Results 307 to 323 of 390
02-11-2009, 01:38 AM #307
Do you think that Taufik the independent can have the best training program? Now there is no one to put him through a rigorous training program. Who is he going to spar with? If he is not inclined or in the mood he will just take a few days off.
In badminton Yonex or other sponsors are not to blame for the very low revenue from TV. In any big time sports league sponsors will come salivating only if you can put the game in front of the TV screen all over the world. In badminton we are asking Yonex and others to fill a role-providing the funds- they are ill suited for because this is not what sponsors should do.
Take for example the Summer Olympics. The IOC simply asks for tenders from would be sponsors and for that sponsors pay the IOC huge amounts of money. Say in the Beijing Olympics semi-final and final mens singles with Lee Chong Wei playing, do you know how much money both Malaysia and China TV broadcasters pay for the broadcasting rights? Only when badminton reaches this level of interest that generates huge amounts of money, can badminton sponsors be delegated back to their real role. No money from TV = no sponsors. Limited TV = sponsors like Yonex, Li Ning, Proton, etc.
02-11-2009, 02:32 AM #308
The near-monopoly situation of Yonex dominating the major National Association [and later on not promoting badminton on TV with TV ads] is clearly part of the problem. It is a fact. Without agressive actions of several strong brands trying to 'out-cool' the other, badminton will never reach the kinds of TV attention that the other major sport [like tennis, soccer, etc.] commands. Thus the low TV revenue...
The other problem is that the major National Associations at one time all agree to sign deals with Yonex. Some are just plain terrible deals. Many, including those in PBSI in the past, just don't care enough to read the fineprints in the contracts. On this matter, it is not fully Yonex's fault. Yonex clearly wrote unreasonable things in the contracts, but then again, some incompetent people in the National Association actually signed it...
Yonex role is not 'to provide funds'... that is such a wrong perception. Yonex is trying to promote their brand in the eyes of their consumers/business givers [fans, active amateur badminton players etc.]... through... sponsorships. The final objective of Yonex is to make a profit out of sales they got from their consumers. Yonex is publicly listed in Japan, anyone can verify this. Their reason for existance is not 'to provide funds'...
02-11-2009, 02:45 AM #309
I would argue that Taufik Hidayat will now be more motivated to put in the extra efforts because clearly, he has to impress his sponsors for the contract to be renewed next year.
As for TV money, its a chicken and egg thing. If badminton can prove that it can first attract the crowds to watch players compete in tourneys with a packed stadium, they will be queuing up for the TV rights. However, its unfortunate that the basic system in badminton is itself flawed as I have argued earlier and therefore, forget about the TV money first.
If an unknown basketball league for high-school students that first started out in one single city in 2004 can grow to a multi-million sport that now covers almost all the major city in INA and attracts huge crowds, which in turn brings in the multinational sponsors, I believe there will be one day in which badminton can reach the same level of support. What we need for INA badminton is to fix the problems from within itself and we have begun to see some light at the end of the tunnel at moment.
02-11-2009, 02:52 AM #310
How to get more consumers? The sport itself has to be cool, interesting, and adds value etc. How to be cool and interesting? Partially is through cool TV ads! I do agree with Taneepak that sports popularity mainly come from the visual media [TV]... Furthermore, aside from TV ads, there has to be many other cool marketing things that sells the sport better... BWF should be the worldwide architect of all of this...
BWF should not let just one brand [Yonex] getting the near-monopoly situation we experienced in the past. When a brand like Yonex is content, resting in their laurels, they will not make much effort such as cool TV ads. BWF should let several strong brands be strong and hungry to get more and more customers. This includes getting a lot of the consumers attention with cool TV ads. Only then will the overall pie be bigger... more prosperity for many parties...
02-11-2009, 03:26 AM #311
Badminton, to be successful, must be run like a global business. It is not a chicken and egg thing. It is strictly market driven. As I have said the sport needs a healthy cashflow to be truly a global game. This may not sound good but let us admit it, all the badminton fanatics in Indonesia and Malaysia just do not have the money to feed the cashflow. You need richer countries like North America and Europe to contribute to the cashflow. If an Indonesiian TV broadcaster were to beam a badminton tournament into all Indonesian homes from say England, and if it is asked to pay US$10 million for the broadcasting rights, will simply be unable to pay. If Americans were to be as crazy as Indonesians about badminton the way they are about American football, a US broadcaster will even pay US$50 million for the broadcasting rights. You can have huge crowds or audiences but if they cannot pay, the sport goes nowhere. Once you have a locked-in cash inflow, you then sell your broadcasting rights to the TV media, who in turn will ask sponsors to pay for advertising slots in the broadcasts. It is even possible the TV broadcaster who has initially paid out a huge sum for the broadcast rights can even make money by selling slots to sponsors. Sponsors will salivate at such an opportunity to beam their logo, slogan or product to billions of homes all over the world especially in the US and Europe. This is the role of the sponsors-they minimize the risk taken by broadcasters by paying to advertize their wares.
Blaming Yonex or other sponsors for taking national badminton associations for a ride is wrong. Only national badminton associations from countries with very little cashflow, and hence very little bargaining power, have to take what is being offered. Richer countries can tell Yonex or any sponsors to jump in the lake. Take Hong Kong and Denmark who are no beholden to Yonex one bit.
02-11-2009, 04:18 AM #312
Oh the US market? Cool... this point is very true... if badminton can become a hit in the US... then there will be sooo much money floating around in the badminton business... Because US consumers are still the most potent economic engine of growth in our planet today. Thus... we have to get Wilson, Nike, Reebok, Adidas etc involved... These guys know how to make a sport cool...
