The Naming Rights Thread

mil1lion

Bad Banter
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
31,295
Is there any possibility that we haven't secured naming rights because the club would be easier to sell without them?

A prospective buyer may want to do their own deals in this area, rather than be stuck with the deals of previous owners.

Also, don't some owners who want to pump money into a club, use sponsorship deals as a way to circumvent financial fair play (Man City, etc)?

Don't know much about this, so just putting it out there...
I'm sure it's more to do with the fact it's not finished yet. Nobody is going to announce sponsorship for a stadium that doesn't have a definite completion date.

I can see EA or HP as realistic choices given the technology being used at the new stadium. I imagine if EA sponsors it they would set up some huge E Games tournaments there.
 

robertgoulet

SC Resident Crooner Extraordinaire
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
2,099
I'm sure it's more to do with the fact it's not finished yet. Nobody is going to announce sponsorship for a stadium that doesn't have a definite completion date.

I can see EA or HP as realistic choices given the technology being used at the new stadium. I imagine if EA sponsors it they would set up some huge E Games tournaments there.
Was actually thinking about this last night as I was playing FIFA 19...with EA making the game and them going to all the lengths to get the stadium perfect in the game when they could have just couched it and used the Wembley architecture again...it would make sense that they are indeed the sponsor.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
19,066
I've never seen an EA Sports game but the "EA Sports stadium" doesn't sound too bad to me. Presumably it is well known to you young whippersnappers and it's the younger international market the club would want to appeal to I guess.
 

mil1lion

Bad Banter
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
31,295
Was actually thinking about this last night as I was playing FIFA 19...with EA making the game and them going to all the lengths to get the stadium perfect in the game when they could have just couched it and used the Wembley architecture again...it would make sense that they are indeed the sponsor.
To add to that Nike have sponsored their first E Sports player. So it's definitely a growing market now and EA is a massive player with their sports franchise.
 

Saoirse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
2,691
If it were EA buying the rights, I do wonder whether it would actually be the "EA Sports Stadium" or whether it would go by different names depending on the sport e.g. being called the "Madden Stadium" for NFL games to publicise their Madden NFL video game series, and then the "EA Sports FIFA Stadium" or something while we're playing there.
 

mark_2017

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
20,827
If it were EA buying the rights, I do wonder whether it would actually be the "EA Sports Stadium" or whether it would go by different names depending on the sport e.g. being called the "Madden Stadium" for NFL games to publicise their Madden NFL video game series, and then the "EA Sports FIFA Stadium" or something while we're playing there.
That'll be far too confusing, and it won't build up a reputation as people will keep asking "where the fuck is this stadium, never heard of it" if they keep changing the name. Calling it The EA Stadium will make sense.
 

absolute bobbins

Vous Êtes Des Assassins
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
9,638
It strongly doubt EA would see any value in investing a naming rights deal with Spurs. By comparison to EA the club is small time in terms of reach, brand awareness and engagement.

Look at it another way, what percentage of EA’s target audience has access to Premier League, Champions league or NFL but doesn’t know about FIFA or Madden? That number is so small that paying mid 8 figures per year to reach these people would be sheer idiocy.
 

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
34,616
It strongly doubt EA would see any value in investing a naming rights deal with Spurs. By comparison to EA the club is small time in terms of reach, brand awareness and engagement.

Look at it another way, what percentage of EA’s target audience has access to Premier League, Champions league or NFL but doesn’t know about FIFA or Madden? That number is so small that paying mid 8 figures per year to reach these people would be sheer idiocy.
It's called marketing to your target audience. They are not going to naming rights an opera house because the people using it are unlikely to be as interested in a sporting computer game as say a football stadium. It doesn't matter if they have heard of them before it's about keeping the name and brand fresh in peoples minds. Bombarding them over and over with your brand name so when they do go shopping that name is at the front of their mind.

I have no idea if they will be our sponsor or if the cost is worth it to them but it makes sense for them to sponsor a football stadium that will also host nfl and egames.
 

TheAmerican

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2012
Messages
5,616
It strongly doubt EA would see any value in investing a naming rights deal with Spurs. By comparison to EA the club is small time in terms of reach, brand awareness and engagement.

Look at it another way, what percentage of EA’s target audience has access to Premier League, Champions league or NFL but doesn’t know about FIFA or Madden? That number is so small that paying mid 8 figures per year to reach these people would be sheer idiocy.
It's all brand exposure. I'm certain no one AT&T stadium in Dallas and learns about their cell phone and tv services for the first time.
 

absolute bobbins

Vous Êtes Des Assassins
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
9,638
It's all brand exposure. I'm certain no one AT&T stadium in Dallas and learns about their cell phone and tv services for the first time.
You’re not really getting the point, exposure is not something EA struggle with and paying mid 8 figures will not generate a tangible return on investment whereas spending the money on YouTube, twitch or Facebook and Instagram would generate much better returns.

AT&T is in a massive fight with its rivals for market share with traditional rivals and disrupters but, for the most part, EA aren’t in a comparable fight. They’ve had the FIFA licence for around 24 years, NFL for a similar amount of time and NHL for longer than both. No other company makes an American football game and PES has been left trailing in FiFAs wake.
 

absolute bobbins

Vous Êtes Des Assassins
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
9,638
It's called marketing to your target audience. They are not going to naming rights an opera house because the people using it are unlikely to be as interested in a sporting computer game as say a football stadium. It doesn't matter if they have heard of them before it's about keeping the name and brand fresh in peoples minds. Bombarding them over and over with your brand name so when they do go shopping that name is at the front of their mind.

I have no idea if they will be our sponsor or if the cost is worth it to them but it makes sense for them to sponsor a football stadium that will also host nfl and egames.
See above but I’ll add for you why would ea want to host egames at spurs when they already hosted the final of the FIFA e World Cup it at the O2?
https://www.theo2.co.uk/events/detail/fifa-eworld-cup-final-2018
 

stevenurse

Palacios' neck fat
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
5,495

Lilbaz

Just call me Baz
Joined
Apr 1, 2005
Messages
34,616
You’re not really getting the point, exposure is not something EA struggle with and paying mid 8 figures will not generate a tangible return on investment whereas spending the money on YouTube, twitch or Facebook and Instagram would generate much better returns.

AT&T is in a massive fight with its rivals for market share with traditional rivals and disrupters but, for the most part, EA aren’t in a comparable fight. They’ve had the FIFA licence for around 24 years, NFL for a similar amount of time and NHL for longer than both. No other company makes an American football game and PES has been left trailing in FiFAs wake.
Yet ea have taken a massive hit this year with their share price dropping. You could well be right that they would be better off advertising on social media though. But there is an argument for them to sponsor a stadium.
 

hellava_tough

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
5,909
You’re not really getting the point, exposure is not something EA struggle with and paying mid 8 figures will not generate a tangible return on investment whereas spending the money on YouTube, twitch or Facebook and Instagram would generate much better returns.

AT&T is in a massive fight with its rivals for market share with traditional rivals and disrupters but, for the most part, EA aren’t in a comparable fight. They’ve had the FIFA licence for around 24 years, NFL for a similar amount of time and NHL for longer than both. No other company makes an American football game and PES has been left trailing in FiFAs wake.
Nor do Coca Cola or McDonalds, but they sponsor the hell out of everything under the sun, because they want to maintain their market share.

There are two key areas to marketing; maintain existing customers and bring in new customers. Most marketing focuses on the former, because a dedicated and loyal customer (fan) base leads to the latter.

Btw, you've slightly shifted your argument now, to 'would sponsoring NWHL give value for money'. Haven't a clue and obviously this would depend on the terms of any deal.
 
Top