Draft of IBF Letter

Loh,
Good job. I haven't had time to go through the details. First impression is that it's too long. Secondly, I think we might want to encourage IBF to work closely with NBC (the official broadcaster of the Olympics in the US) to highlight badminton (actually, NBC did issue a press release that they want to focus on badminton in this Olympics like what they did with curling at the Salt Lakes Winter Olympics). I will have to see if I can find that article.

Found the link, http://www.usatoday.com/sports/columnist/hiestand/2003-11-27-hiestand_x.htm

 

I think you should snail-mail it rather than use email. Email gets deleted all too easily; ink and paper usually will get more attention. Or better yet, sent it using email and followup using snail mail.

 

But just because the letter claims to have the support of everything at BF doesn't make it so. Adding our names would positively show how much support the letter has. Otherwise, they could think only a few squeaky wheels stand behind the letter.

 

I agree about the snail mail part, especially if you send it either registered or recorded in some way so we know they have received it and at least in the worst possible scenario if they don't reply we are not left thinking did it get there or not? If it has to be signed for we would know they got it and if no action was taken then we would know it has been swept aside!

 

IBF responses

Loh,
Very good, sorry about my delay in replying/adding information.

I don't agree - I don't see the problem as quality, but of quantity or lack of.
Unfortuantely from my experience I don't see IBF assisting countries or organisation in promoting the sport in the media, in particular Australia!

Please see my orginal attachemnt from the SBS, multicultural tv station in Australia, about the availability of badminton footage.

Thanks.

Stuart

Response:

Dear Stuart,

Thanks for a copy of this letter.

From IBF events (for example the recent World Championships) news coverage
is reasonably good, especially through agencies such as SNTV and Reuters.

Elsewhere, TV coverage and news agency distribution from all but a handful
of Grand Prix events tends to be regionalised - having spent a short period
of time in New Zealand I saw that the publicity and interest generated
there by the series of Australia v New Zealand badminton matches far
outweiged the local interest in the major world badminton events. Of
course part of this is an issue of supply (ie availability) of the news
coverage, but the major issue is the level of the demand for that
information in each country. Increasing this level of global demand and
interest for news coverage of elite-level badminton is a challenge that
both IBF and its Member Associations must work hard to achieve.

Thanks once more for your interest.

Kind regards,

Simon Morton


Simon Morton
Senior Marketing and Development Officer
International Badminton Federation


Simon,

Thank you for the prompt response, as requested.

Regards

11:36 ---------------------------
To: Simon Morton <simonm@intbadfed.org>
cc:
bcc:

Subject: Re: IBF television broadcasting Link


Simon Morton
Senior Marketing and Development Officer
International Badminton Federation


Simon,

Once again thank you for the previous E-mail. Please consider the following attachment a reply
from the SBS television corporation in Australia to a letter from myself.

As you can see from the letter, there are claims of difficulties regarding video news agencies and
volume of coverage.

Thanks.

Regards




To: Stuart Ingram/BG/Health@Health_gov_au
cc:

Subject: IBF television broadcasting




Dear Stuart,

Thank you for your email, addressed to Andrew Ryan, regarding TV coverage
of badminton. Sorry for the delay in my response to you.

Whilst global TV coverage of badminton has become significantly more
widespread over the past two to three years, there are still large parts of
the world, such as in Australia, where broadcasters decide not to include
the sport as part of their range of sports coverage - the sports culture in
Australia makes it a particularly competitive market place, with many
sports competing for attention.

IBF is always trying to increase global exposure through enhancing the
methods of selling our product and through enhancing the presentation of
the product itself, and we hope that in the future Australian broadcasters
will decide to take some badminton. You are correct, there have been
developments with NBC in USA who have committed to significantly increase
their broadcast from the Athens 2004 Games, and most importantly, have also
committed to profile all Olympic sports through that broadcast.