As I wrote before... partially the blame goes to the National Associations itself for allowing itself to enter into such lopsided deals with Yonex in the past. Very stupid of them, really. Just because Yonex negotiated for unfair things, you should not jump into bed with them after seeing the total amount of money. Aaarrrggghh... I hope that era is over. If possible, the major badminton associations [INA, MAS, CHN, KOR] should adopt the Hong Kong, England, Danish model... if not today, one day...
02-11-2009, 06:43 AM #313
Yonex and PBSI [what is the contract value?)
How much does PBSI receive from Yonex per year?
02-11-2009, 08:26 AM #314
02-11-2009, 09:43 AM #315
..i see. Well, i think since badminton (and her sister sport, tennis) is essentially one of several "individual" sports, i think it's great for a player to be able to play independently & to be financially independent from a national body. More power to them.
So, how does all the different sponsorship, Yonex, tv revenues & ads etc. tie in with this discussion? What's the point of contention from both sides?
02-11-2009, 10:03 AM #316
02-11-2009, 10:09 AM #317
..i've read the posts but i'm still trying to figure out what's the (latest) discussion all about??..
(Or maybe i'll just PM you)....
Last edited by ctjcad; 02-11-2009 at 10:12 AM.
02-11-2009, 10:48 AM #318
02-11-2009, 05:47 PM #319
A bit off topic-Well..
Anyway, Krisna had already given his say about the point of discussion and what he thought was the opposite point of discussion from his. Now, would you like to explain briefly about your point of discussion as well as what you believe is the opposite point of discussion from others?
The way i'm reading and trying to understand the posts, there seems to be some overlap of agreement. But what is the difference in opinion, if there is/are any??
taneepak : ??? point of discussion
others : ??? point of discussion
Last edited by ctjcad; 02-11-2009 at 05:50 PM.
02-12-2009, 12:35 AM #320
Well, so far, badminton is stagnating in terms of worldwide popularity... Popularity can improve if many people start to think this sport is cool. How to make it cool? Today, TV plays a major role, as taneepak mentioned. TV ads and other cool sports marketing activities surely play a major role.
A situation where several strong competing brands endorsing different star players is a good and desireable situation. Every brand will want to maximize the money they've paid to their stars to out-cool the competitor brand. Thus, as a result, the audience will see many cool stimulating image about badminton. For example: we can see TV ads, magazine ads displaying Lin Dan using Nike attire and shoes, Bao Chunlai using Wilson, Peter Gade using Head, Saina Nehwal using Adidas shoes, Tine Rasmusen using Dunlop, Taufik using Yonex, Wan Lin using Victor, Du Jing-Yu Yang using Li Ning...
What should be seen as an undesireable situation is where one major badminton brand dominates the revenue generated in the sport and have locked in the sponsorship of almost all the major stars in the sport through its National Association. ...and very lazy in making badminton cool on TV and magazines. They are lazy because they know that whenever there actually are players playing on TV, they will likely use Yonex.
It is obvious that the current arrangements between the major National Associations and Yonex in the past several decades ...have contributed to the lack of media competition between badminton related brands... thus making badminton less cool... [compared to some other sports]
I say it is better to let stars, like Taufik, go independent [not in the National Team] and allow them to perform at a high level. And combine it with individual sponsorships within the National Team. The brands who have spent money on the stars will milk the media value of that star to the max, I tell you. Thus... we will see a lot more TV commercials and media activity [arranged by the brand owner] thus... making badminton cool ...thus will help grow badminton's popularity!
02-12-2009, 01:59 AM #321
I speculate that during the badminton MS SF an F live telecast of the Beijing Olympics, the reason why the Yonex logo was not allowed to be show was probably due to Yonex being unable to pay huge amount of money to the IOC.
02-12-2009, 02:53 AM #322
i think some of the discussions here should be moved to this thread
Personally, i believe badminton in the past had relied greatly on the powerhouse countries like china, INA, MAS and DEN. Without them, Yonex would be given up long ago. Yonex had enjoyed this niche market for a very long time. Some believed we need yonex to make badminton to go big but i dont think so. I think yonex like it for themself, ie, status quo. If and when badminton readu for big time, the big boys (nike, addidas, wilson, dunlop, LN, etc) will muscle in. No doubt the 08 OG had show cased badminton in the best of light, even IOC had said so. So good that the big gun, like LN, had decided it is now to move into badminton in one big swoosh, buying kason and signing up china team, and maybe few players too. LN has the brain and financial power to forecast that badminton is about to go big, so they buy in now at relative low price. Victor is another well known name to make commitment to korea and taipei team.
U may ask why badminton was so slow to take off before?? i point my finger at BWF, and badminton canada and USAB. For decades they have used available funding for politicking. BADCAN and USAB funds only the top players, just enough to protect their jobs and oiling their association. It had done very little at the grassroot level. Look at canada and USA, how many dedicated badminton facilities have BAD. CAN and USAB have built? Over time with influx of oversea immigrants(ie, private sector), they scraped up monies and start up facilities and furnish them with real coaches. It goes to show that in the end, it is innovators and private money that make things happen. Gov't funding is nice but return on investment is poor. Gov't bailouts are same things, only billions times bigger.
02-12-2009, 03:31 AM #323
Last edited by Krisna; 02-12-2009 at 03:38 AM.
By LiNingSucksA$$ in forum General ForumReplies: 2: 09-22-2010, 09:56 AM
By cooler in forum General ForumReplies: 34: 03-10-2010, 08:07 PM
By Mini Me in forum General ForumReplies: 18: 05-15-2009, 01:48 PM
By Trance in forum General ForumReplies: 106: 08-25-2008, 12:31 PM
By Chun in forum General ForumReplies: 13: 07-01-2007, 08:13 PM