Ask Brown a question

[MySpazz]

On 8/22/2019 at 9:58 AM, Ginger Bakers rebel army said:

Why can't every over 18 home fan be given a ticket for the draw for free hospitality for 4, surely that would be a better way to promote this exciting new initiative recognising that all fans are equally important. 

In the summer, there are fans who finance the club in the months with limited income.

Those fans are being rewarded for trading futures on the club's performance.

There are loads of reasons why it should be ST holders. 

On 8/22/2019 at 12:15 PM, Pat McGroin said:

Who decided it was a good idea to put the vast majority of media content from the club behind a pay wall. Do you think that is conducive to bringing in new fans. 

Would the pay wall not be best reserved for games only?

The content is an asset. You do not give your assets away free of charge.  

On 8/22/2019 at 9:03 PM, Pat McGroin said:

Where can saints go with investment though? Realistically throwing money at St Johnstone isn’t what’s required. We’re never going to regular finish above the Edinburgh clubs or Aberdeen so what do we achieve.

Where the club goes tits up is with PR, it doesn’t need silly money spending, just getting with the times and investing maybe £30k or whatever is required in someone that can do the job well and work on fan retention 

When people here say PR, do they mean Press Relations, Community Liaison, Website, Social Media, Radio, Podcasts, YouTube Channel, Twitch.TV live streaming, Discord Channels...... and so on and on and on.

 One full time employee would struggle to run the website, update the social media, edit some videos and liaise with press.

So, what is suggested for better PR is ...... employ a team of staff ? 
That's what it takes. 

Where is the content for all this PR coming from? Who is producing it? Who is paying for it? What is the market beyond the football community of Perth. How many extra through the gate would it achieve?

To pay for the employee it would need to bring 70 paying adults per home game (back of a fag packet calculation of wages, NI, Pension, computer/licences for photos, software etc).

Long reply, but long story short: "PR" as many call it, is a much bigger exercise than flinging a few lines up on the site.

[Greylag]

On 8/22/2019 at 3:25 PM, Ginger Bakers rebel army said:

There's an easy way to make this right, assuming three quarters ticket holders and one quarter pay at the gate. 

3 draws for season ticket holders followed by 1 draw for pay at the gate. 

That is a very simple and workable much fairer way of doing things. 

I was a season ticket holder for near 30 years and before McD always paid at the gate, hardly missed a game home or away. Purchased family season tickets and endless saints tops etc. 

Have moved to the Highlands now so season ticket just not viable but will attend as many games as I can. 

So having spent way in excess of 20 grand attending just home matches, there is no way to benefit from saints £15,000, hospitality give away. 

I know there are plenty others like me that have had tickets for years and moved away or have always just paid at the gate. 

I think it's fine for season ticket holders to be given first dibbs on match tickets and a discount in the club shop but with such an unprecedented saints give away to leave out those that pay at the gate is disgraceful. 

Whilst a great initiative it is also another own goal that has not been thought through properly. 

Saints need to correct this or they are going to alienate another bunch of supporters. 

I don't see any issue with a draw purely for season ticket holders.  No doubt at some period during the season the club will offer special entry deals at £10 or £15 to get folk along to a less attractive game or encourage support to an important one.  Every time they do this they reduce the saving in buying a season ticket rather than pay at the gate.  So a draw like this redresses the balance a bit and seems like a decent initiative to me.

[Pat McGroin]

12 hours ago, MySpazz said:

In the summer, there are fans who finance the club in the months with limited income.

Those fans are being rewarded for trading futures on the club's performance.

There are loads of reasons why it should be ST holders. 

The content is an asset. You do not give your assets away free of charge.  

When people here say PR, do they mean Press Relations, Community Liaison, Website, Social Media, Radio, Podcasts, YouTube Channel, Twitch.TV live streaming, Discord Channels...... and so on and on and on.

 One full time employee would struggle to run the website, update the social media, edit some videos and liaise with press.

So, what is suggested for better PR is ...... employ a team of staff ? 
That's what it takes. 

Where is the content for all this PR coming from? Who is producing it? Who is paying for it? What is the market beyond the football community of Perth. How many extra through the gate would it achieve?

To pay for the employee it would need to bring 70 paying adults per home game (back of a fag packet calculation of wages, NI, Pension, computer/licences for photos, software etc).

Long reply, but long story short: "PR" as many call it, is a much bigger exercise than flinging a few lines up on the site.

I mean Public Relations. Not Press. 

A huge source of creating good Public Relations today is clever use of social media to actually integrate punters into the club on a daily basis. 

By whacking all that behind a pay wall, you’re basically saying “we don’t want to attract new fans” as that’s all that’s going wrong to happen. 

Social Media is not an asset of any value, it’s a marketing tool that should be used to attract as well and retain support. It’s a bloody useless asset if you can’t use it to try and get new fans on board. 