Regards,

Simon Morton
Senior Marketing and Development Officer
International Badminton Federation



>To: andrewr@intbadfed.org
>Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 13:07:02 +1100
>Subject: IBF Tevelsion broadcasting
>
>Andrew Ryan
>Director of Marketing and Development
>International Badminton Federation
>
>
>Andrew,
>
> Thank you to you and the IBF for providing the IBF Global TV Broadcast
>Summary report on www.worldbadminton.net.
>
>It is a very interesting and enlightening document.
>
>Though personally I am very disappointed with the level of International
>Badminton coverage on Australia television, both free to air and
>pay per view, which is virtual non-existent. Especially the multicultural free
>to air television which boasts an extensive coverage of sport
> which are not that popular (ie competition, for example Soccer vs Rugby
league
>of AFL) in Australia, including a nightly sports news
>show. This channel being SBS.
>
>Then there is the problem of the pay per view channel - main service being
>FOXTEL show very little - almost non - it did show
>limited coverage with a third part package called Asian Sports.
>
>I would like to know if the IBF is in a position to assist IBF member
countries
>with television coverage. I there has be some
>negotiations with the NBC in the USA regarding this matter.
>
>Thanks.
>
>
>Regards
>
>

>
>

 

SBS Leter

Sorry,

In my haste yesterday, forgot to attach the SBS letter?

 

I guess this is the closest thread I can find without starting a new one. I read the draft by Loh and I do have another theory as to how to go about popularizing the game of badminton. This all boils down to capitalism. No sponsor, no money, no matter how wonderful the game is, it will not gain full world recognition. Let's take a closer look at the professional sports, the NBA, MLB, NFL, NHL..... even games like tennis, look at golf, bowling and boxing. Why are they so successful? Are they better or more interesting sport than badminton? Hardly! How interesting is it to see tennis when a rally of over 5 stokes is considered long! If you take a closer and harder look at it, I believe they all point to advertising. The ability to slot in ads! One might argue that we do have ads in between games, etc.
If you take a closer look at the professional sports mentioned above, you can see ads are inserted throught the game - not between games.
So how are we going to slot in more ads? I have on suggestion.
REFORM the scoring system - drastically. NOT the 7 point system. Squash didn't cut it either. Look at tennis. Why are they way more successful when one spend more time picking up balls than actually hitting it or keeping it in play. I think I can support I theory by comparing badminton with volleyball. Volleyball is a very interesting game. The scoring system is very similar to badminton. No chance of inserting ads....
You thoughts guys...

 

The problem with that is Badminton is an exciting sport from first hit to last. Games can last from 10mins to 45mins (for a set) in tennis, no game really lasts more than 10mins, and usually about 4. so they can get an ad each game if they are long, and once every two games if short.

I understand what you are saying, but you dont suggest anything! what is the drastic change you make. Make it less exciting, so you dont mind if you miss some?!!

 

The reason I have not said too much about the drastic changes I have in mind is because I wanted to see if this idea can even fly? Is there any merit to my point of views, before I blabber on...
No, I am not suggesting to make the game less interesting. Just scoring it differently. Tennis way of scoring is very interesting. Gives lots of opportunity for slotting in ads. I am not suggesting that we should or should not score the game like tennis, but certainly something similar.
Under the current scoring system, any matches exceeding 60 minutes is considered very long. Take the NFL, the actual game time is only 60 minutes, but the game drag on for over 3 to 4 hours, NBA is 48 minutes, but the actual game will last over 3 hours. Most tennis matches last over 2 hours with many going beyond 3. You can probably count the number of international level badminton matches lasting over 75 minutes on you fingers.
So, if somehow we can reform the scoring the scoring without changing much else, we might "get the Americans" back (the Americans were world class player in the early 20th century. I guess there was no money in it and the interest just died).

 

I think the whole shorter games = better tv coverage is a red herring...

Golf a round of golf can take 3 hours. For 70 shots thats over 2 and a half minutes between strokes. For the whole field to play their rounds takes the whole day from 7.00 am until 7.00pm at majors. Yet it gets full live coverage.

