|
What do you guys think about soliciting banks that target irresponsible gamers as perceived in a negative light by society?
I'm thinking amscot who could make a perceived fortune by the negative stereotype that progamers are irresponsible and wouldn't repay our payday loans on time.
Anyways, great feedback, keep the ideas coming! 
|
On August 14 2012 01:35 Cambium wrote:
There are in essence two types of banks: commercial and investment, or at least two separate divisions in the same entity. The two types of banks attract different clients (that's how they make money). Commercial banks want average Joes with their $30,000 annual income to make deposits and occasionally get charged exorbitant fees; and investment banks want people with millions dollars worth of assets and provide strategies to invest in a very specific manners.
Now, eSports sponsorship doesn't actually sound like that bad of an idea for commercial banks (so we are talking about banks like Chase, BoA and Wells Fargo, and not Goldman and Morgan, not what you think of what you say "wall street" right?), especially if the target audience is composed of teens/adolescents. Shinhan bank actually sponsored quite a few OSLs and SPLs for SCBW, in attempt to attract younger clients who will hopefully open accounts.
In America, however, there is a very strong negativity associated with gaming, more often than not, it is seen as a manifestation of irresponsibility. You can argue how this is untrue, or how it's slowly changing, but that is still how most adults view video games (and they really can't tell or won't bother to tell the difference between Tetris and Starcraft). While sponsoring a progaming team might gain a decent number of clients down the road, it will inevitably lose a fair share as well. I just don't think it's worthwhile for commercial banks to make this types of risky investment.
Also, more importantly, I'm ultimately going to choose a commercial bank that offers me the most number of conveniences rather than some bank that sponsors an SC team.
This. Starcraft is not large or accepted enough to really suit the serious image most banks want. This seems like a pipe dream like so many other "lets grow esports" ideas.
|
On August 14 2012 01:43 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 01:35 Cambium wrote:
There are in essence two types of banks: commercial and investment, or at least two separate divisions in the same entity. The two types of banks attract different clients (that's how they make money). Commercial banks want average Joes with their $30,000 annual income to make deposits and occasionally get charged exorbitant fees; and investment banks want people with millions dollars worth of assets and provide strategies to invest in a very specific manners.
Now, eSports sponsorship doesn't actually sound like that bad of an idea for commercial banks (so we are talking about banks like Chase, BoA and Wells Fargo, and not Goldman and Morgan, not what you think of what you say "wall street" right?), especially if the target audience is composed of teens/adolescents. Shinhan bank actually sponsored quite a few OSLs and SPLs for SCBW, in attempt to attract younger clients who will hopefully open accounts.
In America, however, there is a very strong negativity associated with gaming, more often than not, it is seen as a manifestation of irresponsibility. You can argue how this is untrue, or how it's slowly changing, but that is still how most adults view video games (and they really can't tell or won't bother to tell the difference between Tetris and Starcraft). While sponsoring a progaming team might gain a decent number of clients down the road, it will inevitably lose a fair share as well. I just don't think it's worthwhile for commercial banks to make this types of risky investment.
Also, more importantly, I'm ultimately going to choose a commercial bank that offers me the most number of conveniences rather than some bank that sponsors an SC team. This. Starcraft is not large or accepted enough to really suit the serious image most banks want. This seems like a pipe dream like so many other "lets grow esports" ideas.
If you're right, and that banks would be throwing money behind a negative image, then can I ask if it's possible that we the starcraft community can change our public perception? Only in America do we have the image of antisocial, obese, lazy gamers who can't get laid while eating dorritos & slim jims.
Can we somehow change our "image problem" to reflect the type of re-branding which Korean progamers somehow faced & overcame back in their hayday?
|
On August 14 2012 01:26 finlurrrr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 01:23 mememolly wrote:On August 14 2012 01:17 Lonyo wrote:On August 14 2012 01:05 Cleomenes wrote:On August 14 2012 01:02 Chiharu Harukaze wrote:
The stickiness and rarity of people changing who they take their bank accounts and mortgages from mean that any return on investment is going to be incredibly low for banks. I highly doubt anyone is going to change their mortgage provider on the basis of an advertisement in Starcraft. I'm not even sure the target market has much to offer a financial institution in the first place. However E-sports fandom is full of young adults. These 20 somethings will be getting car loans, mortgages, etc. in the next few years. Now would be a good time to gain good publicity for the long game of bringing in young people. This is probably the best thing eSports has going for it as something for banks to invest in. It's the "right" market for a business which grabs you for the long haul. football has way more fans and over a more diverse range than 20 something, if I was a bank I'd invest in something like football not the niche that is esports, the return would be minimal compared with investing in football etc But your math is flawed and I could swap your argument around to say that the COST of investing in starcraft 2 would be MINIMAL compared to the cost of sponsoring the NFL, which would demand at least 8 figures at a minimum. You are looking at only the returns of the two investments. Next time, try looking at the costs/returns and analyzing them based on ROI.
