|
Post by Lollipop on Jun 21, 2006 20:53:58 GMT -1
So going by what people are saying: The bigger the player advertising the product; The bigger the company? Why people are influenced by a more well known sportsperson is a perplexing one, its always the way it goes but why should it be like that? David Beckham isn't exactly a genius is he, he just does what he is told and gets on with the ad and reads from the auto cue, nothing hard! As silly as it sounds, people are naive. They aspire to be just like David Beckham, and as daft as it sounds, they subconsciously think if they buy the product Becks is advertising, they might getting closer to getting to this aspiration. David Beckham is an advertisers dream. Men want to be him and women want to be with him. He's hot, athletic and good at what he does.
|
|
|
Post by Sterland (S4E) on Jun 21, 2006 20:58:42 GMT -1
A lot of it has to do with the advert itself and not just the association with the 'star' that is advertising it. It also depends on the multimedia that you use to specify your target market.. For example there was a recent Nike advert with Ronaldhino hitting the bar for fun to test a pair of boots.. Clever... There was also Beckhams advert for Gillette with the cross on his face.. Both instantly recognisable and something to talk about.. Bet you the roles were not reversed though. No Beckham hitting the bar on Brazil TV or Ronaldhino shaving on English billboards... Marketing, tried and tested through core studies and test groups before we even get a sniff.. Ask Hulsey, I believe he does it for a living..
|
|
|
Post by Golden_Boy™ on Jun 21, 2006 21:14:15 GMT -1
Ster, your input is appreciated mate!
I know for a fact you are spot on, they do exactly what you said, test the ad's before they air to a core group of participants and judge the reactions etc etc.
They are very clever in the way they are made, how they manage sometimes to not target a niche in the market and appeal to a wider population.
BTW, if you don't already know, that Ronaldinho ad was a fake!
|
|
|
Post by PASTIE on Jun 21, 2006 22:36:11 GMT -1
I am joining in at the end of this, after I said I was sodding off, but only just spotted this thread.
Isn't there a bigger point being missed here? Where there are large sums of money being tossed about simply because people are willing to pay it because the target audience is naive and because the businesses are unregulated, is it not the case that the argument "this is the way that it is and always has been" may be valid for what has passed but should not be justification for a continuation into the future?
I don't know the solution, but my sense is that the free-for-all whether in sports sponsorship or in paying fat salaries to executive directors of transnational corporations without any capping is just wrong. Maybe ultra high taxation for ultra high windfalls is the answer. Joe Cole gets his Motorola ad just because he gets picked for the World Cup. It is his lottery win on top of a huge income. The benefits should be shared and he hardly loses out. Reinvest it in grass root sport and keep progress sustainable and don't depend upon the hit and miss philanthropy of a few Beckham/Charlton soccer schools.
In addition to this, we need a better educated and less pliable or easily influenced public - for all sorts of reasons on all sorts of levels. That is the more complicated process to succeed in. People should not be influened by something so simple as Beckham having a shave and aspiring to a lifestyle. People should have more critical and questioning eyes. I suppose this has to start in schools and raising awareness - but where is the incentive if it means undermining potential profitability?
In short, it is not wrong, but the extremes are unnecessary. It should be checked, and it should not be blindly accepted as unregulated market economics.
And I blame the teachers.
|
|
|
Post by Golden_Boy™ on Jun 28, 2006 20:44:34 GMT -1
New Discussion
Ok, following on from a fairly successful one last week, we are changing the topic to: Foreigners in Football.
How do you feel they have effected our game?
Should we restrict the amount a team can field?
Your thoughts ladies & gentlemen are appreciated...
|
|
|
Post by Lollipop on Jun 28, 2006 21:03:23 GMT -1
Come on! I'm sure you all have interesting views about this!
Do you think they add flair to the English game?
|
|
|
Post by Sterland (S4E) on Jun 28, 2006 21:04:50 GMT -1
My heart says YES but practicality says NO... I do believe that the amount of players that are playing here from distant lands are affecting our national output of top class players. Players just are not being given a chance. There are teams that I won't mention the names of (Chelsea, Arsenal ;D ;D) that did not have a single English born player in the team that took the pitch last year. How can that possibly benefit English football? True, if there is a few world class players then the learning experience is a valuable one, but from an international standpoint the learning experience was gained by players from other countries.... Put it this way, here we have a number of promising individuals from abroad, Spain has a number of talented Brazillians and Argentinians, Italy the same, even Portugal, even Germany... Give me one example of a talented youngster making the step abroad (bar Owen Hargreaves and he is Canadian anyway). I think the system is a load of bollocks.. And I would rather have a concerted effort to make this country the best in the world by restricting the number of foreign nationals playing for each team. (BTW it is an impossibility because of EU Work Regulations, but it is a nice thought..)
