.... Can anyone on here actually work out what any of this means? It was uploaded to the club website a couple of hours ago but I can't actually make head or tail of it. I presume they're a brand growing app or company that specifically helps football clubs target younger audiences, but I haven't really got a Scooby
That is one enormous bowl of word salad maybe some of those words are buzzy? trouble with salad is some people tell us it’s good for us one or two bits even taste nice It never really satisfies tho does it? you always need a good portion of smthn actually substantial too much salad leaves a bitter taste and inevitably results in the squits
We now have to also consider generation Alphas On the above website it says that the category starts in 2013 but elsewhere I’ve seen that it’s from 2010 and that Beta begins next year. I’ll soon be bringing one Alpha to her first match. I’m telling her already that we’re fighting relegation to the fourth division because it’s ’gritty’ and so she’s well on board.
Got to love websites like that.
"This is how you market to these people, these people and these people". It mentions the importance of diversity, then lumps everyone in together based on the year they were born! It's like horoscopes and such like.
"This is how you sell shit to people they dont need, or didnt know they needed".
Signed, a Saggitarian year of the rat Generation X-er*, who doesnt want to conform to any of the pigeon holes that would apparently put me in!
Is there nobody on Charlton Life that has a child able to explain this bollox? Perhaps the announcement makes sense to the target audience perhaps not but IMHO as a marketing approach is misses the mark like most of Dobbos shots. I genuinely hope that whatever the plan is that it's successful, but right now it appears that absolutely nobody knows what that is.
Let me have a go:-
The company are sponsoring Charlton, so I imagine they will be paying the club a fee as any other sponsor would.
For that sponsorship fee, Footballco. get access to Charlton "assets" such as Chucks, to create content for distribution on their various digital platforms.
The content is targeting a specific demographic (young / urban) that like the sort of content that is produced (urban / gritty / "street" etc) hence the title of the Chucks video ("The ends").
Through the power of the interweb and targeting algorithms, the content is widely distributed through platforms (tiktok etc) with likeminded others. The content adds traffic to the various platforms owned by Footballco. that are then "monetised" through advertising or explicit product connections. (if you look on the website of footballco you will see, for example, a Crystal Palace youth player and Adidas).
There are potentially other commercial elements at play, such as affiliate fees (ie if their site drives traffic to the Charlton club shop for example, the club shop operators may pay a fee to Footballco. (this is supposition on my part)).
Both parties benefit. Footballco. get to use the assets of a club which is based in South London (demographic tick) and which has a strong community element (ethical tick), and earn from the content they produce.
Charlton gets its name out amongst a potential local and international fanbase, and get sponsorship income to boot.
Spot on.
Is it "spot on" though? Take the first line - who is paying who a fee? It doesnt say. Or maybe there is no initial fee in either direction?
Aside from the announcement being a load of words that dont actually say or tell us much, I think a lot of people on this thread would just like to know is this something that we are getting paid for or are paying for. No real need to bring ages into it and starting chucking stones at Generation A B or C.
In my business I try to work on the basis that if someone doesnt understand what you're telling them then you're probably not explaining it well enough. Of course theres a limit to how many times you can explain things before you have to conclude you're just dealing with stupidity, but as an opening communication piece it was pretty shit.
As I read it Footballco are a sponsor- they will be paying the club.
Charlton is the vehicle for content that the sponsor is tapping into and likely to pay for.
It is unlikely that the club would pay a media company to create content without any immediate benefit to the club as nothing they do could drive any immediate revenue stream.
You may well be right. But we're both guessing because it's not clear.
Obviously I dont expect them to disclose every financial detail, that would never be the case, but if theres enough people thinking " what does that actually mean", then I would suggest the communication isnt great!
