H&M sponsoring Olympia- Lowering the tone?

[ QUOTE ]
this, I know show jumpers aren't very whole some, like tacky stuff and lots of bling but at an international event it just somehow felt a bit wrong and like someone who was managing their campaign had got it badly wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is rather a sweeping statement, I would say personal opinion with very little to back it up. I can think of plenty to disprove that and and find plenty of other examples in other sports to fit your description as well. Let us not forget Katie Price is the most well known Dressage rider around....
 
Yes, she may be the most well known, but she's also terrible and her clothes look horrendous, they aren't practical and I don't know anyone who actually wears them or would admit to wearing them. I just don't like seeing our sport being downgraded to something like this, I'm not prudish about nudity at all but don't think that its something that any equestrian discipline really needs. After all its the impressive horses we are meant to be oggling!
 
Didn't see the prize giving so cannot comment but H & M put a lot of money into show jumping - they sponsor (or used to sponsor) Malin Bayard and other riders. They have several shops in Oxford Street which I will venture into if I am ever that way. Support the sponsors!
 
[ QUOTE ]
Funny there seem to have been a few decision makers this week at Olympia... Correct me if I am wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not being a security guard at the event with the guest list, I couldn't comment! A potential supplier invited the management team of 1 of our sites to a golf day at the Belfry. The 4 people who went (all keen golfers) were process operators and manufacturing engineers. The supplier was not very happy!

I can understand companies marketing to consumers sponsoring these events, but I just don't believe that business leaders would choose suppliers/consultants just for getting a free day out. They would be sacked if they did!
 
Thank goodness it was only H&M sponsoring just imagine if it was Katie Price Equestrian as the sponser, Guy may well have been sent out wearing underwear and stockings from one of her "other" ranges!

Sorry dont see the problem myself a sponsor is a sponser and its done the trick we are reading and writing about H&M
 
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry dont see the problem myself a sponsor is a sponser and its done the trick we are reading and writing about H&M

[/ QUOTE ]
Does coverage necessarily translate in to sales? I am not convinced. I had a major falling out with the marketing manager in my last company when she wanted to spend £X on a marketing campaign. I asked her what sales increase she was prepared to commit to from this campaign. Cue bluster and subject changing...

I am the marketeer's worst nightmare. If they do an advert I hate (e.g. Gilette) or spend too much money on advertising (e.g. branded detergents), or sponsor something I hate (any company that sponsors football) I won't buy their stuff. I am sure they have a grouping term for people like me, but it probably isn't printable!
 
but if they sponsor something you like you might buy it?
wink.gif
tongue.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
but if they sponsor something you like you might buy it?
wink.gif
tongue.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
I buy stuff because I want it, not because of its advertising. I would never buy anything just because they have paid to write their name across my TV, a billboard or whatever. Just because a company has paid to have its name written or something does not change the product itself.

Maybe if they had spent their money improving their product instead... Good products self themselves, indifferent ones need marketing!
 
but then you wouldn't buy something you might actually want because they have sponsored a football team? you don't make sense.....
wink.gif
tongue.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
but then you wouldn't buy something you might actually want because they have sponsored a football team? you don't make sense.....
wink.gif
tongue.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
Correct, I have switched brands from stuff I like (but who sponsor football) to those that are less good who don't. Its no different to boycotting Lush for their stance on fox hunting.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but then you wouldn't buy something you might actually want because they have sponsored a football team? you don't make sense.....
wink.gif
tongue.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
Correct, I have switched brands from stuff I like (but who sponsor football) to those that are less good who don't. Its no different to boycotting Lush for their stance on fox hunting.

[/ QUOTE ]
well i think that a lot of people think differently (in terms of they WILL buy products because they are associated with sports)...otherwise marketing wouldn't throw so much money into it.....
crazy.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
but then you wouldn't buy something you might actually want because they have sponsored a football team? you don't make sense.....
wink.gif
tongue.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
Correct, I have switched brands from stuff I like (but who sponsor football) to those that are less good who don't. Its no different to boycotting Lush for their stance on fox hunting.

[/ QUOTE ]
well i think that a lot of people think differently (in terms of they WILL buy products because they are associated with sports)...otherwise marketing wouldn't throw so much money into it.....
crazy.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
That's because marketing is a scam! It has no substance or logic behind it. I was just watching downhill skiing on Eurosport sponsored by Audi. Cars cannot ski downhill, so why would I buy an Audi because they sponsor skiing? Ditto buying a product because a celebrity endorses it. Why do they endorse it? Because they are paid to, not because they like it.

We are about to enter the 1st full year of this recession, so a lot of corporate sponsorship will disappear. All the current deals are left over from last year. Expect a major belt-tightening in all sports next year! I can see a lot of professional athletes in the bankruptcy courts in 2010...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top