Bye Bye Matchday Programme?
Comments
-
That's a relief, I hate conflict. I retract my how very dare you!addick1965 said:No @Arsenetatters it wasn't directed at your post but at that idea of scrapping the programme.
11 -
Can't believe I ever stuck up for this shit stain of a CEO.13
-
A programme is part of our hospitality package, is this yet another cut to what we get?1
-
It seems a fairly sensible idea to be honest - if far more esteemed publications like NME have to move with the times and issue a slimmed down version for free, than I'm sure the Charlton programme can do the same. As others have said it's an anachronism in the age of the internet.
Whilst by definition it will have to contain a significant number of advertisements, it will also have to contain a reasonable amount of real content else no-one will pick it up regardless of its free distribution.
From a profitability point of view, others will know the possibilities better than me but a programme which perhaps 80-90% of people would pick up as opposed to the current much lower percentage may drive advertising revenue which offsets the loss of sales revenue (and in addition production costs will be lower too). In addition there would presumably be greater scope for having say a wraparound advertising cover similar to the ones regularly offered with the Evening Standard or Metro.2 -
Excellent suggestion.RodneyCharltonTrotta said:Boycott anyone who advertises. in it and let the advertisers know it. Won't be anyone paying for advertising then.
Come to think of it is there a list of cafc sponsors and advertisers who could be contacted to suggest they'll be boycotted if they dont withdraw? Would hit the owner in the pocket and his ceo can continue to wax lyrical about how little value fans' revenue is.3 -
A Boycott by the 2% will be of no interest to them. ;-)2
-
Disagree 100%,another crackpot idea from the deluded one.newyorkaddick said:It seems a fairly sensible idea to be honest - if far more esteemed publications like NME have to move with the times and issue a slimmed down version for free, than I'm sure the Charlton programme can do the same. As others have said it's an anachronism in the age of the internet.
Whilst by definition it will have to contain a significant number of advertisements, it will also have to contain a reasonable amount of real content else no-one will pick it up regardless of its free distribution.
From a profitability point of view, others will know the possibilities better than me but a programme which perhaps 80-90% of people would pick up as opposed to the current much lower percentage may drive advertising revenue which offsets the loss of sales revenue (and in addition production costs will be lower too). In addition there would presumably be greater scope for having say a wraparound advertising cover similar to the ones regularly offered with the Evening Standard or Metro.
Nme and the Standard and the Metro are all awful publications anyway.
1 -
North upper and West upper next I presume.1
-
NME is rubbish now but it used to be a serious publication for music fans.addick1965 said:
Disagree 100%,another crackpot idea from the deluded one.newyorkaddick said:It seems a fairly sensible idea to be honest - if far more esteemed publications like NME have to move with the times and issue a slimmed down version for free, than I'm sure the Charlton programme can do the same. As others have said it's an anachronism in the age of the internet.
Whilst by definition it will have to contain a significant number of advertisements, it will also have to contain a reasonable amount of real content else no-one will pick it up regardless of its free distribution.
From a profitability point of view, others will know the possibilities better than me but a programme which perhaps 80-90% of people would pick up as opposed to the current much lower percentage may drive advertising revenue which offsets the loss of sales revenue (and in addition production costs will be lower too). In addition there would presumably be greater scope for having say a wraparound advertising cover similar to the ones regularly offered with the Evening Standard or Metro.
Nme and the Standard and the Metro are all awful publications anyway.
Metro has always been bizarre to me - regurgitates two day old stories from news agencies yet people still pick it up.
I think the Evening Standard is pretty decent for a free newspaper.1 -
The difference between the Charlton programme and the freebies handed out to commuters is the potential circulation. Pay to advertise in the Evening Standard and you potentially hit more than a million people (including rereads), by the time KM has finished her work there'll be a potential audience of about 5k for the Charlton programme and they probably won't be interested enough to read it. It'll be full of £10 ads for the local corner shop or folks trying to sell an old pram.8
-
Sponsored links:
-
Or their old Charlton programme collectionsPassItToLeaburn said:The difference between the Charlton programme and the freebies handed out to commuters is the potential circulation. Pay to advertise in the Evening Standard and you potentially hit more than a million people (including rereads), by the time KM has finished her work there'll be a potential audience of about 5k for the Charlton programme and they probably won't be interested enough to read it. It'll be full of £10 ads for the local corner shop or folks trying to sell an old pram.
