probably a very small portion of their marketing budget!
theimperialinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2009, 12:41   #44 (permalink)
First Team Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Behind my 
Posts: 6,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimperialinn View Post
So you think AIG could have become the world's largest insurance company by maximising it's link with Manchester United?

That's absurd!

The United deal is probably a very small portion of their marketing budget!
Not really.

Lets take the UK market context as an example:

AIG was pretty much an unknown consumer entity in the UK before they were thrust onto our shirts ... Im quite well versed on consumerism and I had never heard of them!

Anyway, in UK banking, a company like Barclays or RBS will spend around £100m per annum on marketing investments. Bear in mind that that figure is on top of the brand equity build upon decades of similar investment. So, just to get ones name registered and linked to Insurance in the UK would have cost several times of what existing brands invest... the rule for a new brand is that they normally have to invest say 3 times what established brands already do ... assuming they are using like for like media channels. For the record, something like Persil Washing Powder invests in excess of £50m a year in the UK and brands like Coke and Microsoft even more.

So, for a company like AIG who as I said, I will assume was pretty much unheard of outside of the US prior to the United sponsorship, I thought the sponsorship was a masterstroke for them as it bought them mass global brand recognition and delivered it within a year. YOu just could not buy that kind of coverage with the money that they invested with us if you tried to do it through buying a TV campaign for example.

The mistake that they subsequently made in my opinion was then not taking that brand recognition that they had generated and converted that into any meaningful consumer engagement. When I travel around India, China or Europe, I dont see AIG anywhere. And so I would imagine that there are lots of consumers in those markets who can read AIG but who still know nothing about the company. Much like many people do not know what the company bwin offers.

For AIG to sponsor Manchester United, it only made sense if they were targeting a non US based customer base. And yet outside the US, they did almost nothing in terms of marketing over and above the United deal. In summary, I still cant work out what they achieved.
sammsky1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2009, 12:54   #45 (permalink)
First Team Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Paddy's gonna trip you up, Paddy's gonna mow you down, then he's gonna get the ball and desert you!!
Posts: 11,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammsky1 View Post
Not really.

Lets take the UK market context as an example:

AIG was pretty much an unknown consumer entity in the UK before they were thrust onto our shirts ... Im quite well versed on consumerism and I had never heard of them!

Anyway, in UK banking, a company like Barclays or RBS will spend around £100m per annum on marketing investments. Bear in mind that that figure is on top of the brand equity build upon decades of similar investment. So, just to get ones name registered and linked to Insurance in the UK would have cost several times of what existing brands invest... the rule for a new brand is that they normally have to invest say 3 times what established brands already do ... assuming they are using like for like media channels. For the record, something like Persil Washing Powder invests in excess of £50m a year in the UK and brands like Coke and Microsoft even more.

So, for a company like AIG who as I said, I will assume was pretty much unheard of outside of the US prior to the United sponsorship, I thought the sponsorship was a masterstroke for them as it bought them mass global brand recognition and delivered it within a year. YOu just could not buy that kind of coverage with the money that they invested with us if you tried to do it through buying a TV campaign for example.

The mistake that they subsequently made in my opinion was then not taking that brand recognition that they had generated and converted that into any meaningful consumer engagement. When I travel around India, China or Europe, I dont see AIG anywhere. And so I would imagine that there are lots of consumers in those markets who can read AIG but who still know nothing about the company. Much like many people do not know what the company bwin offers.

For AIG to sponsor Manchester United, it only made sense if they were targeting a non US based customer base. And yet outside the US, they did almost nothing in terms of marketing over and above the United deal. In summary, I still cant work out what they achieved.
Good read that. I work quite closely with AIG through work, they insure 1500 of our branches worldwide. I get the impression they are a massive player globally.
theimperialinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2009, 13:06   #46 (permalink)
Reserve Team Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,505
There is no way we would get £250 million.

The shirt sponsor gets alot more coverage and thats only £15 million a year for AIG.

Also, compare this figure to the actual value of the club. Why would someone pay that much for the naming rights of the stadium considering £250 is a huge percentage of the clubs whole value.

They could also of bought Liverpool FC for this figure 2 years ago and renamed the whole club.
George the Giraffe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2009, 13:12   #47 (permalink)
Manager
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the shadows fighting e-crime
Posts: 56,991
Send a message via ICQ to golden_blunder Send a message via AIM to golden_blunder
All they need is a company that specializes in bullion

Gold Trafford

everyones happy
golden_blunder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2009, 13:13   #48 (permalink)
First Team Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Behind my 
Posts: 6,718
Quote:
Originally Posted by George the Giraffe View Post
There is no way we would get £250 million.

The shirt sponsor gets alot more coverage and thats only £15 million a year for AIG.

Also, compare this figure to the actual value of the club. Why would someone pay that much for the naming rights of the stadium considering £250 is a huge percentage of the clubs whole value.

They could also of bought Liverpool FC for this figure 2 years ago and renamed the whole club.
sammsky1 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 8th November 2009, 13:50   #49 (permalink)
First Team Regular
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Paddy's gonna trip you up, Paddy's gonna mow you down, then he's gonna get the ball and desert you!!
Posts: 11,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by George the Giraffe View Post
There is no way we would get £250 million.

The shirt sponsor gets alot more coverage and thats only £15 million a year for AIG.

Also, compare this figure to the actual value of the club. Why would someone pay that much for the naming rights of the stadium considering £250 is a huge percentage of the clubs whole value.

They could also of bought Liverpool FC for this figure 2 years ago and renamed the whole club.
It wouldn't be 250m in one year.

It would be over a number of years which I dont think would be entirely unreasonable.

The sooner all this talk of stadium naming rights dissapears the better.
theimperialinn is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools

 


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 19:35.

Back to top