You have no actual application of this - Return On Investment is an important measure but has its limits.
Firstly, you make the assumption that the Return On Investment would be high for teams. That is not true at all. FXOBoss has stated that he is happy that they aren't losing money - how do you think that banks will make money by sponsoring teams?
And even if the return on investment was decent enough, sponsoring a single eSports team probably isn't even worth it for the banks. If they sink 1 million into it and get a return of 15%, that sounds great, but the time and effort to earn that 150k isn't worth it. There are a lot of transaction costs that go into any investment, and in this case, these costs would relate to the time, the people, etc.
Lastly, ROI is not a comparative measure in many cases - the discount rates would have to be different, since these are long-term investments. The NFL is a relatively low-risk investment, especially right now where a new 10-year labour agreement has been signed. E-sports is a fucking high risk investment - I'd say if investors weren't projecting 30 - 40% growth each year for the next few years (and a lower terminal rate of course) it wouldn't be worth the risk.
On the other hand, a sponsorship investment in the NFL... let's say realistically it costs 50million and they get a 7.5% ROI... well that's 3.75m. It's also a lower risk investment.
I'm not sure how a bank would be able to promote. Personally, I'd go to the bank that would provide the lowest mortgage rate as opposed to the team with a .25% higher rate but sponsors Quantic... maybe it's just me but I'd rather save the $10,000... these aren't unique products we're talking about here.
Now if you're saying banks should loan money to teams, I'm sure they would if they thought it was likely the teams could repay them. I wouldn't be surprised if a team like EG or dignitas did have some outstanding debts.
|
On August 14 2012 01:43 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 01:35 Cambium wrote:
There are in essence two types of banks: commercial and investment, or at least two separate divisions in the same entity. The two types of banks attract different clients (that's how they make money). Commercial banks want average Joes with their $30,000 annual income to make deposits and occasionally get charged exorbitant fees; and investment banks want people with millions dollars worth of assets and provide strategies to invest in a very specific manners.
Now, eSports sponsorship doesn't actually sound like that bad of an idea for commercial banks (so we are talking about banks like Chase, BoA and Wells Fargo, and not Goldman and Morgan, not what you think of what you say "wall street" right?), especially if the target audience is composed of teens/adolescents. Shinhan bank actually sponsored quite a few OSLs and SPLs for SCBW, in attempt to attract younger clients who will hopefully open accounts.
In America, however, there is a very strong negativity associated with gaming, more often than not, it is seen as a manifestation of irresponsibility. You can argue how this is untrue, or how it's slowly changing, but that is still how most adults view video games (and they really can't tell or won't bother to tell the difference between Tetris and Starcraft). While sponsoring a progaming team might gain a decent number of clients down the road, it will inevitably lose a fair share as well. I just don't think it's worthwhile for commercial banks to make this types of risky investment.
Also, more importantly, I'm ultimately going to choose a commercial bank that offers me the most number of conveniences rather than some bank that sponsors an SC team. This. Starcraft is not large or accepted enough to really suit the serious image most banks want. This seems like a pipe dream like so many other "lets grow esports" ideas.
It's not even the image. It's simply not profitable. Why would a bank waste money sponsoring a team when there are so many better initiatives? I'm pretty sure a bank would do much better just donating the money to charity... there are tax breaks, and they also get a better public image with the general public.
|
On August 14 2012 01:48 finlurrrr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 01:43 karpo wrote:On August 14 2012 01:35 Cambium wrote:
There are in essence two types of banks: commercial and investment, or at least two separate divisions in the same entity. The two types of banks attract different clients (that's how they make money). Commercial banks want average Joes with their $30,000 annual income to make deposits and occasionally get charged exorbitant fees; and investment banks want people with millions dollars worth of assets and provide strategies to invest in a very specific manners.
