RugbyRebels

Maybe, England's biggest problem is that the way the game has been run since before the pro' era means that, in marketing terms, the game only appeals to those with rugby backgrounds or connections. To a rugby traditionalist the Lions or the Barbarians are special. However, try explaining the concepts to a dedicated football fan. The Lions makes money (for the countries visited and hospitality enterprises anyway) but the concept (playing with a Scot rather than against him etc.) simply offers zero marketing scope to new (non-rugby) people.

That's just one example. 'Not enough on terrestrial TV' is an oft-quoted excuse but that does not stop cricket being more adventurous in marketing (the dreaded Hundred etc.).

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2024 12:38 pm the concept (playing with a Scot rather than against him etc.) simply offers zero marketing scope to new (non-rugby) people.

What are you basing this assertion on?

Serves us right for putting Lou Carpenter in charge.

Mellsblue wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2024 12:43 pm

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2024 12:38 pm the concept (playing with a Scot rather than against him etc.) simply offers zero marketing scope to new (non-rugby) people.

What are you basing this assertion on?

Limited subjective stuff, to be fair.

For example, several squash club mates who are arch football addicts have joined a group of us who are more into rugby and enjoyed club and international viewing. One of the rugby chaps, who has played for Wales at junior level at rugby, football and squash, tried explaining the Lions thing and failed. Another ex-navy guy who has done Lions packages to Australia and S Africa waxed eloquent on the spirit of togetherness (he's Irish). None of the football guys were persuaded. Their club affiliation and patriotic fervour defined their sporting attitude. Discussion moved on to trying a Lions thing at football and was dismissed as worthless.

I'm only making this point as a thought on the unique requirements of marketing rugby. In my financial career the marketing stars concentrated on new business and new customers (to the disdain of traditionalist colleagues who saw the need to also work on retaining existing customers). I think rugby has to do both too but there are clashes in appeal, I suspect.

They can't have tried very hard then; because it's really, REALLY easy.

"The best players from England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (all of it, not just Ulster, because... politics) get together, and take on the big boys"

Not terribly hard

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2024 2:30 pm They can't have tried very hard then; because it's really, REALLY easy.

"The best players from England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland (all of it, not just Ulster, because... politics) get together, and take on the big boys"

Not terribly hard

I won't bother listing the counter-arguments. Top of the football guys' list was they simply did not want to play WITH anyone else (because they saw no need to). I'm only trying to emphasise marketing approach differences.

But.. they're perfectly entitled to that opinion, plenty of rugby fans hold it as well.
Which doesn't make the Lions a complicated concept that's hard / impossible to explain or market.

Maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick here - I thought you were saying that it's a complicated thing to market or explain, not that it's not for everyone

This commentary highlighted just what a Mickey Mouse set of targets Sweeney’s bonus was awarded for:

Oakboy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2024 12:38 pm Maybe, England's biggest problem is that the way the game has been run since before the pro' era means that, in marketing terms, the game only appeals to those with rugby backgrounds or connections. To a rugby traditionalist the Lions or the Barbarians are special. However, try explaining the concepts to a dedicated football fan. The Lions makes money (for the countries visited and hospitality enterprises anyway) but the concept (playing with a Scot rather than against him etc.) simply offers zero marketing scope to new (non-rugby) people.

That's just one example. 'Not enough on terrestrial TV' is an oft-quoted excuse but that does not stop cricket being more adventurous in marketing (the dreaded Hundred etc.).

Rugby has the UK, Ireland, France, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, the Pacific Islands, Argentina, Georgia... total population 1/5th of the population of India, ONE cricket playing nation.

Cricket's popularity is driven by India. The size of the audience is night and day.

Rugby has not done anything to tap into potential markets. It's allowed the young men to get into MMA and other nonsenses. It's allowed the watchers to go literally anywhere else because of the lack of availability and the constant changing of the laws...

It's not just an RFU problem, it's a big problem for rugby as a whole.

It is all bloody hard to market a sport that revolves around a ball that ain’t round

I’m all for central contracts though it’s odd who some of them have been awarded to, given the competition, especially back row players yet my understanding is T Curry has one but S Underhill doesn’t which given their respective abilities makes little sense imo ( and this is before one factors in the likes of J Willis, Pollock, Pepper et al). Looking at who has central contracts:

Ollie Chessum (Leicester Tigers)
Tom Curry (Sale Sharks)
Theo Dan (Saracens)
Ben Earl (Saracens)
Immanuel Feyi-Waboso (Exeter Chiefs)
George Ford (Sale Sharks)
Tommy Freeman (Northampton Saints)
George Furbank (Northampton Saints)
Ellis Genge (Bristol Bears)
Jamie George (Saracens)
Maro Itoje (Saracens)
Ollie Lawrence (Bath)
George Martin (Leicester Tigers)
Alex Mitchell (Northampton Saints)
Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs)
Fin Smith (Northampton Saints)
Marcus Smith (Harlequins)

I would question whether Chesham and T Curry ( both primarily blindside flankers these days) are the best long term picks - that’s not to say they aren’t good players but for me their good alrounders rather than ever being pre-eminent in a position.

Eggchasers update:

Udwin should walk too along with the other two clowns!

