It is easy to blame everything that is not going well in badminton on Yonex. Any arrangement between sponsors like Yonex or others and national badminton associations are agreed upon based on mutual benefits bewteen both parties. No one formula can satisfy all countries' associations. Poorer countries must pull together for more bargaining power; splitting them will weaken the host country. Richer countries put the role of the sponsors back to where they belong, in which sponsors come begging to take one slot out of many slots and in doing so pay big bucks for that privilege. Indonesia is not there yet. 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.
i think some of the discussions here should be moved to this thread http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1087267&highlight=yonex#post1087267 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.
Yes, it is not all Yonex's fault. It is current problem is: the situation created by both Yonex and the major National Associations. :crying: The situation emerge because of the mindset of some National Associations. :crying: The mindset that they have bargain strongler at the expense of their players' interests and badminton's well being and progress [as a whole]. Yonex just took advantage of their narrow-minded mindset [as well as some gross incompetence of its leaders] to Yonex's advantage. Yes, it takes 2 hands to clap. I agree with you fully this time, cooler. Your points are all valid. The arrangements done by Yonex and the National Associations have stalled badminton's progress for more than a decade. It is time to improve and progress to a better future [for badminton]...
I'm still waiting.. (posts finally moved to the appropriate thread).. ..for my query, below, to be replied...Or maybe it's a hard question to reply to?? cooler, mind jumping in and try to explain, briefly, what are the point of contentions from both sides??..if any??.. Btw, taneepak, it wasn't only the Yonex logo that wasn't displayed. There were basically no other corporate/companies logos shown in the entire playing hall (not even on those popular balloon clappers). And if i remember, it was the same thing also for the 2004 OG. Does that mean, those companies didn't pay enough dough to the IOC??..
During Olympics, Yonex is the official supplier for Badminton. And for Olympic events, you are not suppose to have banner and logos displayed in the hall. Its not the money.
^^Well..^^ ..according to our Mr. T, Yonex probably didn't pay enough money to the IOC....hmmm... Also, to add, they didn't show any logos the whole week during the OG, not just during the Semifinals and Finals rounds.
Is that so? What exactly do you mean in saying that Yonex was the officially supplier for badminton? I am sure not all competitors used Yonex racquets. If one player played with say another brand racquet, does that also mean that brand was an official supplier for badminton in the Beijing Olympics? BTW, the Olympics is an example where the real money comes from-TV revenue. The IOC tendered out advertising slots for the Beijing Olympics. Yonex never stood a chance. There were 12 corporate sponsors each paying about US$70 million for the privilege. The sponsors included companies like Lenova, Coca-Cola, Samsung Electrinics, McDonalds, GE, Kodak, Panasonic, Johnson & Johnson, etc. The total amount was US$866 million, all then distributed back to the IOC, the Olympic Committees of each nation, and the national associations of each country. Only the names, slogans, logos, and advertisements of these 12 sponsors were allowed.
I do agree that Yonex doesnt not stand a chance against the giants.. which they have secured big sponsorship deals to the Olympics years before. Let me clarify in terms of equipments.. At the 2008 Olympic Games Yonex provide mats, nets, net poles, shuttlecocks and racket stringing service at the Olympic Games. Compare to other badminton events where Yonex stringers will only give stringing service to Yonex rackets, and Yonex sponsored players,the Beijing Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (BOCOG) contracted Yonex on to provide complimentary service for all players regardless of the rackets used by the players.
BOCOG contracted Yonex on to provide complimentary stringing service for all players . And that should be the case ... It would be ridiculous if all different racket/string manufactures were to be there to provide the stringing service for their own products. If Yonex didn't want to do it for all players, I am sure some other companies would volunteer to do it (therefore promoting themselves there). .
Find the corporate/company logos.. ..i certainly can't find them in this playing hall, in last yr's Olympics...i can't even find the usual Yonex logo on the playing mats.. where??.. ants, do you see those corporate/sponsors' logos??.. Krisna, can you spot them?? i can only spot these, one being the Omega brand and the other one encased in a silver tubing..
Omega, like other sponsors, paid about US$70 million to flash their name during the Olympics. It make look out of place on a badminton court but that is one of many televised events that they get their money's worth. Now if only the BWF can have the high-revenue pulling power for their super series! They can then ask for tenders from names like Coca-Cola, GE, HSBC, Exxon, Micosoft, Lenova, even Yonex, and other corporate titans to bid for TV slots during the SS. Just imagine all they need is a modest US$100 million for each SS, and there are many SS. This is easy, that is provided we get the North Americans and all the Europeans go passionately crazy about badminton. This is the crux of the problem. Don't you see it? Stop putting the blame on Yonex, BWF officials, national associations officials and corruption. Look at the big picture.