Now, eSports sponsorship doesn't actually sound like that bad of an idea for commercial banks (so we are talking about banks like Chase, BoA and Wells Fargo, and not Goldman and Morgan, not what you think of what you say "wall street" right?), especially if the target audience is composed of teens/adolescents. Shinhan bank actually sponsored quite a few OSLs and SPLs for SCBW, in attempt to attract younger clients who will hopefully open accounts.
In America, however, there is a very strong negativity associated with gaming, more often than not, it is seen as a manifestation of irresponsibility. You can argue how this is untrue, or how it's slowly changing, but that is still how most adults view video games (and they really can't tell or won't bother to tell the difference between Tetris and Starcraft). While sponsoring a progaming team might gain a decent number of clients down the road, it will inevitably lose a fair share as well. I just don't think it's worthwhile for commercial banks to make this types of risky investment.
Also, more importantly, I'm ultimately going to choose a commercial bank that offers me the most number of conveniences rather than some bank that sponsors an SC team. This. Starcraft is not large or accepted enough to really suit the serious image most banks want. This seems like a pipe dream like so many other "lets grow esports" ideas. If you're right, and that banks would be throwing money behind a negative image, then can I ask if it's possible that we the starcraft community can change our public perception? Only in America do we have the image of antisocial, obese, lazy gamers who can't get laid while eating dorritos & slim jims. Can we somehow change our "image problem" to reflect the type of re-branding which Korean progamers somehow faced & overcame back in their hayday?
It's just not america. I live in sweden and i can tell you that gaming is mostly considered a time sink and something negative by the average population. It's not just america, it's most of the adult world...
|
On August 14 2012 01:26 finlurrrr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 01:23 mememolly wrote:On August 14 2012 01:17 Lonyo wrote:On August 14 2012 01:05 Cleomenes wrote:On August 14 2012 01:02 Chiharu Harukaze wrote:
The stickiness and rarity of people changing who they take their bank accounts and mortgages from mean that any return on investment is going to be incredibly low for banks. I highly doubt anyone is going to change their mortgage provider on the basis of an advertisement in Starcraft. I'm not even sure the target market has much to offer a financial institution in the first place. However E-sports fandom is full of young adults. These 20 somethings will be getting car loans, mortgages, etc. in the next few years. Now would be a good time to gain good publicity for the long game of bringing in young people. This is probably the best thing eSports has going for it as something for banks to invest in. It's the "right" market for a business which grabs you for the long haul. football has way more fans and over a more diverse range than 20 something, if I was a bank I'd invest in something like football not the niche that is esports, the return would be minimal compared with investing in football etc But your math is flawed and I could swap your argument around to say that the COST of investing in starcraft 2 would be MINIMAL compared to the cost of sponsoring the NFL, which would demand at least 8 figures at a minimum. You are looking at only the returns of the two investments. Next time, try looking at the costs/returns and analyzing them based on ROI.
I assume you have the ROI rates for "esports", please share dude
|
On August 14 2012 01:48 FairForever wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 01:26 finlurrrr wrote:On August 14 2012 01:23 mememolly wrote:On August 14 2012 01:17 Lonyo wrote:On August 14 2012 01:05 Cleomenes wrote:On August 14 2012 01:02 Chiharu Harukaze wrote:
The stickiness and rarity of people changing who they take their bank accounts and mortgages from mean that any return on investment is going to be incredibly low for banks. I highly doubt anyone is going to change their mortgage provider on the basis of an advertisement in Starcraft. I'm not even sure the target market has much to offer a financial institution in the first place. However E-sports fandom is full of young adults. These 20 somethings will be getting car loans, mortgages, etc. in the next few years. Now would be a good time to gain good publicity for the long game of bringing in young people. This is probably the best thing eSports has going for it as something for banks to invest in. It's the "right" market for a business which grabs you for the long haul. football has way more fans and over a more diverse range than 20 something, if I was a bank I'd invest in something like football not the niche that is esports, the return would be minimal compared with investing in football etc But your math is flawed and I could swap your argument around to say that the COST of investing in starcraft 2 would be MINIMAL compared to the cost of sponsoring the NFL, which would demand at least 8 figures at a minimum. You are looking at only the returns of the two investments. Next time, try looking at the costs/returns and analyzing them based on ROI. You have no actual application of this - Return On Investment is an important measure but has its limits. Firstly, you make the assumption that the Return On Investment would be high for teams. That is not true at all. FXOBoss has stated that he is happy that they aren't losing money - how do you think that banks will make money by sponsoring teams? And even if the return on investment was decent enough, sponsoring a single