Cricket..test matches take 5 days and still you get many draws. A single player can bat for over a day, sometimes only scoring a couple of runs an hours, again full live coverage.

Formula 1 the drivers go round over 50 times, taking over an hour, yet live coverage of even the practice sessions.

Tennis...matches can exceed five hours, whole days are lost through rain, yet at wimbledon we get coverage on the 2 bbc channels at once, plus coverage of the veterans, the juniors, and repeated matches when it rains.
ALthough in tennis the scoring appears to increase the number of "big" points the truth is that there are only a few critical points in the match, especially on grass , the servers may dominate for a couple of sets with the ball hardly returned.

Having recently watches some coverage from abroad of badminton events I see the reason behind the comments made on BC re commentators and presentation.

One American commentator frequently named the wrong player, a few times naming a player who wasn't even on court. In addition he used incorrect terminology describing the shots and tactics.

The problems of badminton are historical and cultural. Some on here seem to think the IBF do not try to promote the sport, gain coverage, work with tv etc. If sponsorship comes into the game the game will develop especially in america. Badminton fans drink budweiser and watch mtv just the same as football fans. Badminton fans buy a lot of kit, just like golf/tennis fans, why are Nike, reebok not interested in this market??

 

In other words, both you, (kum and dlp) agree that we need better exposure and marketing of the game.
Now let me expand further on my line of thought. Yes, we badminton hard core spend just as much money on budwiser beer and Nike ware, if not more. Then why isn't that enough for the sponsors interested in us. I theorize that it has to do with the scoring. All the "boring" sports that you mentioned allowed commercial ads to be placed in between plays. That is a very important criteria for advertisers. The likelihood of views flipping to other channels during commercial is lower. Whereas in badminton, the only times they are allowed to run a commercial are between games and matches. The breaks are longer, hence the viewers are more likely to flip to other channels or go out of the room during these commercials. In addition, how many commercials can you actually slot in between games before the viewers get really annoyed.
In NBA, NHL, tennis or golf, they usually only run 2 to 3 commercials between plays. Viewers will tolerate that more than a whole whack of 10 minutes of commercials.
Tennis is a very good example. This game allows hundreds of ads to be run during each televised game, but most viewers don't feel it because it is very short. That's why the winner of the US Open takes home over US$1 million in prize money and the winningest team, China as a team in 2002 took home less than US$300,000 for the year!
It seemed like there was a will in 2002 to change the scoring system for whatever reason. I only wished they would take it another step further. Change it such that there is consistently a break between several points (like tennis) so that commercials can be sloted in. We don't have to be exactly like tennis, just similar scoring system. Once we have slots commercial, the sponsorship will roll in.....imho..

 

Probably too much business risk for TV broadcasting companies to take such a big jump on broadcasting badminton games.

Perhaps suggesting local TV broadcasting companies to develop a website link to world badminton games in their webpages would be more feasible to them...less risk and less costly to start with?!

 

I think i have written a lot on this topic so i'll just add some new thots in this post.

It's no doubt TV, sports, marketing are about business and $$.
IBF had tried changing scoring system and allowed flashier apparel but
still no bites from western media.

The problem is still due to lack of understanding and appreciation of badminton by the business world and media network. These organizations are very conservative and rarely adventurous. (for example how RIAA had fought 8 tracks. then audio tapes, then minidisc, then DAT, then CD, then mp3, etc for fear of losing vinyl sales and dont see the bigger picture until the market force them to in each case.) When nike make badminton shoes is when they'll sponsor badminton events. TV ad contracts for tennis, golf, basketball, and other mainstream sports are quite entrenched with sponsors. Any peanut offer for badminton slots wouldn't interest the tv executives.