I don’t think it’s necessarily communication. I think it’s genuinely a generational thing. Social media is something people of an age scratch the surface of. What’s going down with the under 25’s is a completely different beast. Just because “we” don’t get it or understand it or its potential means diddly squat. It’s a platform that’s getting bigger and will be the norm for media content and communication going forward. I don’t pretend to understand it just like I don’t understand the rise and rise of social influencers but it’s a phenomenon that clearly has legs.
The question the blurb doesn’t answer is “why Charlton” because however successful the trust and academy are the audience for them is tiny and likely geographically constrained. The women’s team is only a slightly better answer.
Are you referring to FootballCo? If so, they are majority owned by a US private equity firm (TPG) - possibly linked to, or at least known by, Friedman.
Their audience is huge globally, and although the impact on us while in League 1 is likely limited it could be one for the future and could perhaps indicate longer-term plans.
As long as it isn't costing us money that could be used for the playing squad then I'm good with it and it's a no lose scenario.
But then again, I'm a glass half full type of guy!
The question the blurb doesn’t answer is “why Charlton” because however successful the trust and academy are the audience for them is tiny and likely geographically constrained. The women’s team is only a slightly better answer.
Are you referring to FootballCo? If so, they are majority owned by a US private equity firm (TPG) - possibly linked to, or at least known by, Friedman.
Their audience is huge globally, and although the impact on us while in League 1 is likely limited it could be one for the future and could perhaps indicate longer-term plans.
As long as it isn't costing us money that could be used for the playing squad then I'm good with it and it's a no lose scenario.
But then again, I'm a glass half full type of guy!
Well I hope you're right and I can't believe it's being done purely for the optics when few, on here anyway, seem to know what they're actually looking at.
The question the blurb doesn’t answer is “why Charlton” because however successful the trust and academy are the audience for them is tiny and likely geographically constrained. The women’s team is only a slightly better answer.
Are you referring to FootballCo? If so, they are majority owned by a US private equity firm (TPG) - possibly linked to, or at least known by, Friedman.
Their audience is huge globally, and although the impact on us while in League 1 is likely limited it could be one for the future and could perhaps indicate longer-term plans.
As long as it isn't costing us money that could be used for the playing squad then I'm good with it and it's a no lose scenario.
But then again, I'm a glass half full type of guy!
What I’m saying is that their audience won’t have much interest in content about those aspects of Charlton, so I don’t see it being of value to major brands. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the concept but it’s an awful piece of PR waffle. I’m not against it - I just don’t understand the relevance of the trust to what they are trying to do.
Possibly relevant: Sandgaard thought he could get a blue chip sponsor off the back of CACT. Quite a bit of resource went into that, with no success at all, because ultimately the core offer is L1 football.
Is there nobody on Charlton Life that has a child able to explain this bollox? Perhaps the announcement makes sense to the target audience perhaps not but IMHO as a marketing approach is misses the mark like most of Dobbos shots. I genuinely hope that whatever the plan is that it's successful, but right now it appears that absolutely nobody knows what that is.
Let me have a go:-
The company are sponsoring Charlton, so I imagine they will be paying the club a fee as any other sponsor would.
For that sponsorship fee, Footballco. get access to Charlton "assets" such as Chucks, to create content for distribution on their various digital platforms.
The content is targeting a specific demographic (young / urban) that like the sort of content that is produced (urban / gritty / "street" etc) hence the title of the Chucks video ("The ends").
Through the power of the interweb and targeting algorithms, the content is widely distributed through platforms (tiktok etc) with likeminded others. The content adds traffic to the various platforms owned by Footballco. that are then "monetised" through advertising or explicit product connections. (if you look on the website of footballco you will see, for example, a Crystal Palace youth player and Adidas).
There are potentially other commercial elements at play, such as affiliate fees (ie if their site drives traffic to the Charlton club shop for example, the club shop operators may pay a fee to Footballco. (this is supposition on my part)).
Both parties benefit. Footballco. get to use the assets of a club which is based in South London (demographic tick) and which has a strong community element (ethical tick), and earn from the content they produce.