It’s exactly the same as Newspapers that put their content behind a paywall. I understand why they do it and I’m sure dyed in the wool readers are probably happy to pay for their favourite paper online but you’ll not attract new readers when their are free alternatives. 

[Valentino Bolognese]

46 minutes ago, Pat McGroin said:

I mean Public Relations. Not Press. 

A huge source of creating good Public Relations today is clever use of social media to actually integrate punters into the club on a daily basis. 

By whacking all that behind a pay wall, you’re basically saying “we don’t want to attract new fans” as that’s all that’s going wrong to happen. 

Social Media is not an asset of any value, it’s a marketing tool that should be used to attract as well and retain support. It’s a bloody useless asset if you can’t use it to try and get new fans on board. 

It’s exactly the same as Newspapers that put their content behind a paywall. I understand why they do it and I’m sure dyed in the wool readers are probably happy to pay for their favourite paper online but you’ll not attract new readers when their are free alternatives. 

Eh.... the social media is not behind a paywall. Not sure why you think that?

Newspapers create content and (some) give it away for free because they generate enormous traffic which has advertising value, as does the user data they collect. The ones that use a paywall also re-sell the content. There is literally no comparison between a media provider and a football club in this respect. 

Anyway, Myspazz is 100% correct on this. 

There are 2 options for (let's call it) marketing the club. Either resource it in house or use an agency. I suspect we do it largely in house as this is cheaper. That's not to say better value. 

Now, a fight I've seen countless times is when (often managing directors or accountants) simply do not understand how expensive social media is. People only see what they see and often have no idea of the work in creating content, analysing data, working with partners etc etc. To do it right you need headcount and budget, and you have to be convinced of the return on investment. 

Once again I feel like I'm at work on a Saturday. I'm going avoid this thread from now on. 

[Havana Saint]

Were there no holidays available in June?

[south inch]

On 8/22/2019 at 8:34 PM, sasha said:

“Two of your ex players are playing in America with “ wee” teams. Their chairman are investing over £100m in their clubs, are you willing to match that or better it as Saints are a big team”?

Don't forget the age old truism 

Q   How do you make a small fortune out of a Scottish football club?

A   Start with a large one.

[Pat McGroin]

2 hours ago, Valentino Bolognese said:

Eh.... the social media is not behind a paywall. Not sure why you think that?

Newspapers create content and (some) give it away for free because they generate enormous traffic which has advertising value, as does the user data they collect. The ones that use a paywall also re-sell the content. There is literally no comparison between a media provider and a football club in this respect. 

Anyway, Myspazz is 100% correct on this. 

There are 2 options for (let's call it) marketing the club. Either resource it in house or use an agency. I suspect we do it largely in house as this is cheaper. That's not to say better value. 

Now, a fight I've seen countless times is when (often managing directors or accountants) simply do not understand how expensive social media is. People only see what they see and often have no idea of the work in creating content, analysing data, working with partners etc etc. To do it right you need headcount and budget, and you have to be convinced of the return on investment. 

Once again I feel like I'm at work on a Saturday. I'm going avoid this thread from now on. 

I’m pretty sure you can get a clip of the social media videos/interviews etc for free, but you have to pay for the full versions. 

Which is nuts for a club that desperately needs to try and bring in new support. 

 

I’m pretty sure there’s next to no analysis going into Saints social media content. It’s not the most professional setup. Sound is always terrible etc. 

 

Was miles better under Ross but they refused to pay to keep him, and from what I’ve been told, he wasn’t exactly holding the club to ransom. 

[RandomGuy]

Simple question.

Do you still care?

[MySpazz]

11 hours ago, Pat McGroin said:

I mean Public Relations. Not Press. 

A huge source of creating good Public Relations today is clever use of social media to actually integrate punters into the club on a daily basis. 

By whacking all that behind a pay wall, you’re basically saying “we don’t want to attract new fans” as that’s all that’s going wrong to happen. 

Social Media is not an asset of any value, it’s a marketing tool that should be used to attract as well and retain support. It’s a bloody useless asset if you can’t use it to try and get new fans on board. 

It’s exactly the same as Newspapers that put their content behind a paywall. I understand why they do it and I’m sure dyed in the wool readers are probably happy to pay for their favourite paper online but you’ll not attract new readers when their are free alternatives. 

I don't agree with you. The content is an asset - don't give your assets away. 

Do you also expect to get live games free of charge?

Give some examples of your Public Relations, and how these will be paid for?

P.s paywalls have worked a treat for niche publications with niche audiences. Being a Saintee is also niche

Anyhow, two things, first is this video

PAY THE WRITER

 

 

THEN TRY PAYING THE BILLS WITH "exposure"

 

 

 

Edited August 24, 2019 by MySpazz

[Cagey]

24 minutes ago, MySpazz said:

I don't agree with you. The content is an asset - don't give your assets away. 

