Classic sponsors

milo said:

Chizz said:

gringo said:

lordromford said:

On the “Other teams new kits” thread, it’s mentioned that Holsten is a “classic” sponsor due to its appearances on Spurs shirts.
Got me thinking about others.
For me, off the top of my head, the ones that spring to mind are:

Charlton - Woolwich (obviously)
Man U - Sharp
Arsenal - JVC
Liverpool - Crown Paints
Leeds - Top Man
Spurs - Holsten
Wimbledon - Truman (I think)
Pa**ce - Virgin (appropriate)
West Ham - Avco
Everton - NEC
Man City - Brother
Coventry - Talbot

That’s all I’ve got for now.
Any others that stick out? I may have got some wrong maybe?

a few of them no longer around- I question how successful shirt sponsorship really is.

There's no indication that any of those sponsors went bust because of the money they invested in shirt sponsorship.  

Others will have far greater insight into this than I do, but it's worth noting that:

Sportfive data indicate sponsorship campaigns outperform traditional advertising by 58% in brand awareness among sports fans, and 49% even among the general population. Familiarity with a sponsoring brand leads to +40% "likeability", +53% consideration, +41% in actual usage, and a 7% boost in recommendation likelihood.  Shirt sponsorship works.  

The fact that posters on here can very easily recall shirt sponsors from twenty or thirty years ago prove that enduring brand awareness is created.  In fact, GWI/WARC research shows that 65% of fans notice shirt sponsors, which is the highest recognition across sponsorship types.  And Brand Finance has reported average revenue increases of 10–15% driven by sponsorships via brand loyalty and trust.  Simply put: shooser the right club, for the right reason; invest in shirt sponsorship; and engage with fans and you are likely to increase brand awareness and earn more revenue from every customer.  

Big companies, with huge marketing budgets want to wield their clout and measure their success by ROI.  Visa, for example, earned $480 worth of media coverage for every $100 they spent on partnering with the World Cup.  Smaller companies just want you to know they exist.  

If there's a democratic match between sponsor and audience (eg a betting company, rather than a jewellery brand, sponsoring a football club); and if the sponsor spends as much (or almost as much) in activation (promotions, experiences, etc) as in paying rights; and if the sponsor focuses on engagement metrics (social impressions, brand lift surveys, digital activations, sign-ups, etc); and there's a brand fit and authenticity (e.g. collaborations that reflect and compliment brand values and engage communities perform better), then there's a far higher chance of "success", however that's measured.  

Of course there are examples of sponsorships that went so badly wrong as to have a long-term deleterious effect on the sponsor.  Beko seemed to have found the perfect club for their sponsorship when they chose Millwall.  Why was it a perfect match?  Beko suffered reputational damage to their brand, had to issue product safety warnings and recalled their products.  No-one, it seemed, liked them.  

My brother-in-law, a Spurs season ticket holder, still refuses to buy JVC products, more than twenty years after they stopped sponsoring Arsenal.

randy andy said:

Surely the unintended self-labelling of having Palace shirts plastered with a large Virgin sign is a classic

killerandflash said:

milo said:

Chizz said:

gringo said:

lordromford said:

On the “Other teams new kits” thread, it’s mentioned that Holsten is a “classic” sponsor due to its appearances on Spurs shirts.
Got me thinking about others.
For me, off the top of my head, the ones that spring to mind are:

Charlton - Woolwich (obviously)
Man U - Sharp
Arsenal - JVC
Liverpool - Crown Paints
Leeds - Top Man
Spurs - Holsten
Wimbledon - Truman (I think)
Pa**ce - Virgin (appropriate)
West Ham - Avco
Everton - NEC
Man City - Brother
Coventry - Talbot

That’s all I’ve got for now.
Any others that stick out? I may have got some wrong maybe?

a few of them no longer around- I question how successful shirt sponsorship really is.

There's no indication that any of those sponsors went bust because of the money they invested in shirt sponsorship.  

Others will have far greater insight into this than I do, but it's worth noting that:

Sportfive data indicate sponsorship campaigns outperform traditional advertising by 58% in brand awareness among sports fans, and 49% even among the general population. Familiarity with a sponsoring brand leads to +40% "likeability", +53% consideration, +41% in actual usage, and a 7% boost in recommendation likelihood.  Shirt sponsorship works.  

The fact that posters on here can very easily recall shirt sponsors from twenty or thirty years ago prove that enduring brand awareness is created.  In fact, GWI/WARC research shows that 65% of fans notice shirt sponsors, which is the highest recognition across sponsorship types.  And Brand Finance has reported average revenue increases of 10–15% driven by sponsorships via brand loyalty and trust.  Simply put: shooser the right club, for the right reason; invest in shirt sponsorship; and engage with fans and you are likely to increase brand awareness and earn more revenue from every customer.  

Big companies, with huge marketing budgets want to wield their clout and measure their success by ROI.  Visa, for example, earned $480 worth of media coverage for every $100 they spent on partnering with the World Cup.  Smaller companies just want you to know they exist.  