Charlton gets its name out amongst a potential local and international fanbase, and get sponsorship income to boot.
Spot on.
Is it "spot on" though? Take the first line - who is paying who a fee? It doesnt say. Or maybe there is no initial fee in either direction?
Aside from the announcement being a load of words that dont actually say or tell us much, I think a lot of people on this thread would just like to know is this something that we are getting paid for or are paying for. No real need to bring ages into it and starting chucking stones at Generation A B or C.
In my business I try to work on the basis that if someone doesnt understand what you're telling them then you're probably not explaining it well enough. Of course theres a limit to how many times you can explain things before you have to conclude you're just dealing with stupidity, but as an opening communication piece it was pretty shit.
As I read it Footballco are a sponsor- they will be paying the club.
Charlton is the vehicle for content that the sponsor is tapping into and likely to pay for.
It is unlikely that the club would pay a media company to create content without any immediate benefit to the club as nothing they do could drive any immediate revenue stream.
You may well be right. But we're both guessing because it's not clear.
Obviously I dont expect them to disclose every financial detail, that would never be the case, but if theres enough people thinking " what does that actually mean", then I would suggest the communication isnt great!
I don’t think it’s necessarily communication. I think it’s genuinely a generational thing. Social media is something people of an age scratch the surface of. What’s going down with the under 25’s is a completely different beast. Just because “we” don’t get it or understand it or its potential means diddly squat. It’s a platform that’s getting bigger and will be the norm for media content and communication going forward. I don’t pretend to understand it just like I don’t understand the rise and rise of social influencers but it’s a phenomenon that clearly has legs.
I think you’re right for the immediate future but I think that they’ll be a backlash from the next generation. I think young children today are looking up to their elders and not liking what they’re seeing. Some are seeing social media for what it is: brain numbing click bait. Smartphones are still new but those born in the last 10-15 years don’t see anything new in them and will use them less obsessively.
Is there nobody on Charlton Life that has a child able to explain this bollox? Perhaps the announcement makes sense to the target audience perhaps not but IMHO as a marketing approach is misses the mark like most of Dobbos shots. I genuinely hope that whatever the plan is that it's successful, but right now it appears that absolutely nobody knows what that is.
Let me have a go:-
The company are sponsoring Charlton, so I imagine they will be paying the club a fee as any other sponsor would.
For that sponsorship fee, Footballco. get access to Charlton "assets" such as Chucks, to create content for distribution on their various digital platforms.
The content is targeting a specific demographic (young / urban) that like the sort of content that is produced (urban / gritty / "street" etc) hence the title of the Chucks video ("The ends").
Through the power of the interweb and targeting algorithms, the content is widely distributed through platforms (tiktok etc) with likeminded others. The content adds traffic to the various platforms owned by Footballco. that are then "monetised" through advertising or explicit product connections. (if you look on the website of footballco you will see, for example, a Crystal Palace youth player and Adidas).
There are potentially other commercial elements at play, such as affiliate fees (ie if their site drives traffic to the Charlton club shop for example, the club shop operators may pay a fee to Footballco. (this is supposition on my part)).
Both parties benefit. Footballco. get to use the assets of a club which is based in South London (demographic tick) and which has a strong community element (ethical tick), and earn from the content they produce.
Charlton gets its name out amongst a potential local and international fanbase, and get sponsorship income to boot.
Spot on.
Is it "spot on" though? Take the first line - who is paying who a fee? It doesnt say. Or maybe there is no initial fee in either direction?
Aside from the announcement being a load of words that dont actually say or tell us much, I think a lot of people on this thread would just like to know is this something that we are getting paid for or are paying for. No real need to bring ages into it and starting chucking stones at Generation A B or C.
In my business I try to work on the basis that if someone doesnt understand what you're telling them then you're probably not explaining it well enough. Of course theres a limit to how many times you can explain things before you have to conclude you're just dealing with stupidity, but as an opening communication piece it was pretty shit.