Funny how this topic has gone quiet, have RFU dolled out hush money?

jngf wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 12:33 pm Funny how this topic has gone quiet, have RFU dolled out hush money?

Emergency meeting tomorrow, numerous letters written from various constituent members asking for sgm’s and votes of no confidence. I fear though, that’s its been all noise and fury signifying nada

Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 5:15 pm

jngf wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 12:33 pm Funny how this topic has gone quiet, have RFU dolled out hush money?

Emergency meeting tomorrow, numerous letters written from various constituent members asking for sgm’s and votes of no confidence. I fear though, that’s its been all noise and fury signifying nada

Can't imagine Sweeney will go if he doesn't want to. He might not be good at some things, but I bet he's pretty good at surviving a boardroom scrap.

Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 9:24 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 5:15 pm

jngf wrote: ↑Tue Dec 17, 2024 12:33 pm Funny how this topic has gone quiet, have RFU dolled out hush money?

Emergency meeting tomorrow, numerous letters written from various constituent members asking for sgm’s and votes of no confidence. I fear though, that’s its been all noise and fury signifying nada

Can't imagine Sweeney will go if he doesn't want to. He might not be good at some things, but I bet he's pretty good at surviving a boardroom scrap.

Puja

It’s not just him that’s problematic - Udwin’s done himself no favours with recent pronouncements and Ilube appears to have Jack Jones pedigree in rugby union ( just another ex banker turned rent a NED ) Hoping some more of the genuine rugby greats publicly start calling out the RFU for the corrupt, farce it has devolved into! In fact if this is not resolved ( I.e Udwin, Ilube and Sweeney all given their P45s) I’m quite happy to give all the England games a wide berth in the upcoming 6 Nations… after watching every one on telly since ‘88 ….

https://www.talkingrugbyunion.co.uk/nat ... ne%20clubs.


https://www.richmondfc.co.uk/news/an-op ... 91442.html

https://www.sportindustry.biz/news-cate ... en-letter/

Further update:

I haven't watched any of these videos, but I think I've become a Sweeney fan just because I dislike the Eggchasers guys so much.

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2024 2:34 pm I haven't watched any of these videos, but I think I've become a Sweeney fan just because I dislike the Eggchasers guys so much.

There is that!! I tried to watch the first one, but the bloke was so annoying and badly informed...

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2024 2:47 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2024 2:34 pm I haven't watched any of these videos, but I think I've become a Sweeney fan just because I dislike the Eggchasers guys so much.

There is that!! I tried to watch the first one, but the bloke was so annoying and badly informed...

I’m wondering if you represent the RFU HQ yourself? as the badly informed comment is simply incorrect - in other words just because you don’t want to agree with the guy posting the content does not mean you have to close your mind to what it’s actually saying as at least some of it may be valid (ditto Mikey Brown) - play the ball not the man

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2024 2:47 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2024 2:34 pm I haven't watched any of these videos, but I think I've become a Sweeney fan just because I dislike the Eggchasers guys so much.

There is that!! I tried to watch the first one, but the bloke was so annoying and badly informed...

I’d imagine this is payback for the lowering of the tackle height debacle. They lost their minds over it - their podcasts on the topic were compulsive listening as the levels of hysteria and hyperbole ramped up, and as they wound each other up further and further. It was like listening to the members of some cult.

jngf wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2024 3:03 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2024 2:47 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2024 2:34 pm I haven't watched any of these videos, but I think I've become a Sweeney fan just because I dislike the Eggchasers guys so much.

There is that!! I tried to watch the first one, but the bloke was so annoying and badly informed...

I’m wondering if you represent the RFU HQ yourself? as the badly informed comment is simply incorrect - in other words just because you don’t want to agree with the guy posting the content does not mean you have to close your mind to what it’s actually saying as at least some of it may be valid (ditto Mikey Brown) - play the ball not the man

You’re aware of the irony of this post.

jngf wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2024 3:03 pm

Banquo wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2024 2:47 pm

Mikey Brown wrote: ↑Wed Dec 18, 2024 2:34 pm I haven't watched any of these videos, but I think I've become a Sweeney fan just because I dislike the Eggchasers guys so much.

There is that!! I tried to watch the first one, but the bloke was so annoying and badly informed...

I’m wondering if you represent the RFU HQ yourself? as the badly informed comment is simply incorrect - in other words just because you don’t want to agree with the guy posting the content does not mean you have to close your mind to what it’s actually saying as at least some of it may be valid (ditto Mikey Brown) - play the ball not the man

I do know a lot about this, but I'm not RFU HQ .
I got as far as the statement about the loss blowing a hole in the RFU budget, when the loss was less than they'd budgeted for; in a World Cup year, they always make a loss, as less internationals at Twickenham (if you don't want to make a loss in the year, then you'd basically have to stop spending money obviously; so by grassroots funding of any sort, bye any investment in women's pro rugby etc etc). So at best ill informed.

To be clear, I'm not defending the bonus payments, or that some of what he says is true; but a lot of it is long held angst about Sweeney and the RFU over a long time, and this is a lightning rod. But the guy is mixing up fact with opinion dressed as fact, which wastes time for those acquainted with the facts.