Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 4:44:11 GMT -5
It may have escaped the notice of some of our members that the aforementioned booby bears not only a tattoo but also - on his shirt - an advertisement for a bank. Several of his booby-mates do too. Now that, in the minds of men who matter, is definitely not cricket. But booby does not know that. He is proud to be assisting commerce (if that is the term for what banks do), but he is unaware that it is not cricket. Who is to blame for this? If we look up that bank in Wikipædia we find no information about who is behind it. So we turn to its "official web-site". And what do we find there? Not the information we seek, but . . . a photo-graph of a cricketer! Let's try "About us" . . . more cricketers! Still nothing about who is behind it. More and more mysterious. Some would say sinister, even. So we try "Who we are" . . . and a photo-graph of a youngish man with a silly hair-do appears. Perhaps he is a cricketer, but we are not in fact told who he is or why he is deposited there. Try "Management team" - "team"! Bad sign! But ah! At last a few names - and faces, even. www.commbank.com.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-company.html#ourcompany-managementBut these are all still employées are they not (although it is some of them who may be responsible for wasting their depositors' money on "cricket"). Who is behind it all? Does a bank not have creatures called "directors" . . . or am I mistaken? Ah yes, enter "director" in the little box, and this page appears: www.commbank.com.au/about-us/shareholders/corporate-profile/board-of-directors.htmlNine names, nine faces. They are the ones! Is that not so members?! David J Turner, Ian M Narev, Sir John Anderson, Jane Hemstritch (first female), Launa Inman (second female), Carolyn Kay (third female), Brian Long, Andrew M Mohl, and Harrison Young (the token Amercian - don't leave home without him).Anyway here is a warning: when any business starts puffing "sport" it is time to get out - fast. The last refuge of a scoundrel and all that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 5:53:25 GMT -5
The relationship between business and sport is an interesting one, Sydney. If I am to ask my clients out, the overwhelming preference would be for a top sporting rather than a top arts events. So cricket at Lords would be far more attractive to most than a night at the Royal Opera House, for example, although I must admit that I would tend to prefer the latter. When one begins to ask the question, "does it work?" or even "does it pay?", Sydney, one gets a different set of answers from a more ideological approach: what is right? To try to suppress opinions which one does not share is much less profitable than tolerating them. I suppose that most business people can instinctively associate with the competition of sport, even if they do not understand all the rules of cricket. Football is perhaps easier to follow for the uninitiated! The vast majority of people feel less comfortable with the language of opera or ballet, for example, and often tend to misbehave in the stalls, uncomfortable with the culture of high art! As for sponsorship, well, I note that the England cricketers are advertising Brit Insurance during the current Ashes tour: BBC Sport - Cricket - Ashes 2013-14: Ben Stokes backed to replace Jonathan TrottIt is probably good marketing for Brit to be associated with the England cricket team, and I would certainly not reject sponsorship from sporting and arts events. It brings a lot of much needed funding to cultural activities, even if you do not actually want to buy their products and/or services. Brit InsuranceYou can do without, Sydney?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Nov 26, 2013 8:47:52 GMT -5
It may have escaped the notice of some of our members that the aforementioned booby bears not only a tattoo but also - on his shirt - an advertisement for a bank. Several of his booby-mates do too. Now that, in the minds of men who matter, is definitely not cricket. But booby does not know that. He is proud to be assisting commerce (if that is the term for what banks do), but he is unaware that it is not cricket. Why only men and who decides on what grounds they matter to whom? Of course it is not in itself "cricket"; what the players play is cricket, financed by commerical organisations including banks. Who is to blame for this? Ask first whether blame deserves to be laid, surely?... If we look up that bank in Wikipædia we find no information about who is behind it. So we turn to its "official web-site". And what do we find there? Not the information we seek, but . . . a photo-graph of a cricketer! Let's try "About us" . . . more cricketers! Still nothing about who is behind it. More and more mysterious. Some would say sinister, even. So we try "Who we are" . . . and a photo-graph of a youngish man with a silly hair-do appears. Perhaps he is a cricketer, but we are not in fact told who he is or why he is deposited there. Try "Management team" - "team"! Bad sign! But ah! At last a few names - and faces, even. www.commbank.com.au/about-us/who-we-are/our-company.html#ourcompany-managementBut these are all still employées are they not (although it is some of them who may be responsible for wasting their depositors' money on "cricket"). Who is behind it all? Does a bank not have creatures called "directors" . . . or am I mistaken? Ah yes, enter "director" in the little box, and this page appears: www.commbank.com.au/about-us/shareholders/corporate-profile/board-of-directors.htmlNine names, nine faces. They are the ones! Is that not so members?! David J Turner, Ian M Narev, Sir John Anderson, Jane Hemstritch (first female), Launa Inman (second female), Carolyn Kay (third female), Brian Long, Andrew M Mohl, and Harrison Young (the token Amercian - don't leave home without him).Anyway here is a warning: when any business starts puffing "sport" it is time to get out - fast. The last refuge of a scoundrel and all that. Why only sport? Name me other professional activities that can and/or do continue to be carried on without the input of banks and other commercial organisations. That's not to suggest, of course, that such organisations are whiter than white in their conduct - dearie me, no! - but the point is nevertheless well made, methinks, even though I sez so as shouldn't...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 9:11:34 GMT -5