The Long Explanation Well, the Olympic Games are marketed under an altogether different set of rules. To begin with, here's a picture of the monies involved: The Summer & Winter Games bring in around USD 5 billion in marketing revenue during a modern-day quadrennium (the 4-year Olympic cycle). Broadcast rights generate more than half of this - roughly 53%. Sponsorship rakes in another 34% and ticketing pulls in about 11%. The remaining 2% comes from licensing and other activities. Clearly, with broadcasters willing to pay USD 2.5 billion, TV rights are worth a lot! It follows that broadcasters who hold the rights zealously guard their turf. Proxy relays (invasion of another's assigned broadcast area) and ambush marketing (brands pretending to be officially attached to the Olympics) are a few of the tactics that create a lot of commercial damage. (A while back, Adidas was involved in a nasty quarrel because of its three stripes logo.) Last year, on the IOC's request, China rigorously policed the rights of sponsors at the Beijing Games. (And that's classic irony in a country that pretends IP rights don't exist ). It's common for advertisers who haven't paid anything to the IOC to buy all available billboard space near the venue well in advance. China pre-empted this by 'seizing' the surrounding area for a temporary period--July to September 2008--during which only official sponsors could advertise within the area. The authorities also carted away billboards that had already been 'contracted out' (something which no judge in, say, London or Athens would have upheld). As if this were not enough, China also banned non-sponsors from issuing any ads that featured Olympic athletes! Of course, the IOC pretty much chose to remain 'blind' to any action that China took to protect these rights. After all, we're talking billions of dollars! It's the same with television rights. No broadcaster other than the rights-holder is allowed to film the sporting action within the main sites (some exceptions are made for news clips like sidelights and interviews... but 'live' broadcasts are absolutely not permitted). The host broadcaster provides a clean feed (this means: no ads, no idents, and measured insertion points) to every regional or national broadcaster (including itself) that has paid to be allowed to show the Games (or any part of it) in their respective territories. And it's a monopoly in each case - only one broadcaster is allowed in a specific area. The host broadcaster makes its money from selling these rights to other broadcasters and also from the ads run on its own network. This means that TV stations across the world that have paid big money to get these rights are, in turn, allowed to insert their own advertising during the live (or delayed) broadcasts. This is why the source feed is a clean feed. This also means that advertising at the venue cannot be allowed, either on the person of the athlete or elsewhere at the arena (unless it's a 'global barter', 'innocent agent' or a 'global buy'). If allowed, that would play havoc with the system. For instance, Yonex would get advertised in South Africa and Finland without paying extra. Or Verizon would get advertised in Myanmar where they don't operate. Worse, the relaying broadcaster has no way to remove ads they don't approve of. This is why the Olympic venues don't permit advertising. On this subject, this post on London 2012 makes for an interesting read.
At last we have an oldhand, our very Oldhand, on mass media specifically TV, who gives us a very clear picture of the whole thing. It would be a great if Oldhand can give a hand to the BWF on how to get those hard to get money rolling in. Without the American and European markets we can only depend on China and later India to draw in the viewers. Waiting for SE Asian countries will take too many generations.
The all wise Eepak, i think you can do a better job than anyone else and probably run for some BWF posts and lend a hand to them.
Dont forget that even other Olympic event venues also doesnt have other big corporate sponsors banners displayed.. So not having Yonex's banner on the venue is not unusual.
NO! That is not the crux of the problem! Badminton is in a popularity vicious cycle propagated by the mindset and actions of Yonex-BWF Officials-some major National Association officials-corruption. That is the crux of the problem! Badminton cannot become popular with the North Americans and Europeans as long as the main elements in the popularity-generating-machine are in a non-healthy situation! Popularity is mainly driven by marketing and the media... How can the marketing and media be increased [hopefully exponentially]? By healthy market competition of several strong brands! You see it everywhere in other sports. But not in badminton... Why? Because Yonex was a near-monopoly player who have locked in unscrupulous deals with the [either corrupt or incompetent] major National Associations officials who cannot [or refuse to] see the big picture. This prevented healthy market competition of several strong brands. Yonex loves this situation where they are the only leader in a niche category and then face no tough big boys in the same arena... Predictably, Yonex became comfortable in their laurels and don't feel the pressure to do much to out-cool the competition... The effectively locked everyone out with the deals with Badminton Associations of China-Korea-Indonesia-Malaysia... :crying: Backroom deals prevailed over market competition... Thus... we are in this viscious cycle... :crying: No strong brand competition, no marketing & media activity by the strong brands, no popularity, no money, no strong brands become interested in competing against Yonex anymore because Yonex is so good at the backroom deals, no marketing & media activity of out-cooliing each other, no popularity, no money, and the viscious cycle continues etc.... :crying: In my opinion, the cycle has to be broken by... deliberately creating competition among the strong brands! Thus promoting the competition of marketing and media wars among the strong brands... Stop the dominance of a near-monopoly of a brand that's lazy in doing marketing and media activity! Here's how the cycle should be: Strong brands competing against each other, strong brands doing a lot of marketing and getting a lot of media attention, more popularity for badminton, more money, the strong brands are more encouraged by the money they are generating, they do more marketing and getting more media attention, the strong brands do many TV ads that are cool with the intention of out-cool-ing their competitors, the consumers are attracted, more popularity, more money, and the positive cycle continues!!! This is the correct [not narrow minded] big picture for badminton!
