Kansas City donates naming rights to Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation

Re: Kansas City sells naming rights to Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation

Shut up and go visit The Dick.

 

Re: Kansas City sells naming rights to Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation

Not saying they don't want to cure cancer. I'm just saying that, most likely, the choice was between LiveStrong and nothing, not LiveStrong and a lucrative corporate naming rights deal.

Ask the New York Giants and the Dallas Cowboys how easy it is to sell naming rights in this economy.

 

Re: Kansas City sells naming rights to Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation

Do you guys really think the name of the stadium will attract a whole new fan base? I am seriously curious. Are there facts to back this up?

 

Re: Kansas City sells naming rights to Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation

that's a very useful read.

this is (in large part) a business move to help drive this new stadium's use as a concert venue -- given Armstrong's connections to the music industry/entertainers.

 

Re: Kansas City sells naming rights to Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation

Who said anything about "attracting a whole new fan base"?

It's a great marketing tie-in. Anything that raises the public profile and draws attention to the soccer team is a plus.

One thing that most original market MLS teams are still struggling with is achieving some semblance of relevance in-market.

This helps that. It's not about chasing some "new" fanbase. It's about growing the existing one. Get the "tire-kickers" back to the stadium. Get the local media to mention you more often and provide more free publicity.

37k (most local) set a then record for a WCQ home crowd in 2001. 50k+ (most local) came out last year for the ManU friendly.

The potential fanbase is there without going after non-soccer fans. The trick is getting the existing base of people in the market who are fans of soccer (as spectators) to start going to Sporting Kansas City games.

As we've seen on BigSoccer, a lot of fans are as (or more) concerned about image than what happens on the field. It's stupid, and silly, but it's there. If LIVESTRONG Sporting Park and it's portrayal in the local community and media helps legitimize Sporting Kansas City so that potential fans don't feel embarrassed when talking about MLS at work, all the better.

It's not about taking Tour de France junkies and making them soccer fans. No more than the rainbow jerseys were about appealing to Kansas City's gay community.

 

Re: Kansas City sells naming rights to Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation

He was going after the cancer survivors. More of them than cycling fans.

 

Re: Kansas City sells naming rights to Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation

FYI,

biker:

cyclist:

 

hmm. wonder if the Nike connection will help in hosting USMNT games.

Also, would such a socially responsible move elevate the teams value of a jersey sponsorship?

a couple of things to think about.

 

Re: Kansas City sells naming rights to Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation

Which deals, and how much were they worth? It's possible, of course, but I'm not convinced by a press release saying so.

Yes, a lot of people will drive past it, and a lot of people will go to the games and other events.

On the other hand, over a hundred million people watched the Super Bowl this year, which was played at a stadium that hasn't been able to sign a naming rights sponsor yet. The Meadowlands gets a fair amount of exposure as well, with the possibility of signs on the Jersey Turnpike (a "major highway") for the winning bidder. They've come up empty as well.

Realistically, there are not that many companies for whom an MLS sponsorship makes sense ITTET. The last two sponsorships have been deregulated utilities, which isn't a coincidence: big-budget companies with regional footprints. There are only so many banks, telecoms, and major national retailers to go around, and many of them already have their names on higher-profile stadiums in other sports.

 

Re: Kansas City sells naming rights to Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation

Crap, Sprint paid a ton of money to put their name on a basketball arena that's used 7 or 8 times a year (unless UMKC moved their games there and I don't know about it)

 

Re: Kansas City sells naming rights to Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation

There's no difference. They asked what they thought it was worth and nobody was willing to pay it.

I'm not attacking Kansas City, so you don't need to be so defensive. What I said was that MLS stadium sponsorships made a lot more sense for a certain kind of company: a large company with a regional, not national, footprint, like a bank or a deregulated utilities. All the companies you've mentioned have a national footprint and are probably better off spending their money on national advertising. As far as I can think, Pizza Hut is the only MLS stadium that's sponsored by a local company with a national footprint, and that was back in 2005 when the economy was very different.

Recent sponsors have been large companies that want local or regional recognition, like PPL (who can only sell electricity regionally), or Dick's (a Pittsburgh-based company that was expanding into Colorado at the time). That's a much smaller category. Companies with national footprints are probably better off in higher-profile sports where they'll get more national, as well as regional, exposure.

 

Re: Kansas City sells naming rights to Lance Armstrong's Livestrong Foundation

The person I quoted did. Hence the reason I included their quote in my post.

I took this to mean he thought this might pull in a whole new group of fans.

He was not referring to anything to do with supporting a charity. Only the fact that cyclists might come because the stadium is named for their hero.

 

IMO, this was a bad decision. Giving your hard earned money away to charity? Sure that is noble but we are in business to make a profit. Sporting KC isn't Barcelona. They can't afford to give their money away like Barcelona can.

Will this deal be replicated in the American sports landscape? Most likely not.

Just sayin' what nobody is saying.

 

There's a reason for that.

 

And that is?

 

That only a self-absorbed asshole would think that a team giving several million dollars to cancer research is a bad decision.

 

Fixed.

*edit*

Damn, hater's be hatin'.

 

Kudos to SKC. Classy move, IMO.

Speaking personally (and I don't care who agrees with me or not), but this clinches the deal that MLS is profitable.