Roast The media....*Shakes Head* Part 5

[charcolechaddy]

If the opinions of AFL journalists on where we'll finish counted for anything we'd take all the money we now funnel into our football department and give it to the AFL, on the proviso they on hire a bunch of one-eyed Port supporters as reporters on their official website and that money be used to subsidise their wages.

Who cares where these bozos have us finishing?

Just remember where they had us the past 2 seasons.

 

[charcolechaddy]

I don't believe we will finish bottom 4. Personally I'm expecting more of the same from the last two years, perhaps sneak into the finals.
What I'm saying is we haven't actually done anything to warrant any positive 'predictions'.
Of course there's bias in these predictions, the whole politics of the game is involved as well. But from a footy perspective what have we done to warrant a predicted better finish/end result over the last two years? Nothing.
Has our coaching department/structure improved?
Have our 'star' players set the world on fire in preseason?
Its up to the coaches and players to prove these people wrong.

I vale first touch at stoppages one of the main keys to winning.

I think that can at least elevate us a spot.

 

[finbarr]

Just remember where they had us the past 2 seasons.

Yeah, we were at minimum playing off in a grand final in 2015, I remember that.

Virtual premierships are so rewarding.

 

[Papa G]

We are under rated by the vast majority of mainly Victorian journalists for pretty much the same reasons the Crows are vastly over rated by the majority of Victorian journalists. With 10 teams in their own back yard to worry about, their analysis of anything outside of their own borders tends to be only done on a very superficial level. Match this with catering to their local market, like here, they will favour their own teams. Couple this with the fact we've burnt them on their predictions 2 years running you can see why they do not fancy us. We are no longer the shiny new thing that distracts them\. Outside the consistent over analysis of the bigger Vic teams they've now got the bogeyman in GWS to focus on as well as the Malbun/St Kilda battlers rising from ashes like the Bulldogs did. We are now largely forgotten. It is up to Kenny and the players to prove them wrong.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Ole Jesper wrote on page 9 of the Tiser today that the crows have "68,000 paid up members on the eve of the season. The figure surpasses last year's tally of 67,874 members - later scaled back to 54,307 by the AFL audit, which does not recognise all membership categories."

That scaling back is because about 10,000 are free memberships where all you have to provide Jesper is a name, dob, address and email address. ie No payment required. I guess in Jesper's world a $nil membership is a paid up member.

 

[OneGreatClub]

Ole Jesper wrote on page 9 of the Tiser today that the crows have "68,000 paid up members on the eve of the season. The figure surpasses last year's tally of 67,874 members - later scaled back to 54,307 by the AFL audit, which does not recognise all membership categories."

That scaling back is because about 10,000 are free memberships where all you have to provide Jesper is a name, dob, address and email address. ie No payment required. I guess in Jesper's world a $nil membership is a paid up member.

Plus those womens memberships are an advantage to boost their 'numbers' Still amazed they don't sell out every game. no excuse really.

 

[PatientMental]

The crows have an incredible number of different kinds of memberships.

 

[bomberclifford]

While it's fun to poke fun at Fages and his #datanottallies mantra, it's actually a sound strategy.

I'm currently working with a member based organisation that is going through the transition from a model that says that "A member is someone who pays you $X" to one that says, "A member is someone who believes in your brand".

The power is not in the $$, although they are a crucial part of the revenue model. The power is in the numbers of individuals who interact with your brand, EVEN at a passive level. Their voice is your voice. This is simply because a member/follower/supporter will transition in and out of various states of engagement throughout their lifetime. Maintaining that link, speaking to them as members even if they haven't given you a cent, builds the foundation for the future. Collingwood worked this out before anyone else in the AFL and it literally saved them from bankruptcy.

BTW, Port is doing it as well. Just using different tactics.

For all the chest beating between Port and Crows, both clubs are doing exceptionally well in this regard.

 

[Alberton Proud]

While it's fun to poke fun at Fages and his #datanottallies mantra, it's actually a sound strategy.

I'm currently working with a member based organisation that is going through the transition from a model that says that "A member is someone who pays you $X" to one that says, "A member is someone who believes in your brand".