As I read it Footballco are a sponsor- they will be paying the club.
Charlton is the vehicle for content that the sponsor is tapping into and likely to pay for.
It is unlikely that the club would pay a media company to create content without any immediate benefit to the club as nothing they do could drive any immediate revenue stream.
You may well be right. But we're both guessing because it's not clear.
Obviously I dont expect them to disclose every financial detail, that would never be the case, but if theres enough people thinking " what does that actually mean", then I would suggest the communication isnt great!
I don’t think it’s necessarily communication. I think it’s genuinely a generational thing. Social media is something people of an age scratch the surface of. What’s going down with the under 25’s is a completely different beast. Just because “we” don’t get it or understand it or its potential means diddly squat. It’s a platform that’s getting bigger and will be the norm for media content and communication going forward. I don’t pretend to understand it just like I don’t understand the rise and rise of social influencers but it’s a phenomenon that clearly has legs.
I think you’re right for the immediate future but I think that they’ll be a backlash from the next generation. I think young children today are looking up to their elders and not liking what they’re seeing. Some are seeing social media for what it is: brain numbing click bait. Smartphones are still new but those born in the last 10-15 years don’t see anything new in them and will use them less obsessively.
May have misinterpreted your post. Are you saying that children under 15 are less interested in smartphones and social media? I’d say the complete opposite, and they obsessed by it. That’s view I see from niece, nephew, friends and colleagues kids anyway.
How to increase young and local support materially = get better at football.
Locals with roots in the area probably wont start supporting us now in any great numbers. Locals without roots in the area will armchair support Arsenal in the same why if i moved to Catalonia or Milan I'd support Barca or AC rather than the local third tier ne'r do wells. They'll always be the odd freak that loves a charity case so would pick the odd one or two up that way but will be few and far between.
Local yoot in SE London will go Palace or Millwall whilst they are higher than us if not affiliated. Nigels have premier league football and Millwall have a bit of edge and rep which will appeal to club-less young lads more than us. Or more than likely they'll support arsenal.
Where have the 10s of thousands of Charlton fans disappeared to that were at Wembley and in the premier league? They've stopped coming cos the football has been shit for years and still is. And most of them were probably proper legacy Charlton fans.
If we cant get legacy Charlton supporters to watch the latest set of feeble weaklings try and grind out a result against Burton or Northampton it's unlikely that we'll attract locals who've moved over from Nigeria in the last generation or 2 when they can just as easily support Arsenal and get far more enjoyment and the yoof will far likely want to be tied to Arsenal etc and all that comes with it even if we're the nearest club as the crow flies.
Transport us magically to the premier league and surprise surprise the crowds will grow. And then the marketing stuff kicks in like palace with their South London and Proud nonsense to engage the surrounding area,...but the football success comes first and foremost.
We're not a Sunderland with a captive audience and it's no mystery that locals in Wrexham are suddenly flocking to the racecourse in greater numbers and casting off their Liverpool and man united shirts since the football success has vastly improved.
Money at this stage would be better spent on strengthening the playing squad as best as possible and getting us higher up the pyramid rather than spending on consultants and marketing that will bring fuck all in real terms all the time we're shit on the pitch and going nowhere.
Get up the leagues and then people will flock there including locals and hitherto unaffiliated youngsters. Until the football success is where it needs to be it's just pissing in the wind.
Arsenal really are the team here in Lewisham. My boys support them and Charlton.
Football is for sure an entertainment industry, I don't dispute that.
But by golly, Cafc often stretch the meaning of the word.
Is there nobody on Charlton Life that has a child able to explain this bollox? Perhaps the announcement makes sense to the target audience perhaps not but IMHO as a marketing approach is misses the mark like most of Dobbos shots. I genuinely hope that whatever the plan is that it's successful, but right now it appears that absolutely nobody knows what that is.
