ABC's apparent refusal to call stadiums/grounds by their sponsorship names

[Heardy_101]

Michaelangelo Rucci used to make frequent ones a few years ago although I read it as being snide it may have been more jest. I can't remember the exact comment but he made a point of it as did another colleague of his.

As I said, NewsCorp, so enough said.

 

[expires]

The ABC seems to see promoting FACEBOOK to be within its charter.

 

[Play by Numbers]

The ABC seems to see promoting FACEBOOK to be within its charter.

It isn't promotion.

It is a standalone social media platform which they use, so they can't help but mention it, just like twitter. The charter allows for self promotion.

Plus many mentions outside of this are often newsworthy, just like commercial entities will be mentioned if it is newsworthy.

 

[expires]

It isn't promotion.

It is a standalone social media platform which they use, so they can't help but mention it, just like twitter. The charter allows for self promotion.

Plus many mentions outside of this are often newsworthy, just like commercial entities will be mentioned if it is newsworthy.

Myspace.

Whilst the ABC promotes Facebook, not going to make it easy for a competitor to enter the market.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Myspace.

Whilst the ABC promotes Facebook, not going to make it easy for a competitor to enter the market.

The ABC doesn't promote facebook, it uses facebook and can't help but mention it. Facebook is the delivery service.

ABC using facebook, would have negligible impact on either sites marketshare .

 

[ManWithNoName]

Myspace.

Whilst the ABC promotes Facebook, not going to make it easy for a competitor to enter the market.

So following this logic, are they promoting the AFL every time they use that term?

 

[expires]

So following this logic, are they promoting the AFL every time they use that term?

Yes but the analogy doesn't follow does it. AFL is a stand alone sport.

The ABC doesn't promote facebook, it uses facebook and can't help but mention it. Facebook is the delivery service.

ABC using facebook, would have negligible impact on either sites marketshare .

Any impact is the ABC charter broken. Mark Scott you were wrong.

 

[ManWithNoName]

Yes but the analogy doesn't follow does it. AFL is a stand alone sport.



Any impact is the ABC charter broken. Mark Scott you were wrong.

AFL is not a sport. It is a commercial body which operates a league of Australian Football.

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

With regards to Facebook or the AFL, there s no commercial agreement in place. The ABC would not be adding value to paid advertising as they would with corporate stadium names. There is also, in the case of the latter, a reasonable alternative. Often a better one. With all the changes to stadium names that happen, I find it far easier to know where Subiaco is than Domain or Patersons or whatever. And what is Kardinia Park these days, its had more titles than Prince Philip.
And there are still people who call Docklands stadium "Colonial" or "the Dome" referring to previous sponsors (the defunct Colonial Building Society, and Telstra whose marketing department are so bright they think a dome has a flat top).
Where the ABC could have issues is when stadia are known only by a commercial name. One name, forever. Simple. As far as I know, other entities with AFL contracts are contractually obliged to use the corporate name. The ABC does not allow such a clause in its contracts. To do so would probably breach section 31 of the ABC Act, though on a quick read to a non-law takling guy that section does give broad exceptions (too broad for mine - to the point of allowing product placement if programs are externally produced, no wonder the ABC can do everything cheaper outsourcing it).

 

[Play by Numbers]

Yes but the analogy doesn't follow does it. AFL is a stand alone sport.



Any impact is the ABC charter broken. Mark Scott you were wrong.

The ABC charter has not been broken.

It is a content delivery service that the ABC use, they cannot engage in self promotion, of which the charter allows, without identifying the platform it's on.

It's an asinine argument and an odd one to make.

 

[The Speaker]

Where the ABC could have issues is when stadia are known only by a commercial name. One name, forever. Simple.

Has such a thing ever happened? Wouldn't governments require stadiums to have an official name?

 

[Howard Littlejohn]

Has such a thing ever happened? Wouldn't governments require stadiums to have an official name?

I can't think of one in Australia. Most of our grounds are older and built prior to corporate naming becoming a thing locally. Although I'm not sure the Melbourne Rectangular Stadium has an official non-corporate name. I've used the ABC name. From memory it was informally the Swan Street Stadium while being planned.

Pretty sure it happens in the UK. EPL clubs build their own stadia, and need a sponsor on board from the beginning.

 

[expires]

AFL is not a sport. It is a commercial body which operates a league of Australian Football.

Broadcasting Australian football has to do with national identity. You are saying that saying AFL on the ABC stops other sports from developing? The profits of the AFL go back into the sport. Or that's the theory of how it is suppose to work. The AFL is there to support a sport. It has a corporate structure but is not making money for any other purpose. And the game definitely has to do with our national identity so I have never felt an issue.

They used to and still sometimes do say (on the ABC) "use your search engine of preference" instead of saying "google it". Same area with facebook. The difference being the ABC are using facebook to try and attract interest in the ABC. I really can't see why they can't just say go to the ABC website instead of putting traffic through facebook.