The power is not in the $$, although they are a crucial part of the revenue model. The power is in the numbers of individuals who interact with your brand, EVEN at a passive level. Their voice is your voice. This is simply because a member/follower/supporter will transition in and out of various states of engagement throughout their lifetime. Maintaining that link, speaking to them as members even if they haven't given you a cent, builds the foundation for the future. Collingwood worked this out before anyone else in the AFL and it literally saved them from bankruptcy.

BTW, Port is doing it as well. Just using different tactics.

For all the chest beating between Port and Crows, both clubs are doing exceptionally well in this regard.

Free Memberships for everyone !

 

[Pappagallo]

While it's fun to poke fun at Fages and his #datanottallies mantra, it's actually a sound strategy.

I'm currently working with a member based organisation that is going through the transition from a model that says that "A member is someone who pays you $X" to one that says, "A member is someone who believes in your brand".

The power is not in the $$, although they are a crucial part of the revenue model. The power is in the numbers of individuals who interact with your brand, EVEN at a passive level. Their voice is your voice. This is simply because a member/follower/supporter will transition in and out of various states of engagement throughout their lifetime. Maintaining that link, speaking to them as members even if they haven't given you a cent, builds the foundation for the future. Collingwood worked this out before anyone else in the AFL and it literally saved them from bankruptcy.

BTW, Port is doing it as well. Just using different tactics.

For all the chest beating between Port and Crows, both clubs are doing exceptionally well in this regard.

Yeah it's a fair enough strategy but it does make their membership tally a complete farce though, hence the massive correction when the AFL takes a quick squiz.

 

[OneGreatClub]

While it's fun to poke fun at Fages and his #datanottallies mantra, it's actually a sound strategy.

I'm currently working with a member based organisation that is going through the transition from a model that says that "A member is someone who pays you $X" to one that says, "A member is someone who believes in your brand".

The power is not in the $$, although they are a crucial part of the revenue model. The power is in the numbers of individuals who interact with your brand, EVEN at a passive level. Their voice is your voice. This is simply because a member/follower/supporter will transition in and out of various states of engagement throughout their lifetime. Maintaining that link, speaking to them as members even if they haven't given you a cent, builds the foundation for the future. Collingwood worked this out before anyone else in the AFL and it literally saved them from bankruptcy.

BTW, Port is doing it as well. Just using different tactics.

For all the chest beating between Port and Crows, both clubs are doing exceptionally well in this regard.

Yes but the AFL will not allow memberships to be counted unless they are at least for $50 and attend games. If one club can include 'data' then so should others.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Yes but the AFL will not allow memberships to be counted unless they are at least for $50 and attend games. If one club can include 'data' then so should others.

$50 or more criteria yes, but attend games, no. The AFL started counting non access memberships in the clubs' total in 2011.

 

[OneGreatClub]

$50 or more criteria yes, but attend games, no. The AFL started counting non access memberships in the clubs' total in 2011.

ok thanks
well that explains a lot

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Plus those womens memberships are an advantage to boost their 'numbers' Still amazed they don't sell out every game. no excuse really.

all 500 of them. Story from 31st January

http://www.news.com.au/national/sou...y/news-story/d6e9f00e9768956ce11d6f41607d4a48
ADELAIDE’S gamble in the inaugural AFL women’s league is already a winner, off the field. All start-up costs for the Crows’ women’s team, which have reached almost $1 million, will be met by corporate support, most of which is from businesses houses never before aligned to the AFL.
......
FAN support that had foundation memberships for the women’s team – sold at $60 and limited to 500 – quickly sell out. The female-male split for these memberships is at 60-40, indicating the interest is not far different from the 50-50 gender count in attendance figures at men’s AFL games.
http://www.news.com.au/national/sou...y/news-story/d6e9f00e9768956ce11d6f41607d4a48

 

[Papa G]

all 500 of them. Story from 31st January

http://www.news.com.au/national/sou...y/news-story/d6e9f00e9768956ce11d6f41607d4a48
ADELAIDE’S gamble in the inaugural AFL women’s league is already a winner, off the field. All start-up costs for the Crows’ women’s team, which have reached almost $1 million, will be met by corporate support, most of which is from businesses houses never before aligned to the AFL.
......
FAN support that had foundation memberships for the women’s team – sold at $60 and limited to 500 – quickly sell out. The female-male split for these memberships is at 60-40, indicating the interest is not far different from the 50-50 gender count in attendance figures at men’s AFL games.
http://www.news.com.au/national/sou...y/news-story/d6e9f00e9768956ce11d6f41607d4a48

I haven't watched any of this, but $1 million in sponsorship seems a little far fetched to me.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I haven't watched any of this, but $1 million in sponsorship seems a little far fetched to me.