Let me have a go:-
The company are sponsoring Charlton, so I imagine they will be paying the club a fee as any other sponsor would.
For that sponsorship fee, Footballco. get access to Charlton "assets" such as Chucks, to create content for distribution on their various digital platforms.
The content is targeting a specific demographic (young / urban) that like the sort of content that is produced (urban / gritty / "street" etc) hence the title of the Chucks video ("The ends").
Through the power of the interweb and targeting algorithms, the content is widely distributed through platforms (tiktok etc) with likeminded others. The content adds traffic to the various platforms owned by Footballco. that are then "monetised" through advertising or explicit product connections. (if you look on the website of footballco you will see, for example, a Crystal Palace youth player and Adidas).
There are potentially other commercial elements at play, such as affiliate fees (ie if their site drives traffic to the Charlton club shop for example, the club shop operators may pay a fee to Footballco. (this is supposition on my part)).
Both parties benefit. Footballco. get to use the assets of a club which is based in South London (demographic tick) and which has a strong community element (ethical tick), and earn from the content they produce.
Charlton gets its name out amongst a potential local and international fanbase, and get sponsorship income to boot.
Spot on.
Is it "spot on" though? Take the first line - who is paying who a fee? It doesnt say. Or maybe there is no initial fee in either direction?
Aside from the announcement being a load of words that dont actually say or tell us much, I think a lot of people on this thread would just like to know is this something that we are getting paid for or are paying for. No real need to bring ages into it and starting chucking stones at Generation A B or C.
In my business I try to work on the basis that if someone doesnt understand what you're telling them then you're probably not explaining it well enough. Of course theres a limit to how many times you can explain things before you have to conclude you're just dealing with stupidity, but as an opening communication piece it was pretty shit.
As I read it Footballco are a sponsor- they will be paying the club.
Charlton is the vehicle for content that the sponsor is tapping into and likely to pay for.
It is unlikely that the club would pay a media company to create content without any immediate benefit to the club as nothing they do could drive any immediate revenue stream.
You may well be right. But we're both guessing because it's not clear.
Obviously I dont expect them to disclose every financial detail, that would never be the case, but if theres enough people thinking " what does that actually mean", then I would suggest the communication isnt great!
I don’t think it’s necessarily communication. I think it’s genuinely a generational thing. Social media is something people of an age scratch the surface of. What’s going down with the under 25’s is a completely different beast. Just because “we” don’t get it or understand it or its potential means diddly squat. It’s a platform that’s getting bigger and will be the norm for media content and communication going forward. I don’t pretend to understand it just like I don’t understand the rise and rise of social influencers but it’s a phenomenon that clearly has legs.
I think you’re right for the immediate future but I think that they’ll be a backlash from the next generation. I think young children today are looking up to their elders and not liking what they’re seeing. Some are seeing social media for what it is: brain numbing click bait. Smartphones are still new but those born in the last 10-15 years don’t see anything new in them and will use them less obsessively.
May have misinterpreted your post. Are you saying that children under 15 are less interested in smartphones and social media? I’d say the complete opposite, and they obsessed by it. That’s view I see from niece, nephew, friends and colleagues kids anyway.
Is there nobody on Charlton Life that has a child able to explain this bollox? Perhaps the announcement makes sense to the target audience perhaps not but IMHO as a marketing approach is misses the mark like most of Dobbos shots. I genuinely hope that whatever the plan is that it's successful, but right now it appears that absolutely nobody knows what that is.
Let me have a go:-
The company are sponsoring Charlton, so I imagine they will be paying the club a fee as any other sponsor would.
For that sponsorship fee, Footballco. get access to Charlton "assets" such as Chucks, to create content for distribution on their various digital platforms.
The content is targeting a specific demographic (young / urban) that like the sort of content that is produced (urban / gritty / "street" etc) hence the title of the Chucks video ("The ends").