eSports team probably isn't even worth it for the banks. If they sink 1 million into it and get a return of 15%, that sounds great, but the time and effort to earn that 150k isn't worth it. There are a lot of transaction costs that go into any investment, and in this case, these costs would relate to the time, the people, etc. Lastly, ROI is not a comparative measure in many cases - the discount rates would have to be different, since these are long-term investments. The NFL is a relatively low-risk investment, especially right now where a new 10-year labour agreement has been signed. E-sports is a fucking high risk investment - I'd say if investors weren't projecting 30 - 40% growth each year for the next few years (and a lower terminal rate of course) it wouldn't be worth the risk. On the other hand, a sponsorship investment in the NFL... let's say realistically it costs 50million and they get a 7.5% ROI... well that's 3.75m. It's also a lower risk investment. I'm not sure how a bank would be able to promote. Personally, I'd go to the bank that would provide the lowest mortgage rate as opposed to the team with a .25% higher rate but sponsors Quantic... maybe it's just me but I'd rather save the $10,000... these aren't unique products we're talking about here. Now if you're saying banks should loan money to teams, I'm sure they would if they thought it was likely the teams could repay them. I wouldn't be surprised if a team like EG or dignitas did have some outstanding debts.
Wow what a technical and thoroughly detailed answer! Very much appreciated!
Secondly, do you know the ROI for Esports? (I ask because I assume you have a finance or accounting background)
|
While I'm all for getting more sponsors involved in esports, I'm not sure I would want banks to tarnish my hobby. Also, I think banking is way too conservative to get involved in something trendy like esports.
|
On August 14 2012 01:59 finlurrrr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 01:48 FairForever wrote:On August 14 2012 01:26 finlurrrr wrote:On August 14 2012 01:23 mememolly wrote:On August 14 2012 01:17 Lonyo wrote:On August 14 2012 01:05 Cleomenes wrote:On August 14 2012 01:02 Chiharu Harukaze wrote:
The stickiness and rarity of people changing who they take their bank accounts and mortgages from mean that any return on investment is going to be incredibly low for banks. I highly doubt anyone is going to change their mortgage provider on the basis of an advertisement in Starcraft. I'm not even sure the target market has much to offer a financial institution in the first place. However E-sports fandom is full of young adults. These 20 somethings will be getting car loans, mortgages, etc. in the next few years. Now would be a good time to gain good publicity for the long game of bringing in young people. This is probably the best thing eSports has going for it as something for banks to invest in. It's the "right" market for a business which grabs you for the long haul. football has way more fans and over a more diverse range than 20 something, if I was a bank I'd invest in something like football not the niche that is esports, the return would be minimal compared with investing in football etc But your math is flawed and I could swap your argument around to say that the COST of investing in starcraft 2 would be MINIMAL compared to the cost of sponsoring the NFL, which would demand at least 8 figures at a minimum. You are looking at only the returns of the two investments. Next time, try looking at the costs/returns and analyzing them based on ROI. You have no actual application of this - Return On Investment is an important measure but has its limits. Firstly, you make the assumption that the Return On Investment would be high for teams. That is not true at all. FXOBoss has stated that he is happy that they aren't losing money - how do you think that banks will make money by sponsoring teams? And even if the return on investment was decent enough, sponsoring a single eSports team probably isn't even worth it for the banks. If they sink 1 million into it and get a return of 15%, that sounds great, but the time and effort to earn that 150k isn't worth it. There are a lot of transaction costs that go into any investment, and in this case, these costs would relate to the time, the people, etc. Lastly, ROI is not a comparative measure in many cases - the discount rates would have to be different, since these are long-term investments. The NFL is a relatively low-risk investment, especially right now where a new 10-year labour agreement has been signed. E-sports is a fucking high risk investment - I'd say if investors weren't projecting 30 - 40% growth each year for the next few years (and a lower terminal rate of course) it wouldn't be worth the risk. On the other hand, a sponsorship investment in the NFL... let's say realistically it costs 50million and they get a 7.5% ROI... well that's 3.75m. It's also a lower risk investment. I'm not sure how a bank would be able to promote. Personally, I'd go to the bank that would provide the lowest mortgage rate as opposed to the team with a .25% higher rate but sponsors Quantic... maybe it's just me but I'd rather save the $10,000... these aren't unique products we're talking about here. Now if you're saying banks should loan money to teams, I'm sure they would if they thought it was likely the teams could repay them. I wouldn't be surprised if a team like EG or dignitas did have some outstanding debts. Wow what a technical and thoroughly detailed answer! Very much appreciated! Secondly, do you know the ROI for Esports? (I ask because I assume you have a finance or accounting background)
There is no simple "ROI for esports," just like there is no specific ROI for anything.