Hmm.. ..appreciate that point of view, Oldhand.. But, someone else mentioned "Only the names, slogans, logos, and advertisements of these 12 sponsors were allowed."...eerr, where??..mind helping out & finding them for us, Oldhand??.. On that note, Oldhand, can you possibly give a brief explanation of taneepak 's point of contention, in this discussion, and that opposite of his? Seems like my relatively simple request is a bit hard to comprehend... *ants, i've realized that..
Well said Krisna!! That's why its important for INA badminton to fix the internal problems within PBSI first, before we can bring in the brands to sponsor our players. It does seem that the new administration is capable of doing that (slowly but surely). To rely on the money from Americans & Europeans???? I don't that's feasible given the fact that the current crisis hit them more than Asian companies Even AIG is withdrawing its sponsorship of Manchester United in the coming year. Instead, we have lots of "invisible" Asian companies with deep pockets that are passionate enough to support badminton, like Li Ning, Pertamina, etc.
I am sure the BWF very well knows that to be a global sport with global stature it has to be be able to generate the level of revenue of big time global sports like the EPL or the NBA. The problem is how to achieve this? As I have said before sponsors are not market makers; they merely meet a market's needs. If there is no market there will be no sponsors. Yonex is a small potato and just simply doesn't have the muscle or in simple words, money, to make the game of badminton more popular. It is also not a market maker; it merely tries to meet the needs of the market. There are more badminton players in China than all the rest of the world put together; and Chinese racquets outsell Yonex racquets worldwide, more so in China. Even they are not market makers, just meeting the market's demand. With all China watching TV on home ground of LD, ZN and WD winning the 3 gold medals from badminton, this one incident is a market maker in the sense that badminton in China will now take on a spurt. With this Chinese spurt in interest in badminton, demand will increase and supply will meet the increased demand. In competing for this increased demand suppliers like Li Nang, Victor, even Yonex will compete with each other, some offering to even sponsor a thing here, a thing there, to advertise their goods. It is in a way similar to a TV broadcaster or a newspaper. A broadcaster or newspaper in Fiji will have a very small market, which means its revenue will be peanuts. With peanuts revenue, advertisers will also be peanuts. Let us not put the cart before the horse.
Warning: This Is A Long Read! I won't attempt to explain any of taneepak's posts. Only he can do that... and it's quite beyond me too As I mentioned before, the IOC's rules (they are called 'guidelines' although they are as rigid as any rule anywhere) prohibit visible advertising of any sort at Olympic venues. Manufacturers' logos and marks are allowed provided they conform to very specific limitations. The principal 'guideline' governing this issue is the IOC's Rule 51 (Advertising, Demonstrations & Propaganda). It's too large to reproduce here but what's relevant to this discussion are these extracts: --------------------- Rule 51 Clause 2: No form of advertising or other publicity shall be allowed in and above the stadia, venues and other competition areas which are considered as part of the Olympic sites. Commercial installations and advertising signs shall not be allowed in the stadia, venues or other sports grounds. Bye-law to Rule 51 Clause 1: No form of publicity or propaganda, commercial or otherwise, may appear on persons, on sportswear, accessories or, more generally, on any article of clothing or equipment whatsoever worn or used by the athletes or other participants in the Olympic Games, except for the identification of the manufacturer of the article or equipment concerned, provided that such identification shall not be marked conspicuously for advertising purposes. Clause 1.1: The identification of the manufacturer shall not appear more than once per item of clothing and equipment. Clause 1.2: Equipment: any manufacturer’s identification that is greater than 10% of the surface area of the equipment that is exposed during competition shall be deemed to be marked conspicuously. However, there shall be no manufacturer’s identification greater than 60 cm2. Clause 1.3: Headgear (e.g. hats, helmets, sunglasses, goggles) and gloves: any manufacturer’s identification over 6 cm2 shall be deemed to be marked conspicuously. Clause 1.4: Clothing (e.g. T-shirts, shorts, sweat tops and sweat pants): any manufacturer’s identification which is greater than 20 cm2 shall be deemed to be marked conspicuously. Clause 1.5: Shoes: it is acceptable that there appear the normal distinctive design pattern of the manufacturer. The manufacturer’s name and/or logo may also appear, up to a maximum of 6 cm2, either as part of the normal distinctive design pattern or independent of the normal distinctive design pattern. Clause 7: The identification on all technical gear, installations and other apparatus, which are neither worn nor used by athletes or other participants at the Olympic Games, including timing equipment and scoreboards, may on no account be larger than 1/10th of the height of the equipment, installation or apparatus in question, and shall not be greater than 10 centimetres high. -------------------- The clauses are clear and self-explanatory. The '12 sponsors' could have paid big money for on-air advertising during the Olympic broadcasts in a particular country or area or for outdoor advertising or for merchandising - but certainly not for advertising within the venues