Through the power of the interweb and targeting algorithms, the content is widely distributed through platforms (tiktok etc) with likeminded others. The content adds traffic to the various platforms owned by Footballco. that are then "monetised" through advertising or explicit product connections. (if you look on the website of footballco you will see, for example, a Crystal Palace youth player and Adidas).
There are potentially other commercial elements at play, such as affiliate fees (ie if their site drives traffic to the Charlton club shop for example, the club shop operators may pay a fee to Footballco. (this is supposition on my part)).
Both parties benefit. Footballco. get to use the assets of a club which is based in South London (demographic tick) and which has a strong community element (ethical tick), and earn from the content they produce.
Charlton gets its name out amongst a potential local and international fanbase, and get sponsorship income to boot.
Spot on.
Is it "spot on" though? Take the first line - who is paying who a fee? It doesnt say. Or maybe there is no initial fee in either direction?
Aside from the announcement being a load of words that dont actually say or tell us much, I think a lot of people on this thread would just like to know is this something that we are getting paid for or are paying for. No real need to bring ages into it and starting chucking stones at Generation A B or C.
In my business I try to work on the basis that if someone doesnt understand what you're telling them then you're probably not explaining it well enough. Of course theres a limit to how many times you can explain things before you have to conclude you're just dealing with stupidity, but as an opening communication piece it was pretty shit.
As I read it Footballco are a sponsor- they will be paying the club.
Charlton is the vehicle for content that the sponsor is tapping into and likely to pay for.
It is unlikely that the club would pay a media company to create content without any immediate benefit to the club as nothing they do could drive any immediate revenue stream.
You may well be right. But we're both guessing because it's not clear.
Obviously I dont expect them to disclose every financial detail, that would never be the case, but if theres enough people thinking " what does that actually mean", then I would suggest the communication isnt great!
I don’t think it’s necessarily communication. I think it’s genuinely a generational thing. Social media is something people of an age scratch the surface of. What’s going down with the under 25’s is a completely different beast. Just because “we” don’t get it or understand it or its potential means diddly squat. It’s a platform that’s getting bigger and will be the norm for media content and communication going forward. I don’t pretend to understand it just like I don’t understand the rise and rise of social influencers but it’s a phenomenon that clearly has legs.
I think you’re right for the immediate future but I think that they’ll be a backlash from the next generation. I think young children today are looking up to their elders and not liking what they’re seeing. Some are seeing social media for what it is: brain numbing click bait. Smartphones are still new but those born in the last 10-15 years don’t see anything new in them and will use them less obsessively.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the large groups of kids I've seen at games recently, one group of which interviewed me with a Pringles can after the Northampton game. Good initiative if so!
That was probably just Braziliance doing his vlog 🙂
Comments
maybe some of those words are buzzy?
trouble with salad is some people tell us it’s good for us
one or two bits even taste nice
It never really satisfies tho does it?
you always need a good portion of smthn actually substantial
too much salad leaves a bitter taste and inevitably results in the squits
hopefully it’s a big earner for CAFC ?
"This is how you market to these people, these people and these people". It mentions the importance of diversity, then lumps everyone in together based on the year they were born! It's like horoscopes and such like.
"This is how you sell shit to people they dont need, or didnt know they needed".
Signed, a Saggitarian year of the rat Generation X-er*, who doesnt want to conform to any of the pigeon holes that would apparently put me in!
(*possibly, haven't worked it out fully!)
Possibly relevant: Sandgaard thought he could get a blue chip sponsor off the back of CACT. Quite a bit of resource went into that, with no success at all, because ultimately the core offer is L1 football.
My boys support them and Charlton.
Football is for sure an entertainment industry, I don't dispute that.
But by golly, Cafc often stretch the meaning of the word.
That surely is a failing of communication.
the people that will read the news article will not understand the principle of the content.
😁
But basically you're saying the article was pointless, which I think most people will agree with!
.