If I may address both your questions below, ahinton, although hardly on behalf of Sydney, who may currently be asleep: a. Ask first whether blame deseres to be laid, surely? I suppose that commercial sponsorship is required because of the costs involved, and because of the lack of sufficient funding from the audience (in art), spectators (in sport) or other sources, for example, benefactors, charities or even the state. I would not personally blame anyone, Sydney. Banks help fund business, and sporting and arts events are businesses in their own right. I suppose that there has to be some kind of affinity between organisations offering and seeking sponsorship. For example, many people watching sporting events will also bank with their sponsors, but much the same may be said for the arts, too! From a business perspective, however, sport may be a more attractive option, ahinton, particularly if that is what one's customers prefer.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Nov 26, 2013 9:24:31 GMT -5
If I may address both your questions below, ahinton, although hardly on behalf of Sydney, who may currently be asleep: a. Ask first whether blame deserves to be laid, surely? I suppose that commercial sponsorship is required because of the costs involved, and because of the lack of sufficient funding from the audience (in art), spectators (in sport) or other sources, for example, benefactors, charities or even the state. I would not personally blame anyone, Sydney. Banks help fund business, and sporting and arts events are businesses in their own right. Quite (although you seem to be addressing your post to Sydney!)... I suppose that there has to be some kind of affinity between organisations offering and seeking sponsorship. For example, many people watching sporting events will also bank with their sponsors, but much the same may be said for the arts, too! From a business perspective, however, sport may be a more attractive option, ahinton, particularly if that is what one's customers prefer. That's all true, which might seem to be one reason why seeking the necessary funding for much musical activity is a harder task than seeking it for sport; however, it is arguably by the same token a less necessary one, it seems to me, given that, if sport is indeed "what [more] customers prefer", more such customers are more likely to put their own money where their principal interests appear to lie, with the implication that corporate sports sponsorship might look to be a less dire necessity than is sponsorship from any and every source for music.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 9:34:39 GMT -5
Obviously, I am addressing Sydney, ahinton, because Sydney originally asked who is to blame? " ... Who is to blame for this?" As for necessity, many types of popular music pay for themselves anyway, just as many of the more popular sports do. The question of additional funding really applies to less popular forms of spectator sport, for example, croquet rather than cricket, and classical music rather than pop! I suppose that we have to ask ourselves what cultural activities we individually and collectively value, and why? If we participate in them, we probably value them, although why should other people be asked to fund our participation? In the case of croquet, I can see little reason at all. In the case of art, Grayson Perry argues that the central purpose of creating art is to heal psychic wounds and to make meaning. BBC Radio 4 - The Reith Lectures - Grayson Perry: Playing to the Gallery: 2013 - I Found Myself in the Art World Would you agree, ahinton?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Nov 26, 2013 9:59:04 GMT -5
Obviously, I am addressing Sydney, ahinton, because Sydney originally asked who is to blame? But you nevertheless opened with the words "If I may address both your questions below, ahinton, although hardly on behalf of Sydney, who may currently be asleep"... " ... Who is to blame for this?" As for necessity, many types of popular music pay for themselves anyway, just as many of the more popular sports do. The question of additional funding really applies to less popular forms of spectator sport, for example, croquet rather than cricket, and classical music rather than pop! I suppose that we have to ask ourselves what cultural activities we individually and collectively value, and why? If we participate in them, we probably value them, although why should other people be asked to fund our participation? In the case of croquet, I can see little reason at all. In the case of art, Grayson Perry argues that the central purpose of creating art is to heal psychic wounds and to make meaning. BBC Radio 4 - The Reith Lectures - Grayson Perry: Playing to the Gallery: 2013 - I Found Myself in the Art World Would you agree, ahinton? It's up to each individual and corporate entity to decide, whether of his/her/its own volition or as a consequence of coercion of any and all kinds, what activities to fund and to what extent. Funding croquet might not be seen as commercially viable because of its perceived limited popularity, yet funding snooker might once have been regarded likewise until somone decided to market it to the point at which it attained sufficient popularity for potential sponsors to want to jump on board in their own interests at least as much as, if not more than, in the interests of snooker. It's all about marketing exercises, successful and otherwise, which is all very well for sport but which might not unreasonably be regarded as having the potential to theaten or at least undermine artistic endeavour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 10:15:32 GMT -5