2 -
Yes of course there is some sense in this.
However to make it work the advertisers need to feel they they will get exposure and association with a growing/postive brand.
We offer falling attendances and probably relegation. The readers would not be seeing any advertising it a particularly positive frame of mind. Not a publication I would advertise in.
Like everything these idiots do, it starts with a reasonable idea, but all associated consequences are ignored. Either that or the whole thing is so badly managed it is bound to fail.5 -
I only pick up the Metro for the horoscopes. If the new programme has horoscopes, then KM might be on to a winner.newyorkaddick said:
Metro has always been bizarre to me - regurgitates two day old stories from news agencies yet people still pick it up.addick1965 said:
Disagree 100%,another crackpot idea from the deluded one.newyorkaddick said:It seems a fairly sensible idea to be honest - if far more esteemed publications like NME have to move with the times and issue a slimmed down version for free, than I'm sure the Charlton programme can do the same. As others have said it's an anachronism in the age of the internet.
Whilst by definition it will have to contain a significant number of advertisements, it will also have to contain a reasonable amount of real content else no-one will pick it up regardless of its free distribution.
From a profitability point of view, others will know the possibilities better than me but a programme which perhaps 80-90% of people would pick up as opposed to the current much lower percentage may drive advertising revenue which offsets the loss of sales revenue (and in addition production costs will be lower too). In addition there would presumably be greater scope for having say a wraparound advertising cover similar to the ones regularly offered with the Evening Standard or Metro.
Nme and the Standard and the Metro are all awful publications anyway.5 -
Regardless of how the team is doing, I'm sure given the vast marketing budgets at the betting companies there'd be interest in wrapping the programme with a sponsored cover with some special offers on say the next game if fans open an account between now and then.throughthickandthin said:Yes of course there is some sense in this.
However to make it work the advertisers need to feel they they will get exposure and association with a growing/postive brand.
We offer falling attendances and probably relegation. The readers would not be seeing any advertising it a particularly positive frame of mind. Not a publication I would advertise in.
Like everything these idiots do, it starts with a reasonable idea, but all associated consequences are ignored. Either that or the whole thing is so badly managed it is bound to fail.0 -
3 -
Why do we need a programme when the official site is so informative? Can't see the problem myself.....7
-
Exactly. There wasn't a market for programme ads at Charlton in the Premier League when we could sell 10,000 plus copies.PassItToLeaburn said:The difference between the Charlton programme and the freebies handed out to commuters is the potential circulation. Pay to advertise in the Evening Standard and you potentially hit more than a million people (including rereads), by the time KM has finished her work there'll be a potential audience of about 5k for the Charlton programme and they probably won't be interested enough to read it. It'll be full of £10 ads for the local corner shop or folks trying to sell an old pram.
0 -
Seriously, VOTV could become the fans programme. I'm sure fans would contribute articles for nothing . Raise the price to that of the programme add a few extra pages, do a bit on the away team - which is done on here anyway and we can sell it to away fans too. Hopefully Airman could make a few extra quid out of it as well. It would be a great opportunity to produce a proper programme, probably the best in the league.10
-
Football without programmes is like a knife without a fork, it does not work.addick1965 said:
Or their old Charlton programme collectionsPassItToLeaburn said:The difference between the Charlton programme and the freebies handed out to commuters is the potential circulation. Pay to advertise in the Evening Standard and you potentially hit more than a million people (including rereads), by the time KM has finished her work there'll be a potential audience of about 5k for the Charlton programme and they probably won't be interested enough to read it. It'll be full of £10 ads for the local corner shop or folks trying to sell an old pram.
5 -
I agree with thatElfsborgAddick said:
Football without programmes is like a knife without a fork, it does not work.addick1965 said:
Or their old Charlton programme collectionsPassItToLeaburn said:The difference between the Charlton programme and the freebies handed out to commuters is the potential circulation. Pay to advertise in the Evening Standard and you potentially hit more than a million people (including rereads), by the time KM has finished her work there'll be a potential audience of about 5k for the Charlton programme and they probably won't be interested enough to read it. It'll be full of £10 ads for the local corner shop or folks trying to sell an old pram.
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Will we actually have to pay £3 for this Advertisement book?0
-
I used to buy the programme religiously. Still do for concerts, panto etc. My usual habit is to read it the following day.