Like RIAA, i believe tv and business is quite out of tune with the changing market of consumerism and marketing. I wouldnt suggest IBF changing anymore badminton to suit tv ads slot because marketing is entering a new era. Big slot of commercials as mentioned by leftie is VERY inefficient. If i know a 10 mins commericial is coming, i will change channel or step off to do something else. Multiple of short commercials (15 sec) is more effective and it is workable with badminton (water break, change of shuttle, switching court on the 3rd game, 5 min break going to the 3rd). Also the trend of digital vcr (tivo) means commercials won't be seen. The big expensive commericial slot will be a big waste of marketing dollars.

Instead of waiting for tv and business to change, IBF should hire more marketing agents to promote shorter ad slot in between rallies. This way, it will be seen and harder to filter out.

It still come down to awareness of what badminton can bring to the tv audience. In pay for sport channels, commericial isnt a big factor and we still dont get to see badminton on tv.

I'm not really too worry about this shortcoming. Badminton will become more popular in the west because china is emerging from a 3rd to 2nd (or 1st) world country. Walmart is already china's 8th largest trading partner. You'll see badminton one day on tv, whether u like or not Hey, yesterday i saw some table tennis on TSN and that isn't half exciting as badminton.

 

I still feel that scoring/advert breaks is another excuse rather than a genuine reason. Football runs at two 45 minute halves and still dominates much of world tv sport.

US Tv likes US success, watching two chinese with difficult names is not easy to promote. I'm not saying that people are racist, just that it is easier to get involved with some home interest. That goes for Malaysia for instance, how much did the interest drop after malaysia were knocked out of TC?

In the UK we have two world class doubles pairs for the first time in a while, yet still no coverage. There becomes a point where a sport gets a critical amount of coverage and then any story involving that sport gets more coverage. We need to see the Nike US badminton open !

 

A Michael Jordan of badminton would make a great ambassador of the sport but unless there is money to be made in badminton, it may end up as it is for some time.

As badrad joked said : Badminton players win enough to buy an air ticket, tennis players win enough to buy an airplane.

Not to mention badminton is highly technical. This is my personal opinion - I think basketball is more popular over the globe because it is more a brute sort of game where speed and power dominates. You have the height and the body? Your chances of making it big in basketball is so much higher. The emergence of rare legends such as MJ adds great flair as well as high level of talent is what makes him so special.

Think badminton - you need years and years of training to become one of the very best in the world. A lot of kids won't be patient enough to actually care for the technical details and many end up frustrated before they even go into second gear.

I played and trained for junior tennis before too - it is definitely more brutish than technical. Watch Serena Williams and Andy Roddick - the muscles, the power, the speed.

When John McEnroe retired, he was a celebrity, living a good life from his earnings from his playing days. He may not need to work anymore.

Zhao Jianhua? Chicken rice.

As kwun said - it's the image.
Here, I add, the carrot.

 

oh, i forgot to add one more thing.
One other reason imo the western media is shy of badminton is that we don't have good english speaking commentators, the ones with an american accent and point of view. Someone wif a track record in public broadcasting that will be palatable to million of american viewers. Someone that the media can count on. Yes, it's the chicken and the egg thing but i think that is why western media still not jumping into the bandwagon.

 

Perhaps my point was mistaken by some of you. I don't think the 5-10minutes between games break is the answer (this is the current status quo). What I am suggesting is a reform in the scoring system to allow for slotting in more ads during the game.
I knew someone would bring up soccer. Well, this game is the exception rather than the rule of all professional sports. In addition, a soccer stadium sits over 100k spectators. At $10 per head, that's over a million per match. Badminton on the other hand does not have such luxury. We will need to rely on TV ad revenue.
I have to disagree that only the Chinese are the best players in the world. Remember Morten Frost. He was certainly extremely dominating during his prime. The Americans were once world class players until everyone got caught up with commercialism. There was simply no money to be made here.
Unless we give the corporate sponsors a chance to advertise, no one will come. Corporate sponsorship will mean more price money. More money will beget better player commitment,.. and so on...

 

who r u replying to
who's favoring 5-10 mins commercial break
who said chinese are the best badminton players