|
|
|
Post by miz on Jun 28, 2006 21:09:24 GMT -1
Having so many foreigners in the English game will actually have an effect on the future of English football. It will make it harder for young people to make the grade at a pro club and gain valuable coaching because the teams will be more interested in getting cheap foreigners than focussing on the young talented English players.
|
|
|
Post by rich on Jun 28, 2006 21:19:50 GMT -1
i find it dissapointing when a club with a top quality youth set up like southampton, have today bought some argentinian dude, marcelo sarmiento, he may turn out to be very good, but it clearly outlines the point foreigners are taking over the english game, this could stop some of our quality youngers coming through and therefore leading to a lack of british players in our english leagues. we have produced some good players through our youth system and it is still currently very strong, signing foreign players is likely to ruin this. on the plus side, they do provide entertainment as their stye of play is clearly different and they bring something extra to the game, i do believe teams should have a mix of foreign and british players.
|
|
|
Post by Golden_Boy™ on Jun 28, 2006 21:20:57 GMT -1
My personal view is that, to an extent they have changed the way we think about football, they have added a certain touch of class that wasn't often present before. I'm talking about your Zola's, Bergkamps, Cantona's, Henry's etc.
BUT, on the other hand, you have the cheap Johnny Foreigners coming over and taking the place in the team of one of our youngsters, and not adding much, but the boss of the team would rather have Johnny Foreigner cos he cost cheaper - the price of a decent young English player is on average - astronical imo (£30 odd mill for Rooney) this is what worries me.
It is stunting the amount of young British players that are produced from this country.
Also Ster, you brought up a very good point, how many of our youngsters are producing the goods overseas? You could count them on one hand.
|
|
|
Post by rich on Jun 28, 2006 21:24:54 GMT -1
i like these discussions
|
|
|
Post by Golden_Boy™ on Jun 28, 2006 21:33:23 GMT -1
Glad to hear it Rich!
|
|
|
Post by Lollipop on Jun 28, 2006 21:40:08 GMT -1
I agree with most, if not all of the points people have made about this. The brilliant foreign players add a lot of flair and beauty (with the way they play..not their looks..except maybe Henry ) to the game in England. Arsenal have ahardly any British players, but they are a good team to watch. However, I do believe all these foreigners don't let our British players come through. I don't particularly like Spurs, but I think that they should be commended because of them buying good British talent....although Leeds did this a few years back ( ) with Smith, Woody, Bowyer, Robbo etc (and we didnt buy most of them - our youth system was/is cracking.) Keep the replies coming..!
|
|
|
Post by Sterland (S4E) on Jun 28, 2006 21:43:54 GMT -1
That's my point GB.. You would think that market values have to have a reverse in order to make the whole process economically viable, yet we don't seem to have the 'footballers production line' that our less well off neighbours seem to have. Without the feeder system into first team football at the highest level, be it Spain England or Germany or even the South American countries, then that is going to have a diverse effect on our National team. If the talented youngsters that are kicking a sock wrapped in gaffer tape round the streets of Rio are going to get spotted by the likes of the web that Arsenal and Chelski cast around the globe, then the boys that are playing at Dagenham and Solihull etc are going to get missed.. Nice.....
|
|
|
Post by Sterland (S4E) on Jun 28, 2006 21:45:45 GMT -1
Actually, it's not nice.. It's bollocks..
|
|
|
Post by PASTIE on Jun 28, 2006 22:05:10 GMT -1
New DiscussionOk, following on from a fairly successful one last week, we are changing the topic to: Foreigners in Football.How do you feel they have effected our game? Should we restrict the amount a team can field? Your thoughts ladies & gentlemen are appreciated... It is Affected, GB... can't say the standards of English have been pulled up! (teach) With regard the foreign players, I see the dilemma whilst believing that the standard and style of play has been hauled up in this country. I totally see the counter arguments, but where do you draw the line on foreign players - George Best? Would we have been without Ardiles, Henry, Cantona? By limiting numbers we reduce the pool and reduce the competition for places and thereby reduce the standards. I think that the foreign player argument is too easy and a little soft - it evades the issues with funding at grassroots, quality of training facilities, skills levels of development personnel and what goes on at school. I blame the teachers.
|
|
|
Post by Sterland (S4E) on Jun 28, 2006 22:08:37 GMT -1
Yeah, good point Pastie... I blame all the teachers bar those that teach geography as thay have little to do with national sport...
|
|
|
Post by Sterland (S4E) on Jun 28, 2006 22:09:48 GMT -1
And teachers that live in Exeter but are trapped Plymouth fans too..
|
|
|
Post by Sterland (S4E) on Jun 28, 2006 22:10:27 GMT -1
that teach geography
|
|
|
Post by PASTIE on Jun 28, 2006 22:13:38 GMT -1
Take it you're not driving in the morning Ster!
As not just a Geography Teacher but a bona fide Head of Geography in a large Comprehensive School I take great care to ensure that I am responsible for none of the actions of my students whatsoever.
Go Caption that!
|
|