However, after the Bolton match I slung it on the side, and only found it when clearing up on Boxing day. That has now joined the list of things I'm boycotting, including not buying anything from the shop, food & drink, even beer!
When these jokers, I will return to buying stuff, including programmes. I still enjoy reading them, and many fans do. She cannot be allowed to make this cut!2 -
Agreed but tell that to an American, have you ever seen one eat a meal properly with a knife and forkElfsborgAddick said:
Football without programmes is like a knife without a fork, it does not work.addick1965 said:
Or their old Charlton programme collectionsPassItToLeaburn said:The difference between the Charlton programme and the freebies handed out to commuters is the potential circulation. Pay to advertise in the Evening Standard and you potentially hit more than a million people (including rereads), by the time KM has finished her work there'll be a potential audience of about 5k for the Charlton programme and they probably won't be interested enough to read it. It'll be full of £10 ads for the local corner shop or folks trying to sell an old pram.
3 -
My son is collecting the cards. That was probably one of the few good ideas to come from the club. Not from my perspective as I can't be bothered to read the programme, VOTV is much more interesting, but as a way of selling the things.0
-
Terrible idea. A programme is more than a publication designed to give information. My Dad used to buy me one every week when I was young and I still have them all and occasionally read through them. It's like a book designed to give me nostalgia from that particular day. Imagine looking back through your old 'programmes' and finding 100 advert covered leaflets...
They're ripping the heart and soul from this club. All the way from the players to the fucking programmes.13 -
Music to my ears ...... Gives me hope as a designer. Try explaining that to this CEO on what percentage of 'profi't that appears on the balance sheet.Leeds_Addick said:Terrible idea. A programme is more than a publication designed to give information. My Dad used to buy me one every week when I was young and I still have them all and occasionally read through them. It's like a book designed to give me nostalgia from that particular day. Imagine looking back through your old 'programmes' and finding 100 advert covered leaflets...
They're ripping the heart and soul from this club. All the way from the players to the fucking programmes.
0 -
I'm sure the litter in and around the stadium will increase dramatically. People generally take their programs home, I'm sure these will all be dumped on the floor once people notice that it's just a few pages of ads.1
-
This is KM we're talking about, so horrorscopes would be nearer the mark.IA said:
I only pick up the Metro for the horoscopes. If the new programme has horoscopes, then KM might be on to a winner.newyorkaddick said:
Metro has always been bizarre to me - regurgitates two day old stories from news agencies yet people still pick it up.addick1965 said:
Disagree 100%,another crackpot idea from the deluded one.newyorkaddick said:It seems a fairly sensible idea to be honest - if far more esteemed publications like NME have to move with the times and issue a slimmed down version for free, than I'm sure the Charlton programme can do the same. As others have said it's an anachronism in the age of the internet.
Whilst by definition it will have to contain a significant number of advertisements, it will also have to contain a reasonable amount of real content else no-one will pick it up regardless of its free distribution.
From a profitability point of view, others will know the possibilities better than me but a programme which perhaps 80-90% of people would pick up as opposed to the current much lower percentage may drive advertising revenue which offsets the loss of sales revenue (and in addition production costs will be lower too). In addition there would presumably be greater scope for having say a wraparound advertising cover similar to the ones regularly offered with the Evening Standard or Metro.
Nme and the Standard and the Metro are all awful publications anyway.0 -
But couldn't a slimmed down free version of a programme be distributed much more broadly (and not just in the vicinity of the ground)?Airman Brown said:
Exactly. There wasn't a market for programme ads at Charlton in the Premier League when we could sell 10,000 plus copies.PassItToLeaburn said:The difference between the Charlton programme and the freebies handed out to commuters is the potential circulation. Pay to advertise in the Evening Standard and you potentially hit more than a million people (including rereads), by the time KM has finished her work there'll be a potential audience of about 5k for the Charlton programme and they probably won't be interested enough to read it. It'll be full of £10 ads for the local corner shop or folks trying to sell an old pram.
Obviously I'm comparing apples with oranges but NME has gone from a paid circulation of 15,000 to a free circulation of 300,000.
0 -
I can see the business logic, but it comes across as another Meire 'Apprentice' brainwave and her timing is, yet again, amazing. It also shows they can't sell the advertising as they wouldn't be doing it otherwise. It also shows the falling attendances, so whatever they claim come to each match, it is obviously less. Or perhaps it indicates our ambitions to plan for life in Division 2.1