I am not much of a facebooker I will add.

 

[expires]

The ABC charter has not been broken.

It is a content delivery service that the ABC use, they cannot engage in self promotion, of which the charter allows, without identifying the platform it's on.

It's an asinine argument and an odd one to make.

They can engage in self promotion by just promoting the ABC website. Why use facebook at all.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Broadcasting Australian football has to do with national identity. You are saying that saying AFL on the ABC stops other sports from developing? The profits of the AFL go back into the sport. Or that's the theory of how it is suppose to work. The AFL is there to support a sport. It has a corporate structure but is not making money for any other purpose. And the game definitely has to do with our national identity so I have never felt an issue.

They used to and still sometimes do say (on the ABC) "use your search engine of preference" instead of saying "google it". Same area with facebook. The difference being the ABC are using facebook to try and attract interest in the ABC. I really can't see why they can't just say go to the ABC website instead of putting traffic through facebook.

I am not much of a facebooker I will add.

Their charter does not restrict them from using this platform. They are allowed to and journalists are expected to, actively utilise social media.

To self promote, they have to be able to indicate where the various content is being delivered, for example the abc website, a particular FM/AM band or facebook handle.

 

[Play by Numbers]

They can engage in self promotion by just promoting the ABC website. Why use facebook at all.

Because it allows them to reach a larger audience.

That's like saying, they can self promote on TV so why use dem internets at all.

 

[expires]

Because it allows them to reach a larger audience.

That's like saying, they can self promote on TV so why use dem internets at all.

The ABC give their imprimatur to facebook by continually saying you will find us on facebook. No you will find us on facebook and myspace. That's not self promotion. Its promoting traffic to one social media platform over another. Not much different to saying "went out and got the story in the ABC Corolla".

 

[Play by Numbers]

The ABC give their imprimatur to facebook by continually saying you will find us on facebook. No you will find us on facebook and myspace. That's not self promotion. Its promoting traffic to one social media platform over another. Not much different to saying "went out and got the story in the ABC Corolla".

They have no obligation to be on every platform and mention each equally.

Facebook after twitter generates the most traffic, hence it gets mentioned. It isn't promotion or advertising of facebook, it is selective self promotion which is allowed by their charter. You are wrong, and I don't get your angle? Would you prefer they equally used all social media outlets, despite the cost benefit not stacking up and promoting their content delivered by each equally?

Or are you actually suggesting they should not use social media? If so, then there is no point debating the issue with you, since that would be beyond stupid.

 

[expires]

They have no obligation to be on every platform and mention each equally.

Facebook after twitter generates the most traffic, hence it gets mentioned. It isn't promotion or advertising of facebook, it is selective self promotion which is allowed by their charter. You are wrong, and I don't get your angle? Would you prefer they equally used all social media outlets, despite the cost benefit not stacking up and promoting their content delivered by each equally?

Or are you actually suggesting they should not use social media? If so, then there is no point debating the issue with you, since that would be beyond stupid.

I am beyond stupid from your point of view. Sort of a derail anyway.

 

[Play by Numbers]

I am beyond stupid from your point of view. Sort of a derail anyway.

Yes, you would be.

They would be alone as a media organisation in taking that step. The level of traffic and contribution to viewership that twitter and fb provide is directly measurable and significant.

In fact, given the ABC is the default mechanism, for many public service broadcasts, both political, and as part of public health, emergency services and safety, I imagine government would mandate a strong social media presence if one did not exist.

 

[expires]

Yes, you would be.

They would be alone as a media organisation in taking that step. The level of traffic and contribution to viewership that twitter and fb provide is directly measurable and significant.

In fact, given the ABC is the default mechanism, for many public service broadcasts, both political, and as part of public health, emergency services and safety, I imagine government would mandate a strong social media presence if one did not exist.

Happy to continue this in an appropriate thread. Not really to do with footy media, thus falls outside thread charter.

 

[Play by Numbers]

Happy to continue this in an appropriate thread. Not really to do with footy media, thus falls outside thread charter.

I hope you aren't one of those loons who has a bee in their bonnet about the abc. It would be negligent if they did not use social media, and use it well.

 

[Kram]

iirc Barnett has always said that the new Perth stadium wont have a commercial name but I bet when it actually get finished or not long after they will sell it.

 

[Play by Numbers]

iirc Barnett has always said that the new Perth stadium wont have a commercial name but I bet when it actually get finished or not long after they will sell it.

Of course.

Crown stadium.

 

[expires]

I hope you aren't one of those loons who has a bee in their bonnet about the abc. It would be negligent if they did not use social media, and use it well.

If I am beyond stupid I might be one of those loons.

I'm actually rusted on. Rarely listed to commercial radio, main tv footy, next main ABC. Watched a pom crossing northern Africa on a train last night on ABC 1. I have thoughts about it all. Not the place to put them. And I don't agree with you expect about me being beyond stupid and, as a probable consequence, one of those loons.