Yes indeed, badMania... In the long looonnnggg run... Sometime around 2050 to 2100... These countries: Greater China [including HK, Macau, Taiwan], India, Unified Korea, ASEAN, Russia, Australia, and Brazil will contribute more to the Earth's GDP than today's situation. By that time Japan, Europe and the Americas will still be a large portion of the world's economy... but they won't be as dominant as today. Companies and brands from those countries I mention above will be more world class than today too... If we cannot get the involvement of Wilson, Spalding, Dunlop, Nike, Adidas etc. today, fine! Getting Li Ning, Victor, Apacs involved today is already a better move than doing nothing to even out the strength badminton brands. Business history have shown again and again, consumers benefit most when their options are served by several strong brands competing in an oligopolistic situation. Example: sport shoes consumers have a good time being offered cool TV ads, cool overall marketing campaigns [oftentimes using sports stars], and cool products... by Nike, Adidas, Reebok, etc. Imagine the badminton equipment brands doing the same thing as those guys but for outcool-ing the other in badminton equipment... That would be THE cool situation that will improve the popularity of badminton!
Krisna, you still do not get it. Companies and brands are not market makers. They only come into action when there is a market, and even that it must be a worthwhile market. Show me the market and I will show you the brands and the sponsors for they will come like flies. Re Olympics sponsors see one www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26107649/
If anyone thinks Rule 51 is just a rule and that it can be bent or flouted, think again Before the Games begins, the IOC arranges for squads to go around and mask every visible logo at not just the competition venues but also at every other official venue (including the residential quarters, the media centre, the technical zones and the administrative areas). You'd be surprised to know that they mask every brand name or logo that hasn't paid for the right to be seen there. As a result, you see logos and names masked on anything and everything from elevators, washroom taps and liquid soap dispensers to switches, fire-extinguishers and urinals! Even the media isn't spared - no branded T-shirts, no branded caps, etc - any visible logos on the cameras and even on the production crews' IFB/PL headsets are masked before use. The extent of their zealousness is best illustrated by this clause: "No Authorized Identification may appear on or near the neck or the collar, on the body (e.g. tattoo) of any person participating in the Games or on any of the following Items: contact lenses, earplugs, mouth guards, noseclips, water bottles, umbrellas." Tattoos, contact lenses, earplugs...
Alright.. ..appreciate for doing a bit of research on that!.. Yes, i thought of the same thing (the last paragraph), but how come it wasn't made clear until now??..hmm.. Btw, still waiting for taneepak to explain his point of discussion and the view opposite of his. Krisna already put forth his point of discussion and what he thought is the opposite of his...Or are they just pure ramblings??..
Here's an opinion on marketing badminton from Prakash Padukone. Indore, Feb 11 (PTI) Badminton officials in the country can learn a thing or two about marketing from the BCCI (Board for Control of Cricket in India), said the legendary Prakash Padukone as he lauded the cricket body for the way it has promoted the game in the country. "I have always been a fan of the BCCI and the manner in which it markets cricket surely deserves to be praised," Padukone told reporters here today. The badminton authorities in the country should not shy awqay from having an IPL-style (Indian Premier League) tournament that is being conducted by the BCCI, he said. The former All-England champion said the badminton world should learn from the BCCI on how to improve the game. --------------------- In other words, it's the BWF (and not the sponsors) that should take the lead in this regard
that's because evil empire don't like to project their image as evil, and IOC is even more evil than yonex.
All of us (in my industry) have a copy of the IOC's Rules. It's must reading for anyone who works on any part of the Games. It's also handy in case you want to argue a point at the venue
Sponsors are not market makers? 1960s-70s-paradigm! Outdated-thinking...! Most business experts now clearly know that sponsorships and marketing efforts count a lot towards the choices made by consumers... I now sincerely hope BWF people do not share the same paradigm. I am afraid they do have that kind of paradigm... thus they cannot see the crux of the matter on badminton's popularity stagnation... :crying:
I meant.. ..why it took Oldhand to do the explaining rather than the member who made that comment earlier... "Only the names, slogans, logos, and advertisements of these 12 sponsors were allowed." Allowed where??.. Btw, cooler, could you attempt to explain, briefly, Mr. T's point of discussion here and the views opposite of his?..