|
On August 14 2012 01:59 finlurrrr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 01:48 FairForever wrote:On August 14 2012 01:26 finlurrrr wrote:On August 14 2012 01:23 mememolly wrote:On August 14 2012 01:17 Lonyo wrote:On August 14 2012 01:05 Cleomenes wrote:On August 14 2012 01:02 Chiharu Harukaze wrote:
The stickiness and rarity of people changing who they take their bank accounts and mortgages from mean that any return on investment is going to be incredibly low for banks. I highly doubt anyone is going to change their mortgage provider on the basis of an advertisement in Starcraft. I'm not even sure the target market has much to offer a financial institution in the first place. However E-sports fandom is full of young adults. These 20 somethings will be getting car loans, mortgages, etc. in the next few years. Now would be a good time to gain good publicity for the long game of bringing in young people. This is probably the best thing eSports has going for it as something for banks to invest in. It's the "right" market for a business which grabs you for the long haul. football has way more fans and over a more diverse range than 20 something, if I was a bank I'd invest in something like football not the niche that is esports, the return would be minimal compared with investing in football etc But your math is flawed and I could swap your argument around to say that the COST of investing in starcraft 2 would be MINIMAL compared to the cost of sponsoring the NFL, which would demand at least 8 figures at a minimum. You are looking at only the returns of the two investments. Next time, try looking at the costs/returns and analyzing them based on ROI. You have no actual application of this - Return On Investment is an important measure but has its limits. Firstly, you make the assumption that the Return On Investment would be high for teams. That is not true at all. FXOBoss has stated that he is happy that they aren't losing money - how do you think that banks will make money by sponsoring teams? And even if the return on investment was decent enough, sponsoring a single eSports team probably isn't even worth it for the banks. If they sink 1 million into it and get a return of 15%, that sounds great, but the time and effort to earn that 150k isn't worth it. There are a lot of transaction costs that go into any investment, and in this case, these costs would relate to the time, the people, etc. Lastly, ROI is not a comparative measure in many cases - the discount rates would have to be different, since these are long-term investments. The NFL is a relatively low-risk investment, especially right now where a new 10-year labour agreement has been signed. E-sports is a fucking high risk investment - I'd say if investors weren't projecting 30 - 40% growth each year for the next few years (and a lower terminal rate of course) it wouldn't be worth the risk. On the other hand, a sponsorship investment in the NFL... let's say realistically it costs 50million and they get a 7.5% ROI... well that's 3.75m. It's also a lower risk investment. I'm not sure how a bank would be able to promote. Personally, I'd go to the bank that would provide the lowest mortgage rate as opposed to the team with a .25% higher rate but sponsors Quantic... maybe it's just me but I'd rather save the $10,000... these aren't unique products we're talking about here. Now if you're saying banks should loan money to teams, I'm sure they would if they thought it was likely the teams could repay them. I wouldn't be surprised if a team like EG or dignitas did have some outstanding debts. Wow what a technical and thoroughly detailed answer! Very much appreciated! Secondly, do you know the ROI for Esports? (I ask because I assume you have a finance or accounting background)
There's no ROI on e-sports, I'm talking about a general term to refer to the ROI of sponsoring the (arguably) most profitable teams out there.