Do you also expect to get live games free of charge?

Give some examples of your Public Relations, and how these will be paid for?

P.s paywalls have worked a treat for niche publications with niche audiences. Being a Saintee is also niche

Anyhow, two things, first is this video

PAY THE WRITER

 

 

THEN TRY PAYING THE BILLS WITH "exposure"

 

 

 

No one would. Expect to get live games foc but interviews etc are mainly to promote the game so should be foc.

[MySpazz]

13 minutes ago, Cagey said:

No one would. Expect to get live games foc but interviews etc are mainly to promote the game so should be foc.

You talking exposure bucks, or real money?

 

[Valentino Bolognese]

22 minutes ago, Cagey said:

No one would. Expect to get live games foc but interviews etc are mainly to promote the game so should be foc.

Who gives it away free?

Who owns the content?

Seems that it is assumed that it's owned by St Johnstone Football Club. That could be the case, but I would expect it's owned by the people producing it as part of the deal with the club. Maybe not, and there may be limited usage rights granted to the club for social media etc. Who knows, every contract is different.

I think Myspazz's point is that it's not a promotional asset as the only audience that it has a value for are those who are already highly invested customers. I.e. the club will not acquire new fans with 3 minutes of Scott Tanser mumbling about how the lads are really fired up for a midweeker at St Mirren. 

Hence the production company will want to try to generate some margin from folk who actually do attribute some value to that content, which would be mugs like me. The purpose of these videos is not 'to promote the club'. That would be entirely different content. 

[MySpazz]

23 hours ago, Valentino Bolognese said:

Who gives it away free?

Who owns the content?

Seems that it is assumed that it's owned by St Johnstone Football Club. That could be the case, but I would expect it's owned by the people producing it as part of the deal with the club. Maybe not, and there may be limited usage rights granted to the club for social media etc. Who knows, every contract is different.

I think Myspazz's point is that it's not a promotional asset as the only audience that it has a value for are those who are already highly invested customers. I.e. the club will not acquire new fans with 3 minutes of Scott Tanser mumbling about how the lads are really fired up for a midweeker at St Mirren. 

Hence the production company will want to try to generate some margin from folk who actually do attribute some value to that content, which would be mugs like me. The purpose of these videos is not 'to promote the club'. That would be entirely different content. 

 

 

There is much free material around: BBC highlights and goals, then TW's interview on BBC, Courier, Daily Ranger etc etc

 

The one bit you are not getting free is the bit that costs the club to produce. 

It's an asset and daft to think that is a worthy promo tool - you'd need ~70+ folk a home game to make it worthwhile - even when behind a paywall i'd imagine it's still a loss to produce

[Valentino Bolognese]

10 hours ago, MySpazz said:

 

 

There is much free material around: BBC highlights and goals, then TW's interview on BBC, Courier, Daily Ranger etc etc

 

The one bit you are not getting free is the bit that costs the club to produce. 

It's an asset and daft to think that is a worthy promo tool - you'd need ~70+ folk a home game to make it worthwhile - even when behind a paywall i'd imagine it's still a loss to produce

Agree it's useless for promotion. Entirely wrong type of content and as you say largely available elsewhere.

But I don't think it does cost the club. They way I'd structure the deal is for the cost to be on the production company, who pay a proportion of revenues to the club. They get guaranteed home game coverage, highlights, replays 1 x manager interview and 1x player interview pre and post games. I expect that the club don't own this content, or have restricted usage rights, so it's not actually thiers to 'give away' as people seem to want them to. 

The away game coverage will bump up subs and of course the more clubs they sign up for the model the bigger the revenue. 

I could be entirely wrong of course. 

 

[garydavidson]

38 minutes ago, Valentino Bolognese said:

Agree it's useless for promotion. Entirely wrong type of content and as you say largely available elsewhere.

But I don't think it does cost the club. They way I'd structure the deal is for the cost to be on the production company, who pay a proportion of revenues to the club. They get guaranteed home game coverage, highlights, replays 1 x manager interview and 1x player interview pre and post games. I expect that the club don't own this content, or have restricted usage rights, so it's not actually thiers to 'give away' as people seem to want them to. 

The away game coverage will bump up subs and of course the more clubs they sign up for the model the bigger the revenue. 

I could be entirely wrong of course. 

Ross did it for free which is probably part of the problem.  He did such a great job of it that it did build up a following but now it is all behind a paywall.

[The Kinross Saint]

On 8/23/2019 at 11:40 PM, MySpazz said:

 One full time employee would struggle to run the website, update the social media, edit some videos and liaise with press.

No they wouldn't, that's pretty much the job description for most marketing roles. 

[Valentino Bolognese]

2 minutes ago, garydavidson said:

Ross did it for free which is probably part of the problem.  He did such a great job of it that it did build up a following but now it is all behind a paywall.