If there's a democratic match between sponsor and audience (eg a betting company, rather than a jewellery brand, sponsoring a football club); and if the sponsor spends as much (or almost as much) in activation (promotions, experiences, etc) as in paying rights; and if the sponsor focuses on engagement metrics (social impressions, brand lift surveys, digital activations, sign-ups, etc); and there's a brand fit and authenticity (e.g. collaborations that reflect and compliment brand values and engage communities perform better), then there's a far higher chance of "success", however that's measured.  

Of course there are examples of sponsorships that went so badly wrong as to have a long-term deleterious effect on the sponsor.  Beko seemed to have found the perfect club for their sponsorship when they chose Millwall.  Why was it a perfect match?  Beko suffered reputational damage to their brand, had to issue product safety warnings and recalled their products.  No-one, it seemed, liked them.  

My brother-in-law, a Spurs season ticket holder, still refuses to buy JVC products, more than twenty years after they stopped sponsoring Arsenal.

Wasn't that why one lager brand sponsored both Rangers and Celtic one year!

Gribbo said:

randy andy said:

Surely the unintended self-labelling of having Palace shirts plastered with a large Virgin sign is a classic

Heard they're currently in talks with Cuthbert-Unwin-Norris-Thompson Solicitors 

killerandflash said:

milo said:

Chizz said:

gringo said:

lordromford said:

On the “Other teams new kits” thread, it’s mentioned that Holsten is a “classic” sponsor due to its appearances on Spurs shirts.
Got me thinking about others.
For me, off the top of my head, the ones that spring to mind are:

Charlton - Woolwich (obviously)
Man U - Sharp
Arsenal - JVC
Liverpool - Crown Paints
Leeds - Top Man
Spurs - Holsten
Wimbledon - Truman (I think)
Pa**ce - Virgin (appropriate)
West Ham - Avco
Everton - NEC
Man City - Brother
Coventry - Talbot

That’s all I’ve got for now.
Any others that stick out? I may have got some wrong maybe?

a few of them no longer around- I question how successful shirt sponsorship really is.

There's no indication that any of those sponsors went bust because of the money they invested in shirt sponsorship.  

Others will have far greater insight into this than I do, but it's worth noting that:

Sportfive data indicate sponsorship campaigns outperform traditional advertising by 58% in brand awareness among sports fans, and 49% even among the general population. Familiarity with a sponsoring brand leads to +40% "likeability", +53% consideration, +41% in actual usage, and a 7% boost in recommendation likelihood.  Shirt sponsorship works.  

The fact that posters on here can very easily recall shirt sponsors from twenty or thirty years ago prove that enduring brand awareness is created.  In fact, GWI/WARC research shows that 65% of fans notice shirt sponsors, which is the highest recognition across sponsorship types.  And Brand Finance has reported average revenue increases of 10–15% driven by sponsorships via brand loyalty and trust.  Simply put: shooser the right club, for the right reason; invest in shirt sponsorship; and engage with fans and you are likely to increase brand awareness and earn more revenue from every customer.  

Big companies, with huge marketing budgets want to wield their clout and measure their success by ROI.  Visa, for example, earned $480 worth of media coverage for every $100 they spent on partnering with the World Cup.  Smaller companies just want you to know they exist.  

If there's a democratic match between sponsor and audience (eg a betting company, rather than a jewellery brand, sponsoring a football club); and if the sponsor spends as much (or almost as much) in activation (promotions, experiences, etc) as in paying rights; and if the sponsor focuses on engagement metrics (social impressions, brand lift surveys, digital activations, sign-ups, etc); and there's a brand fit and authenticity (e.g. collaborations that reflect and compliment brand values and engage communities perform better), then there's a far higher chance of "success", however that's measured.  

Of course there are examples of sponsorships that went so badly wrong as to have a long-term deleterious effect on the sponsor.  Beko seemed to have found the perfect club for their sponsorship when they chose Millwall.  Why was it a perfect match?  Beko suffered reputational damage to their brand, had to issue product safety warnings and recalled their products.  No-one, it seemed, liked them.  

My brother-in-law, a Spurs season ticket holder, still refuses to buy JVC products, more than twenty years after they stopped sponsoring Arsenal.

Wasn't that why one lager brand sponsored both Rangers and Celtic one year!

Greenhithe said:

clive said:

Mendonca In Asdas said:

I don’t remember Leeds having Top Man,was that in the 90’s?

gringo said:

Mendonca In Asdas said:

I don’t remember Leeds having Top Man,was that in the 90’s?

I remember Burton as their sponsor.

Burton & Top Man were both shirt sponsors of Leeds in the 80's & early 90's.
Both companies were part of ' The Burton Group' whose biggest factory was based in Hudson Road, Leeds.
Peter Ridsdale who became chairman of Leeds, previously was on the board of 'The Burton Group' & also Managing Director of Top Man.

I worked for Arcadia for years and we used to go to Leeds for meetings in the main office there. It’s behind Harehills. What a shithole. You literally walk along terraced streets then wallop there's a factory in front of you. And some tower blocks. There were even rumours of people in the tower blocks taking pot shits at staff with pellet gins when they were leaving work.  

Dazzler21 said:

Who have ours been?
Fads
Woolwich
Viglen
Mesh
Redbus
Allsports
Llanera
Carbrini
Krbs
Andrew Sykes
UoG
Betdaq
KW
UoG again 
RSK

I'm sure I'm missing one. Mesh is the iconic one for me.