EG might be an exception but I couldn't see any other team actually being truly profitable.
|
On August 14 2012 01:55 mememolly wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 01:26 finlurrrr wrote:On August 14 2012 01:23 mememolly wrote:On August 14 2012 01:17 Lonyo wrote:On August 14 2012 01:05 Cleomenes wrote:On August 14 2012 01:02 Chiharu Harukaze wrote:
The stickiness and rarity of people changing who they take their bank accounts and mortgages from mean that any return on investment is going to be incredibly low for banks. I highly doubt anyone is going to change their mortgage provider on the basis of an advertisement in Starcraft. I'm not even sure the target market has much to offer a financial institution in the first place. However E-sports fandom is full of young adults. These 20 somethings will be getting car loans, mortgages, etc. in the next few years. Now would be a good time to gain good publicity for the long game of bringing in young people. This is probably the best thing eSports has going for it as something for banks to invest in. It's the "right" market for a business which grabs you for the long haul. football has way more fans and over a more diverse range than 20 something, if I was a bank I'd invest in something like football not the niche that is esports, the return would be minimal compared with investing in football etc But your math is flawed and I could swap your argument around to say that the COST of investing in starcraft 2 would be MINIMAL compared to the cost of sponsoring the NFL, which would demand at least 8 figures at a minimum. You are looking at only the returns of the two investments. Next time, try looking at the costs/returns and analyzing them based on ROI. I assume you have the ROI rates for "esports", please share dude
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/b/5/5/b55db916a139ae9414b79713f0a9288f.png)
Like I said in the original solicitation--we have to pitch our idea to the banks that for a few hundred thousand dollars, they can build up their good will with the American public--just like BP did after the oil spill. We are not only appealing to their ROI, but also to their social consciousness.
|
But the only problem with my above post, is that we have to deal with the negative perception facing progamers as fat, lazy slobs. What if we politely asked Quantic or Eclypsia to add a few seats to the bench and strategically fill them with a progamer who was a cripple, one in a wheelchair, one who identifies as LGBQ, one with down syndrome, and one refugee-immigrant sob story?
That could successfully take care of re-branding the professional starcraft community and setting ourselves up for a "goodwill sponsor" am I right?
|
On August 14 2012 02:03 finlurrrr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 01:55 mememolly wrote:On August 14 2012 01:26 finlurrrr wrote:On August 14 2012 01:23 mememolly wrote:On August 14 2012 01:17 Lonyo wrote:On August 14 2012 01:05 Cleomenes wrote:On August 14 2012 01:02 Chiharu Harukaze wrote:
The stickiness and rarity of people changing who they take their bank accounts and mortgages from mean that any return on investment is going to be incredibly low for banks. I highly doubt anyone is going to change their mortgage provider on the basis of an advertisement in Starcraft. I'm not even sure the target market has much to offer a financial institution in the first place. However E-sports fandom is full of young adults. These 20 somethings will be getting car loans, mortgages, etc. in the next few years. Now would be a good time to gain good publicity for the long game of bringing in young people. This is probably the best thing eSports has going for it as something for banks to invest in. It's the "right" market for a business which grabs you for the long haul. football has way more fans and over a more diverse range than 20 something, if I was a bank I'd invest in something like football not the niche that is esports, the return would be minimal compared with investing in football etc But your math is flawed and I could swap your argument around to say that the COST of investing in starcraft 2 would be MINIMAL compared to the cost of sponsoring the NFL, which would demand at least 8 figures at a minimum. You are looking at only the returns of the two investments. Next time, try looking at the costs/returns and analyzing them based on ROI. I assume you have the ROI rates for "esports", please share dude Like I said in the original solicitation--we have to pitch our idea to the banks that for a few hundred thousand dollars, they can build up their good will with the American public--just like BP did after the oil spill. We are not only appealing to their ROI, but also to their social consciousness.
I assume you have evidence that the ROI would be high for an investment of "a few hundred thousand dollars" and that by investing in esports it will build the good will of the American public
Edit: oh wait I just read your above post, you're trolling, GJ
|
On August 14 2012 02:09 finlurrrr wrote:
But the only problem with my above post, is that we have to deal with the negative perception facing progamers as fat, lazy slobs. What if we politely asked Quantic or Eclypsia to add a few seats to the bench and strategically fill them with a progamer who was a cripple, one in a wheelchair, one who identifies as LGBQ, one with down syndrome, and one refugee-immigrant sob story?
That could successfully take care of re-branding the professional starcraft community and setting ourselves up for a "goodwill sponsor" am I right?
This again is a ludicrous idea, it seems to me like you are a very nieve person so let me give you a reality check, 99% of the world have no idea who Quantic or Eclypsia or any other progaming team are. There is practically nothing they could do that would get them mainstream attention in out current social situation. Like others have said people dont take video games seriously and therefore a video game team/tournament is viewed in a similar light to a Star Trek convention or fan club, yes there is potential for E-Sports to become a mainstream form of entertainment but it will take a shift in the public perception and this cant be achieved by any number of small or grand gestures such as the ones you suggested, it will take time and it may not happen at all unless the existing fanbase stays interested and continues to grow.
