Here's my question of the day: if sporting events have corporate sponsors who pay to put it on, what's the ticket price for? And if the ticket price pays to put the event on, what are the sponsors doing there? Either the sponsors are recouping their advertising costs by making you pay to see their logos or they shouldn't have such high exposure.
I can accept that there will be advertising at sporting events, because it's an excellent opportunity to reach a large group of people who are all interested in sport - a clear and attractive demographic. My point is that they are either the entire reason for the event (in which case they're paying for the lot and the tickets should be heavily subsidised if not free) or they're an afterthought (in which case they shouldn't get their name on the stadium).
Mokalus of Borg
PS - Just my 2c.
PPS - It just seems to me that we're paying twice.
2 comments:
It costs a lot more than the revenue raised from either ticket prices or advertising to pay for: the hire of the stadium, the staff working at the stadium, the payment of the players who get so much money in this era of professional sport, transport to and from the venue, the price the television stations pay for their right to show the game exclusively. There is that and also the fact that if you look at most professional sporting organisations, they put a lot of the revenue from the events back into the grass roots development of the game these days that there is not that much profit to speak of anyway. And really, once you have been to enough sporting events you don't seem to take that much notice of the ads anyway, except for the really annoying ones which bug you for just that little bit longer
I should get in the habit of deferring to you on the subject of sports, or anything closely related, Stu. :)
This principle doesn't just apply to sport, though. Cable television has advertisements. Are the subscription fees not enough to cover the running costs? Or if you look at it the other way around, the ad revenue is good enough to make free-to-air television free, so why isn't cable free if it's got ads?
It just seems that there are several situations where advertisers pay someone to put up ads, then consumers pay too for a service plus ads. It seems the best place to be in that case is with the service provider who gets paid twice for every ad.
Post a Comment