If it includes the $250k the SA government put in then it seems right, that they got to almost $1m so probably in the $900-950k range., given their other sponsor for the women's team.
http://www.afc.com.au/women/aflw-corporate-partners

Edit $275k

http://www.afc.com.au/news/2016-07-04/sa-government-supports-womens-team
The Adelaide Crows have received significant financial support for their elite women’s team from the South Australian Government. Premier Jay Weatherill has announced an initial commitment of $275,000 to assist the Club during its first year in the newly formed AFL national women’s league.
http://www.afc.com.au/news/2016-07-04/sa-government-supports-womens-team

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Looks like the NT government threw in $150k a year x 2 years.
http://www.afc.com.au/news/2016-11-26/nt-government-supports-crows-women

 

[Alberton Proud]

If it includes the $250k the SA government put in then it seems right, that they got to almost $1m so probably in the $900-950k range., given their other sponsor for the women's team.

http://www.afc.com.au/women/aflw-corporate-partners

Lot of Government Money there Workskil, NT Tourism, SA Gov

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Lot of Government Money there Workskil, NT Tourism, SA Gov

Pretty sure Workskil Australia is a private not-for-profit work placement organisation that may be get some revenue from governments but mainly from fees for finding workers for the private sector.

 

[Papa G]

Pretty sure Workskil Australia is a private not-for-profit work placement organisation that may be get some revenue from governments but mainly from fees for finding workers for the private sector.

I reckon a very significant amount of their stuff would be done through govt funding. Not for profit is generally code for Govt funded.

 

[bomberclifford]

Free Memberships for some !

FTFY

You're still selling higher value memberships, you're just also providing a cheap or free version with stripped back benefits.

It's a variation on the Freemium model.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemium#/media/File:Free-tier_in_freemium_business_pattern.png

 

[bomberclifford]

Yeah it's a fair enough strategy but it does make their membership tally a complete farce though, hence the massive correction when the AFL takes a quick squiz.

What matters to them is not the AFL audited figure, but their own figures which provide insight and value to sponsors and partners.

What is funny though is the use of the Data-NOT-Tallies mantra when they're under their local rival but as soon as they tip the scales the other way, it's all "come Mr Tally man, tally my bananas."

 

[Steve Dore]

I reckon a very significant amount of their stuff would be done through govt funding. Not for profit is generally code for Govt funded.

They're a Jobactive (Dept of Employment) provider so their funding comes from the Federal Government but they would have had to tender to win the role as a provider so they would be getting so much for each service they provide.

 

[Enviable Tradition]

While it's fun to poke fun at Fages and his #datanottallies mantra, it's actually a sound strategy.

I'm currently working with a member based organisation that is going through the transition from a model that says that "A member is someone who pays you $X" to one that says, "A member is someone who believes in your brand".

The power is not in the $$, although they are a crucial part of the revenue model. The power is in the numbers of individuals who interact with your brand, EVEN at a passive level. Their voice is your voice. This is simply because a member/follower/supporter will transition in and out of various states of engagement throughout their lifetime. Maintaining that link, speaking to them as members even if they haven't given you a cent, builds the foundation for the future. Collingwood worked this out before anyone else in the AFL and it literally saved them from bankruptcy.

BTW, Port is doing it as well. Just using different tactics.

For all the chest beating between Port and Crows, both clubs are doing exceptionally well in this regard.

Give me a quality list of people willing to engage and spend $$ over a big list every day of the week in the online marketing world.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[bomberclifford]

Give me a quality list of people willing to engage and spend $$ over a big list every day of the week in the online marketing world.

You're looking at it the wrong way.

I would have written the above like this:

Give me a list of people willing to engage and spend $$ now, or in the future, instead of just a list of those who can only spend now.