It is a nice idea but the sad fact is most of the world isn't ready for E-Sports as a mainstream form of entertainment. Except South Korea... somehow.
Edit; not sure if troll ;~/
|
On August 14 2012 02:24 MrF wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 02:09 finlurrrr wrote:
But the only problem with my above post, is that we have to deal with the negative perception facing progamers as fat, lazy slobs. What if we politely asked Quantic or Eclypsia to add a few seats to the bench and strategically fill them with a progamer who was a cripple, one in a wheelchair, one who identifies as LGBQ, one with down syndrome, and one refugee-immigrant sob story?
That could successfully take care of re-branding the professional starcraft community and setting ourselves up for a "goodwill sponsor" am I right? This again is a ludicrous idea, it seems to me like you are a very nieve person so let me give you a reality check, 99% of the world have no idea who Quantic or Eclypsia or any other progaming team are there is practically nothing they could do that would get them mainstream attention in out current social situation. Like others have said people dont take video games seriously and therefor a video game team/tournament is viewed in a similar light to a Star Trek convention or fan club yes there is potential for E-Sports to become a mainstream form of entertainment but it will take a shift in the public perception and this cant be achieved by any number of small or grand gestures such as the ones you suggested, it will take time and it may not happen at all unless the existing fanbase stays interested and continues to grow. It is a nice idea but the sad fact is most of the world isn't ready for E-Sports as a mainstream form of entertainment. Except South Korea... somehow. Edit; not sure if troll ;~/
I don't know if I fully agree with you. I got the idea from actuarial outpost, where I read that banks have the perfect opportunity to waste money on generating goodwill.
Banks have:
*idle capital
*no profitable alternative
*negative public image (akin to BP after the Apr 25th 2010 oil spill)
The top profitable banks are sitting on BILLIONS of capital, ready to invest. Banks might have to wait out this recession OR they can get in early (for pennies on the dollar) to invest in Esports which is a solidly risky investment, which could become as big as NASCAR racing or as big as MMA fighting! The growth of Esports is actually happening, which I'm sure nobody disagrees with. The question is whether banks have an incentive to invest a few hundred thousand dollars into an emerging market with huge consumer potential.
If banks weren't sitting on billions of dollars of idle capital; facing zero profitable alternatives; and, mitigating a negative public image, then I'd lessen my optimism and scale back my warranted optimism about soliciting the big banks for profitable sponsorship opportunities if the Esports market were to boom!
If we offered the investment package in a documentary-style format, and followed the same structure & tone of the "Liquid Rising" storyline, then I think we could skim the various mission statements of several big banks and pitch the idea to them on the basis of ROI and of accruing public goodwill.
|
The OP's points are fluid enough for me to suspect he's trolling.
|
This would likely generate no, if not negative return on their investment. Also this would generate zero, if not negative public goodwill. The investment makes sense for electronics where their involvement would produce business potential, even if they (most likely) lose money on the investment. Banks don't operate like that, and there is no person who considers esports connection when choosing a bank (even I as someone who followed esports since Grrrr... would not do something that dumb).
|
On August 14 2012 02:43 bonifaceviii wrote:
The OP's points are fluid enough for me to suspect he's trolling.
I've been a member for four months and this is my first thread. If you have suspicions, please share them. Otherwise, just keep speculation to yourself while my ideas are vetted by the starcraft community (while they are taking breaks from watching the TSL4 Ro16 live stream, hopefully).
|
On August 14 2012 02:44 ragz_gt wrote:
This would likely generate no, if not negative return on their investment. Also this would generate zero, if not negative public goodwill. The investment makes sense for electronics where their involvement would produce business potential, even if they (most likely) lose money on the investment. Banks don't operate like that, and there is no person who considers esports connection when choosing a bank (even I as someone who followed esports since Grrrr... would not do something that dumb).
Thanks for this feedback. I'm accepting the idea that this might be negatively profitable. I'm also accepting the idea that it will not generate goodwill due to the negative image which progamers face. How can we change the image problem facing the starcraft community so that we can appeal to disgruntled corporations looking to spend a few hundred k's in order to invest in their own goodwill by sponsoring Esports?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