I am self-evidently addressing your questions, ahinton, although not on behalf of Sydney, who has already asked who is to blame for this! I don't think that sponsorship is all about marketing exercises, anyway. If I choose to sponsor a particular event, it may simply be because I enjoy it, and I want others to have the opportunity to enjoy it, too! If I may quote WB Yeats, writing a poem to a Wealthy Man who promised a second Subscription to the Dublin Municipal Gallery if it were proved the People wanted Pictures (December 1912): Bartleby - WB Yeats - Responsibilities and Other PoemsOf course, this does have marketing implications, because marketing can succinctly be defined as meeting the needs and/or wants of your customers. If some customers enjoy something you have funded, you are, in a way, giving them what they want, even if they are not paying (you enough). The experience may change their lives, after all, which may or may not be a good thing!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Nov 26, 2013 10:28:24 GMT -5
I am self-evidently addressing your questions, ahinton, although not on behalf of Sydney, who has already asked who is to blame for this! I don't think that sponsorship is all about marketing exercises, anyway. If I choose to sponsor a particular event, it may simply be because I enjoy it, and I want others to have the opportunity to enjoy it, too! Of course, this does have marketing implications, because marketing can be defined as meeting the needs and/pr wants of your customers. If some customers enjoy something you have funded, you are, in a way, giving them what they want, even if they are not paying (you enough). The experience may change their lives, after all, which may or may not be a good thing! In the context in which you mention it, one might arguably claim that sponsorship motivation per se is at least in part about wishing to share with others what one wants oneself whereas marketing's more about wishing to persuade others as to what it is that they "want" and then giving it to them (a cynic speaks, peut-être)...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2013 10:36:51 GMT -5
I suppose that this helps explain why sponsorship can be regarded as more acceptable than advertising, although both should still be regarded as forms of marketing. Interestingly, luxury products and services tend to be better served by soft marketing techniques, such as sponsorship, whereas commodities tend to be better served by hard marketing techniques, such as more conventional promotions. Thus, I would probably be advised to market champagne by sponsoring a polo match, for example, and coke with a television advertisement in the middle of a football match.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 0:02:14 GMT -5
The thing about advertisements is that they matter to men who do not matter, but men who matter who happen to see them will only be driven away. The attention of men who matter is not the property of eager shopkeepers and shopkeeperesses! Keep trade in its place! But the cricket is spoiled.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 2:47:55 GMT -5
If I may quote Immanuel Kant directly from his ' Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten' (1785): [/i][/b] In the kingdom of ends everything has either a price or a dignity. What has a price can be replaced by something else as its equivalent; what on the other hand is above all price and therefore admits of no equivalent has a dignity. I suppose that cricket and sport in general, music and art in general and even god(s) and religion in general all potentially have a dignity which is above price. In this sense, advertising belittles them. Nevertheless, sportspeople, artists and priests all need resources to prosper, so they still practise business(es) in their own right(s). It is much the same with advertisements elsewhere. The music on BBC Radio 3 would be spoiled by advertisements, for example, and yet they are a necessity to Radio 3's commercial rival in the UK, Classic FM. Money talks, Sydney?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Nov 27, 2013 3:20:30 GMT -5
The thing about advertisements is that they matter to men who do not matter, but men who matter who happen to see them will only be driven away. The attention of men who matter is not the property of eager shopkeepers and shopkeeperesses! Keep trade in its place! But the cricket is spoiled. Your obsessive reference to "men" in this and other contexts is here let down by your mentioned of "shopkeeperesses". I do not know how many female supermarket CEOs there are, but that's neither here nor there, I suspect. If indeed cricket is "spoiled" by the input of commercialism (without which it could not continue internationally), then let us have examples of other activities that are or could be free from it. "Keep trade in its place!", you urge - but you don't tell us what place you believe it ought to occupy. Every time money passes from one person or institution or another, a "trade" of some kind has taken place; billions of them happen instantly every second nowadays.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2013 5:33:49 GMT -5
In a strict sense, I do not keep shop, so I cannot define myself as a shopkeeper. I do not know how many shopkeepers are women, but most businesses tend to be run by men. According to ' Time Out', here are the hundred best shops in London. Time Out - The 100 best shops in LondonTop of the list is Liberty, and unsurprisingly, its Managing Director is male: Ed Burstell. Liberty - Meet our Managing Director Ed BurstellI suppose that a shop is, by definition, trade, although not all human activities involve trade. Are we trading, ahinton?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Nov 27, 2013 5:40:14 GMT -5
In a strict sense, I do not keep shop, so I cannot define myself as a shopkeeper. I do not know how many shopkeepers are women, but most businesses tend to be run by men. According to ' Time Out', here are the hundred best shops in London. Time Out - The 100 best shops in LondonTop of the list is Liberty, and unsurprisingly, its Managing Director is male: Ed Burstell. Liberty - Meet our Managing Director Ed BurstellI suppose that a shop is, by definition, trade, although not all human activities involve trade. Are we trading, ahinton? That depends upon whether you or anyone else might consider "trading" of necessity to involve financial transactions and we're not doing those. Some people "trade insults" - and we're not doing that, either! If, however, "trading" can be said to embrace "sharing of thoughts and ideas", then perhaps we are...
|
|