Rumor has it that MD Anderson is the new sponsor. Not sure how that would make any sense whatsoever for MD Anderson, but from a Dynamo perspective it would at least be a more "friendly" looking sponsor than the last few.
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/ne...son-s-losses-mount-finance-chief-10901626.php https://www.chron.com/local/prognos...in-the-black-for-the-fiscal-year-11948569.php
Two things: (1) seems like Canetti and the Orange Kool Aid Brigade teased this for about 2 months now and still no announcement - why not sometime in November? They have about 2 or max 3 weeks before they will lose all attention or "juice" on an announcement nearing the Christmas break and (2) MD Anderson and several of the Med Center hospitals/health organizations have had some rough financial years for a variety of reasons; I could see how a jersey sponsorship may not be seen real favorable by some since these Med Center entities are usually chartered as charitable or as part of a public purpose (regardless of how much they pay their execs)
Back when he had that call with the fans, he said there'd be an announcement in early November. I can understand why his departure may have led them to delay that announcement. I heard there is something coming up in a couple of weeks? Seems likely this would be it.
I worry it'll be an announcement about more work on the stadium. As if it's the building and all the amenities that will fill the seats rather than anything on the field
https://www.houstondynamo.com/post/...ncer-center-make-major-announcement-wednesday The announcement will be streamed on MD Anderson's Facebook and YouTube channels on Wednesday, November 18, starting at 10 am CT.
Also, a reminder that the Dynamo will be getting a new primary kit for 2019. That will almost certainly be a new orange shirt.
I think this is about egos. I assume Canetti is still on the job and this was his baby. Even though it's basically a year late and the timing is not that helpful to the team we will announce it during his tenure. And it's the team's deal not his. The announcement timing that would be helpful to the team would be sometime in the new year, new player signings, new camp, new shirt as you point out.
They need to diverge from the standard color scheme of the logo because you can't see the red crossout against the red/yellow/orange stripes. It would probably show up on a white uni (though we are probably mid-2-year-cycle on the road shirt) but on the main solid orange it's going to want to blend with the shirt and not pop out. From HD's perspective I think it's a more solid partner than usual. I personally have some objections to a hospital spending money this way.
While all of these sponsorship deals are confidential, I wonder if any $$ is actually changing hands? Apparently the Dynamo will be donating portions of ticket sales to MD Anderson, so is it possible that this is a no $$$ up front sponsorship with the Dynamo comping the value of a jersey sponsorship - then using that as a charitable write off?
Average shirt sponsorship deal in MLS is $4 mil per year. Value of this deal has been reported as above the average. Also, MLS has a minimum requirement for cash value of shirt sponsorship, so money has to change hands.
MLS has minimum requirements for everything. 2 Dp's,wait 3 DP's, nope sorry you can have 3 DP's and spare. So I don't put much stock in an organization that changes its rules on a whim. If there is actually $$$ changing hands I do see a problem though. MD Anderson is a great organization, and the finest cancer center in the world, but they've had some pretty severe financial problems recently, and I'm unsure whether a State institution should be putting money into sponsorships.
I seem to see this argument often and I don't quite get it. Advertising is not a luxury that companies should only do when they are doing well financially. The Four Ps of marketing are Price, Product, Promotion, and Place. Promotion is an integral part of how something is sold to the public and other consumers. That is as true for state institutions as it is for any other where people make choices. The most recent year I can find shows MD Anderson spending $14 million on advertising in 2014. That was out of a total budget over $3 billion dollars. Their budget is up over $5 billion per year now. MD Anderson's recent operating losses would barely budge if they got rid of all their advertising but their revenue would almost certainly suffer.
I think those who have been laid off probably don’t think much of this sponsorship. It’s a noble cause but let’s not pretend that MD Anderson is gonna get more patients out of this, it’s been known as the best cancer center forever. They’re bigger issue is managing expenses against a patient base less able to pay overall. A lot of big expenses there. If you want to characterize it as a different use of outreach and awareness money I can buy off on that. But it’s clearly not an revenue ROI deal
So how would you characterize the money that they spend on national TV advertising? MD Anderson has multiple revenue sources. I'm not a marketing expert, I don't exactly who they think they are reaching with the Dynamo sponsorship but apparently they think it is an audience that will produce some sort of benefit for them even it is not specifically more patients. https://www.ispot.tv/brands/obr/md-anderson-cancer-center People are certainly free to question the worth of this for MD Anderson. I was mostly reacting to the notion that organizations that have had financial shortfalls should not be spending money on advertising.
There is an alternative, Unicef-on-Barca approach to the "shirt sponsor." In response to the league minimum objection, I would think you could sell MLS that the minimum shouldn't apply if it's charitable. That would also respond to my concern of a hospital paying us. However, practically speaking, wouldn't it be a cash flow squeeze -- at least initially -- to not only lose revenue but commit some percentages of different flows outward? I get over time accountingwise it might reduce taxes, but in practice, particularly short term, it's a budget team without even that $2 million extra to spend. Is Brener going to refill that hole and call it capital? If it is truly a charitable giving project it would be interesting but it would also strike me as more appropriate to a strong revenue team. Like a Barca, or in our league, Seattle. I don't buy based on ticket math we are broke but can we afford to not be tapping everything possible. I've always thought the charity tax deduction was an acknowledgment of doing a good thing you already wanted to do, but as tax planning worked more as a principle of "I like to give" or "I don't want to give the government taxes" than as economic maximization. You end up with less taxes but also less cash in the bank. If you like charity, great, but when tax brackets only hit incremental dollars I always thought trying to avoid income was goofy. You aren't paying higher taxes on everything, just an increased percent on incremental dollars once you move in the new bracket. And I don't think brackets would be a business's problem anyway.
Do we have evidence that this is not an actual sponsorship deal? I know that the Dynamo said they will be donating a portion of single-game ticket sales to MD Anderson but has anyone heard what portion that will be? Based on last year that might not be very much money. Here is someone who says that it is a deal worth more than $4 million per year. It is hard to imagine that the donation returned will be even close to that. Deal was just announced. An industry source told me the deal is valued well above the league average jersey-front sponsorship, which is typically around ~$4m/yr. Huge boon for the Dynamo, who didn't have a sponsor last year. https://t.co/c8PTGYmlXu— Ian Thomas (@byIanThomas) November 28, 2018
2 DPs isn't a minimum, it was a max. You're free to have no DPs if you wish. This is a league that has maximums, not minimums. Apart from minimum salary. Where changes happen, like adding a 3rd DP, bringing TAM into the picture, etc., it is about the league growing, spending more money, etc. A min on shirt sponsorship dollars is consistent with that, more money coming into the league. As near as I can tell, MD Anderson spent as much as $32 mil on marketing for fiscal year 2018 and the 2019 budget is as much as $34 mil. A $4+ mil marketing spend on the Dynamo is a drop in the bucket. As for the state side of things, 4% of their revenue comes from state funding. 96% is other sources. Marketing and advertising is a part of pulling in that 96% of other revenue sources. Against that $32 mil marketing, in 2018 they spent $844 mil on research.
I'm just not sure that a jersey sponsorship is really advertising. Did any of the previous sponsors actually receive any revenue from having their names placed on the jersey, or is it more of a publicity type thing. My comment was directed at this one primarily because it is a government institution operated by the State of Texas.
Depends on the team, I suppose. When people all over the world watch Chelsea or Manchester United or Liverpool, etc, and see a sponsors name not to mention all the fans walking around in every country wearing shirts with the sponsor name, it's far more effective than any TV or print ad. When it is the Houston Dynamo with a shrinking fanbase, probably not so much.