Here's something for you to chew on: 92% of this money mountain goes to the Games Organising Committee, the National Olympic Committees and International Federations and Associations of the many Olympic sports (yes, the BWF too gets a share). The remaining 8% goes to the IOC's administrative expenses. Just 8 percent? Yup. That's USD 400 million! Ahem, I'd sure like a job with the IOC
^^Not even..^^ ..from the member who's made all the posts, opposite those of Krisna's??....Are they just ramblings??..ayeyaiyai...
it is chicken and egg paradox. Queation is what is a worthwhile market? better yet what do u mean by 'marrket'? Since badminton is believed to be 2nd most participated sport in the world and yet badminton is not a mainstream sport? Yonex had the badminton market cornered for decades and only just recently LN,victor are muscling in and likely gonna take badminton to the next level in popularity. Doesn't this say LN, yonex, victor were/are the market makers?
taneepak, sponsors and marketing driving activities in building brands are market makers... I am not saying that a defected product and lousy service can be sold. No. But... market driving strategies influence the choices consumers make. They influence what is cool and uncool. Thus what people choose to do or not do. Markets are there to be created by several competing brands... The concept of the 'market-driven' strategies have largely been left to the history books. The basic tenets of that kind of conceptual thinking have many inherent flaws. I can give one whole lecture about the difference... and why people now are practicing market driving strategies. But BC forum is not the place for that. Please go to your nearest top notch business school and have a discussion with their top Management, Marketing, Business gurus... If you do not believe in the academic aspects of it, then I suggest talking to people in successful companies like Nestle, Procter & Gamble, etc. I don't suggest you talk to natural resource people like coal and oil companies people or finance people... many of them [though not all] have limited or narrow minded knowledge on how market-making really work in this world. Even though they can be good operational people and competent finance executives, many are terrible marketers.
Krisna, I did have a marketing background being a marketing director before becoming a CEO. In my tenure in marketing I wouldn't say I made any new markets but I came close with new applications, i.e replacing traditional natural resin in batik printing with petroleum resin, using epoxy resins to mend airport runways which at that time was unheard of, and making a solvent chemical from a much cheaper petroleum stream that was unheard of at that time. Thinking hard about it, I did make a new market and in quite substantial volumes too, but it is something I am not proud of in retrospect because of its huge carbon footprint. Back then carbon emission was not such a dirty word.
To go back in time, badminton was even very popular in SE Asia in the 1950s. There was no Yonex. Racquet and shuttlecocks were made by Slazengers, Dunlop, Silver Grey, Blue Bird and RSL. Sponsors did not really exist, players paid their own expenses to compete in the AE. Today the game has extended to China and Korea, both relatively newcomers. Now more Asians play the game. The Asian market has grown larger, and with its increasing size comes the new guards in the name of Yonex and others. The larger the playing badminton population the more sponsors come on the scene and the more they have to be competitive. This is classic "show me the maket and I will show you the sponsors".
