|
Post by acemand23 on Jan 5, 2018 19:47:43 GMT -5
For this sport to become "big" the tours need to stop trying to market the players. You market the players to the fans, not the growth. We need fans of the sport, and that takes a completely different approach. The problem with this method, is that the $ focus will be on the event, not the players, and current players get screwed while the sport grows... but future players would benefit... and that is why it will never grow under the AVP or any current tour... players still run the tour..
|
|
|
Post by crawdaddy on Jan 5, 2018 20:05:44 GMT -5
For this sport to become "big" the tours need to stop trying to market the players. You market the players to the fans, not the growth. We need fans of the sport, and that takes a completely different approach. The problem with this method, is that the $ focus will be on the event, not the players, and current players get screwed while the sport grows... but future players would benefit... and that is why it will never grow under the AVP or any current tour... players still run the tour.. I've read this like 6-7 times and still have no idea what it means.
|
|
|
Post by hustleslowly on Jan 5, 2018 22:19:23 GMT -5
A big problem with beach volleyball is merchandise. A vast majority of money in the sport is dependent on sponsors.
Think of what's actually bought and how much money actually goes to the sport or tour. board shorts - manufacturer Swim suits - manufacturer ball - manufacturer net - manufacturer Lines - manufacturer
The avp gets sponsorship money and some branded clothing. Maybe a cut of what sponsors sell at an event... There's no real merchandise to increase prize money or help pay the costs of the tour.
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Jan 6, 2018 11:53:14 GMT -5
If April's presence is your motivation for sponsoring a tour, why not sponsor both? Now you have 12 opportunities to reach her fans instead of 6. Better yet, if sponsorship funding is so dependent on a few top players, maybe sponsors should fund those players directly rather than the tour(s) they play on. Accepting your premise for a minute (and here you would also need to assume a sponsor wants to deal with two tours, sees value in sponsoring both etc.) it still is worse for the AVP. You have a sponsor splitting money that would otherwise go solely to the AVP. There is a very small market for BVB, even at its height this was true, I don't see why, other than altruism, Sun would forego an opportunity to maintain his effective monopoly I agree that exclusivity helps the AVP in the short term. I don't see how it helps sponsors to limit opportunities for brand exposure.
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Jan 6, 2018 19:22:04 GMT -5
I think you are correct about 1 and 2, but the rest? "Blown up in their face?" How? Also I don't know if sponsors demanded it or not but the idea that you need the athletes exclusively to make deals with sponsors is common sense. If April were playing six AVPs and six KWP (or whatever that tour is called) why sponsor the AVP as opposed to April or the KWP? I think you miss the point you made initially that the AVP is now a money loser and will be for a while. The players saying, "you aren't paying us enough for the non-revenue we generate" becomes silly when you take that into account. Finally, Kerri could not play a 20 event tour if her 17th child's access to homeschooling depended on it. First her body can't hold up. In the last four years she has had two major injuries and she hasn't played much, especially if you don't count the left handed quota events. She is 40 this year and she isn't playing. Second her priority has always been FIVB and next year, the pre-Olympic year, she will be trying to qualify for Tokyo. The idea that anything is going to get a 41 year old Kerri Walsh playing 10 + events on US soil next year is not realistic. The AVP existed for years with big sponsor and no non-competes. The idea that the sponsors need them is silly. This was a power play by Sterling to say that if he was going to invest in the AVP he wanted no other domestic competition. It was a total over-reach. It has blown up in their face because they don't have KW. I agree that it is unclear if she will ever play much more than a hand full of events. But it is totally clear that she is the most marketable person in beach volleyball. Even at 6 events she would be huge for the AVP. Not having her is a killer and insure that big sponsors will wait and see. Particularly with her starting another tour.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Jan 6, 2018 19:26:49 GMT -5
I think you are correct about 1 and 2, but the rest? "Blown up in their face?" How? Also I don't know if sponsors demanded it or not but the idea that you need the athletes exclusively to make deals with sponsors is common sense. If April were playing six AVPs and six KWP (or whatever that tour is called) why sponsor the AVP as opposed to April or the KWP? I think you miss the point you made initially that the AVP is now a money loser and will be for a while. The players saying, "you aren't paying us enough for the non-revenue we generate" becomes silly when you take that into account. Finally, Kerri could not play a 20 event tour if her 17th child's access to homeschooling depended on it. First her body can't hold up. In the last four years she has had two major injuries and she hasn't played much, especially if you don't count the left handed quota events. She is 40 this year and she isn't playing. Second her priority has always been FIVB and next year, the pre-Olympic year, she will be trying to qualify for Tokyo. The idea that anything is going to get a 41 year old Kerri Walsh playing 10 + events on US soil next year is not realistic. The AVP existed for years with big sponsor and no non-competes. The idea that the sponsors need them is silly. This was a power play by Sterling to say that if he was going to invest in the AVP he wanted no other domestic competition. It was a total over-reach. It has blown up in their face because they don't have KW. I agree that it is unclear if she will ever play much more than a hand full of events. But it is totally clear that she is the most marketable person in beach volleyball. Even at 6 events she would be huge for the AVP. Not having her is a killer and insure that big sponsors will wait and see. Particularly with her starting another tour. So a sponsor paying to be the "Official volleyball of the AVP" wouldn't mind another tour with the same players using a different ball? And a sponsor using clips of players to advertise their vitamins or sunscreen or whatever wouldn't mind a competitor being able to use identical video with the same players to market their sunscreen? Come on thats just common sense
|
|
|
Post by volleyballjim on Jan 6, 2018 20:58:16 GMT -5
donnyw: I think the consensus is there is one domestic tour and one international. Any changes to the domestic tour undermine their ability to build sponsors. The "Where should we put our money; which is the domestic tour" is a problem, I would assume. The NVL did make an attempt to compete early on, but that bid fell through, so the tour is in the hands of Donald Sun and the AVP to make or break. Currently, you would have to assume it is "make" with a repetition of 2017 IMO is brilliant as it lets fans build year to year and THEN you spin off/perform line extension. Would love to look at attendance numbers 2017 then 2018, but you have to see this "model" has the chance to work. Still can't figure out why no company doesn't want to sponsor and gather the ability to market with photos/video etc., the vibe/product the AVP puts out there, but evidently they're not lining up everywhere....