Sorry, what's behind a paywall?

Saints TV wasn't set up by the club, it's a bought in product, the same as other clubs such as Livingston etc. It's hosted on a different URL, uses the same style sheets etc. 

Before, the club used to do thier own videos (Ross - agree he was good). I think if the current model puts interview videos behind a paywall, but that paywall gives access to home and away games for international fans, that's a very good trade off. 

 

 

[Valentino Bolognese]

2 minutes ago, The Kinross Saint said:

No they wouldn't, that's pretty much the job description for most marketing roles. 

Very, very junior roles. That's 'Marketing Assistant' job description stuff. 

[The Kinross Saint]

Just now, Valentino Bolognese said:

Very, very junior roles. That's 'Marketing Assistant' job description stuff. 

Exactly

[Valentino Bolognese]

3 minutes ago, The Kinross Saint said:

Exactly

We agree. If we want a more impactful, strategic marketing operation we would need to upgrade the function. 

I don't want to do Mr Brown a disservice, but I don't think he seems inclined to invest in that. Maybe he's right too, there may not be any real commercial upside for an enhanced marketing team. 

Edited August 26, 2019 by Valentino Bolognese

[The Kinross Saint]

3 minutes ago, Valentino Bolognese said:

We agree. If we want a more impactful, strategic marketing operation we would need to upgrade the function. 

I don't want to do Mr Brown a disservice, but I don't think he seems inclined to invest in that. Maybe he's right too, there may not be any real commercial upside for an enhanced marketing team. 

Maybe not, I'm not sure how much of a marketing operation GS Brown has but it would be interesting to know if he doesn't think saints needs it or if he just doesn't buy in to proper marketing in general..

[Valentino Bolognese]

1 minute ago, The Kinross Saint said:

Maybe not, I'm not sure how much of a marketing operation GS Brown has but it would be interesting to know if he doesn't think saints needs it or if he just doesn't buy in to proper marketing in general..

Probably a bit of A and a bit of B. 

IME very few organisations outside of FMCG, FS and to an extent tourism do proper marketing. This is especially true in Scotland because we've got so few scale businesses making or selling products, and it's even more true of family businesses. 

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer because I don't necessarily believe that the slow decline in bums on seats at McDairmid is necessarily something the club can spend themselves out of. If I was a marketing-sceptical, risk-averse MD with a massive ego and experience from an entirely different business model,  I think I'd be hard to convice. 

[garydavidson]

47 minutes ago, Valentino Bolognese said:

Sorry, what's behind a paywall?

Saints TV wasn't set up by the club, it's a bought in product, the same as other clubs such as Livingston etc. It's hosted on a different URL, uses the same style sheets etc. 

Before, the club used to do thier own videos (Ross - agree he was good). I think if the current model puts interview videos behind a paywall, but that paywall gives access to home and away games for international fans, that's a very good trade off. 

All content seems to be behind the 'SaintsTV' paywall.  SaintsTV was around for a long time before this season, all the interviews and match highlights were free.

As others have said they can understand the charge for live/delayed games but that is a privilege for international fans.  I just can't get behind the idea of charging for interviews but I blame Ross for getting me so used to that fine free service

If it is indeed a third party that handles all of the video work, what exactly does Gary do?

[Valentino Bolognese]

5 minutes ago, garydavidson said:

If it is indeed a third party that handles all of the video work, what exactly does Gary do?

I expect a lot of his time is spent trying to drum up non-football revenues for the club, as I recall that was a big part of the job description. 

If it's like any other marketing assistant job there's a hell of a lot of 'below the tip of the iceberg' work that goes on ... dealing with printers, sponsors etc etc. 

But ... I don't work there. I do know that there's a lot more to do than churning out videos that won't actually drive any new business (and 'business' doesn't necessarily mean getting fans in, there's other revenue streams), and it will be down the priority list because of that. In fact, if they were free all it would do is make a few fans slightly less grumpy. 

[andrew]

50 minutes ago, Valentino Bolognese said:

Probably a bit of A and a bit of B. 

IME very few organisations outside of FMCG, FS and to an extent tourism do proper marketing. This is especially true in Scotland because we've got so few scale businesses making or selling products, and it's even more true of family businesses. 

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer because I don't necessarily believe that the slow decline in bums on seats at McDairmid is necessarily something the club can spend themselves out of. If I was a marketing-sceptical, risk-averse MD with a massive ego and experience from an entirely different business model,  I think I'd be hard to convice. 

 I’m enjoying this  discussion and being schooled in marketing which has changed hugely even recently. I always thought our market in terms of season tickets for example was semifixed and so I often  wondered if there was much benefit likely to accrue from incurring costs trying to increase it. I am aware that marketing is an investment in a business, but Saints appear to be an unusual case.