As I said before, when there are many competition between several strong brands [like in SE Asia in the 1950s and 60s], the market will grow. When there are near-monopoly lock-out and no activity to outcool or outdo the other, there won't be a growing market. I give you an example... in the past [several decades ago], people were offered general sports shoes... One pair of shoes was used for all sports, running, basketball, badminton, aerobics etc. The need for specific running shoes, specific basketball shoes, specific badminton shoes, and specific aerobics shoes were already inherent/lanten within the consumer, but most shoe makers didn't tap 'em very much. A person will just own one pair of sport shoes and he/she was content. Later, companies like Nike, New Balance, etc. offered and marketed running shoes that were designed for runners. They competed with each other fiercely and people [especially the regular joggers] start to notice that it IS better to own a pair of running shoes. Thus a new market is created and many people owned two pairs of different sport shoes. Reebok, Nike also noticed that aerobics practitioners need different type of shoes. Thus they designed and then competed with each other to convince people that their aerobics shoes are better... In the meantime, their marketing activities that glorify aerobics on TV etc. makes aerobics an even cooler activity, thus, the aerobics shoes market grew... Some people may own three pairs of different sport shoes now... In the 1920s, 30s, people in North America do play basketball. It is a convenient sport for the Winter season. But sales of basketball specific shoes were nothing. Despite the fact that basketball players have a latent need for Basketball shoes. Converse, Nike, Adidas, etc. noticed that baskeball players need different types of shoes to protect their ankle etc. They sponsor Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, Shaq, Kobe, etc. Cool TV ads featuring basketball stars from several brands light up the TV screen every day, entertaining the viewers and prospective consumers everyday. Basketball became even more cool, more money coming in to basketball [tickets, apparel sales, shoes sales, etc.]... more advertising money goes into basketball. Many teenage kids even wore Jordan and Shaq shoes even though they cannot play basketball at all. They just do it because it is cool! There, a new market emerged... In the US it is not uncommon to see a kid with four different types of sport shoes in his/her closet... To say that the shoes companies have not tapped into new expanded market is stupendous. The shoe market have grown from 1 pair of shoes to 4 pairs of shoes per person, as I have explained. If all the shoe prices are the same, the industry revenue has quadrupled! Of course if there aren't any latent/inherent need at all for a particular product/service, then there can't be any market. But to believe that "market cannot be made" is hindering your own progress and growth. If you are a CEO, then one of your responsibility is for growth. Please, I implore you, not to think that you cannot make markets without sponsorships and marketing activities. If you do believe you cannot make new markets, while your competitors believe otherwise, then I think you will be screwed by them sooner of later without realizing the crux of the matter [having the wrong mindset and having beliefs in incomplete paradigms]. If your business is Epoxy Resins, then I think I understand where you're coming from... from a business to business world. In order for your worldview to be complete, maybe you have to have substantial experience in the consumer goods world. Then you will understand better what I have been talking about for 3 days. People's perception, desires [and thus choices] can be molded... They are molded by the actions of brands competing to outdo one another. Consumers are not fully rational, predictable, readeable, and act as economic animals all the time. Maybe some are like that in the Business-to-Business world. But not true in many other types of business. Especially those that can be heavily influenced by the media. Many consumers don't know exactly what they want. They have some idea of their need, but don't know exactly how to fulfill it. Consumers can resort to things unpredictable several decades ago. For example: shoes executives in the 1930s knew that consumers want to be seen as cool and fashionable. That part is quite timeless. BUT, did many in the 1930s imagine that BASKETBALL SHOES can be symbols of fashion?!?!? I found no evidence in business history that many attempted to sell Basketball shoes as fashion items in the 1930s. Why? Because the market was not made yet!!! It could only be possible after Nike, Reebok, Adidas all jumped into the Basketball shoe business and as a total, make Basketball shoes cool fashion items! So, in addition to older versions of fashion shoes, now some kids add 'Basketball Shoes' as their fashion shoe. A new market was born. From what? Marketing activities of competing brands!!! I think I have said enough taneepak. If you want to keep believing in some outdated concepts you have mentioned. Fine. But for your own sake, I don't advise it.
The next 12 posts are copied from another thread on Yonex contractual obligations & Based around the Li Ning Sponsorship of the Chinese Team in 2009(http://www.badmintoncentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65764&highlight=li+ning+chinese+team) Can you or someone else tell me how many Sunrise tournaments there is & how many he has to play in. If he has to play this tournament due to contract, then he needs to seek advice, the contract is too onerous.
I believe that Yonex Sunrise sponsors Macau,Hongkong SS,India and new MAS GP....( AE,,Taiwan or Japan Open are sponsored either by Yonex Japan or Yonex Europe) I do not know LCW's contract but like TH, he has to perform at least 8 SS and one or two tournaments as requested...for example like last SS Final where TH had pulled out but been asked to join back as LD/BCL or CJ did not participate....somehow they need big name for small tounaments to get more TV's right... If they miss 1 SS or play less than tournaments as they have agreed, it may cost the player US$ 10000 at least...