|
|
|
Post by donnyw on Jan 6, 2018 22:02:16 GMT -5
donnyw: I think the consensus is there is one domestic tour and one international. Any changes to the domestic tour undermine their ability to build sponsors. The "Where should we put our money; which is the domestic tour" is a problem, I would assume. The NVL did make an attempt to compete early on, but that bid fell through, so the tour is in the hands of Donald Sun and the AVP to make or break. Currently, you would have to assume it is "make" with a repetition of 2017 IMO is brilliant as it lets fans build year to year and THEN you spin off/perform line extension. Would love to look at attendance numbers 2017 then 2018, but you have to see this "model" has the chance to work. Still can't figure out why no company doesn't want to sponsor and gather the ability to market with photos/video etc., the vibe/product the AVP puts out there, but evidently they're not lining up everywhere.... I get what your saying, but if Kerri’s tour or whatever we want to call it, since we have really no clue yet can bring in the sponsors and the fans then why not get some more events in the USA? I honestly don’t believe that Kerri is targeting the same sponsors as the AVP....Because frankly, the sponsors the AVP have lined up are not the big boys....That’s my two cents! I like these discussions....Will be an interesting year for sure!!
|
|
|
Post by donnyw on Jan 6, 2018 23:17:29 GMT -5
Wow...This just in...According to a source in Manhattan Beach, the USABeach committee has told Kerri that they will not support her proposed tour. That has basically put a kabosh to that....Wow!!! That’s all I’ve got!!!
|
|
|
Post by JB Southpaw on Jan 7, 2018 11:24:26 GMT -5
Wow...This just in...According to a source in Manhattan Beach, the USABeach committee has told Kerri that they will not support her proposed tour. That has basically put a kabosh to that....Wow!!! That’s all I’ve got!!! very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by donnyw on Jan 7, 2018 11:29:37 GMT -5
Wow...This just in...According to a source in Manhattan Beach, the USABeach committee has told Kerri that they will not support her proposed tour. That has basically put a kabosh to that....Wow!!! That’s all I’ve got!!! very interesting. Kerri’s announcement was supposed to happen last Friday which has come & gone....Not sure why they Need USA Beach’s backing to start a tour but apparently they do....
|
|
|
Post by bigjohn043 on Jan 7, 2018 12:13:27 GMT -5
The AVP existed for years with big sponsor and no non-competes. The idea that the sponsors need them is silly. This was a power play by Sterling to say that if he was going to invest in the AVP he wanted no other domestic competition. It was a total over-reach. It has blown up in their face because they don't have KW. I agree that it is unclear if she will ever play much more than a hand full of events. But it is totally clear that she is the most marketable person in beach volleyball. Even at 6 events she would be huge for the AVP. Not having her is a killer and insure that big sponsors will wait and see. Particularly with her starting another tour. So a sponsor paying to be the "Official volleyball of the AVP" wouldn't mind another tour with the same players using a different ball? And a sponsor using clips of players to advertise their vitamins or sunscreen or whatever wouldn't mind a competitor being able to use identical video with the same players to market their sunscreen? Come on thats just common sense For the whole existence of the AVP until a year ago the players did not have non-competes. That is just a fact. Of course they don't want another tour. But if there were good sponsors and a healthy tour then a second one wouldn't need to exist.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Jan 7, 2018 12:41:26 GMT -5
So a sponsor paying to be the "Official volleyball of the AVP" wouldn't mind another tour with the same players using a different ball? And a sponsor using clips of players to advertise their vitamins or sunscreen or whatever wouldn't mind a competitor being able to use identical video with the same players to market their sunscreen? Come on thats just common sense For the whole existence of the AVP until a year ago the players did not have non-competes. That is just a fact. Of course they don't want another tour. But if there were good sponsors and a healthy tour then a second one wouldn't need to exist. Its my understanding that prior to last year players had still been told or agreed they could not play on the NVL. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure that was the case. (Not the least because none of them ever did)
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Jan 7, 2018 15:31:45 GMT -5
I thought the AVP always had some sort of no-compete clause for other domestic tours. If you wanted to play in an AVP main draw, you signed away the right to play in other events. Maybe they made it stricter last year.
You can go back to WPVA vs. AVP in the early '90s, when the AVP added some women's events. There was no crossover between the tours. Though I suppose that could have been the WPVA's doing.
|
|
|
Post by volleyballjim on Feb 14, 2018 12:52:16 GMT -5
Saw a post that Kerri will announce on the Today Show tomorrow and a segment with Megan Kelly...anyone know anything on the "tour"?
|
|