|
I read a thread on www.actuarialoutpost.com (a banker's forum) about how banks are sitting on cash reserves, can't get a decent ROI (return on investment) due to the terrible US economy ($15 trillion in debt, 8% unemployment, guys like Eduardo Saverin & other billionaires taking their money out of US economy, etc.) and how he said now is a perfect time for banks to "give away money" to generate good will.
Banks are sitting on record profits, not loaning to anybody, and having to wait out this recession for another 1-5 years before they can start plowing their money back into the US economy. With the amount of negative publicity they have gotten from the numerous bailouts & investments in Greek debt (source) I think banks are a suitable target for esports. They are profitable, idle, and have a bunch of unsettled "bad will" they could lift off their shoulders by tossing a few dollars toward starcraft 2.
The same way BP did lots of public relations stunts to garner good publicity, I think banks are just as eager to invest in their brand image. So my question to the starcraft community is whether you think it's a good idea for those of us who actually have jobs & work 40 hours/week to solicit investments from wall street to adequately capitalize a growing industry of esports. I think sponsorships from redbull or headphones corporations are missing the element of growth inherent in eSports. As moletrap said in this video, the driving interest of capitalization of Esports is by singling out sponsors who recognize the explosive growth potential of esports.
With 25% of young adults unemployed or underemployed, that statistic shows how powerful of an atmosphere has been created by this bad economy. People under 35 will eventually have to get jobs down the road, and we will be loyal to the companies who catered to us during the 1-2 years after college we had to move back in and live in our parents basement, lol. But seriously you guys, I really think we should grow esports to the same consumer levels as MMA wrestling or nascar racing.
When I watch the documentary "Liquid Rising" I can't help but get excited to think of the powerful explosion of economic growth if we pitched a documentary-style solicitation to a handful of multi-billion dollar banks to invest 10% in the growth, maturation, and optimization of an emerging Esports market! I want Esports to become bigger, better, and with larger prize pools!
|
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.
|
trust me, if e-sports is a good investment, banks would of already been in it. Don't get me wrong, e-sports will be very succesful in the future, but right now its not a good investment. Its all about timing and banks got that in the bag.
|
E-sports is barely in the realm of venture capital, and you're shooting for institutional investment. Try again in a few years.
|
To be more specific, I'd be asking banks to sponsor teams like Quantic or Eclypsia so they can move into a more baller house with maids, coaches, mentors, travel agents, masseuses, and groupies (live-in "booth girls"). This alone can get people to change their major at college or drop out to live a baller lifestyle at one of the extravagantly funded team houses. This one idea could literally make SC2 about 10x more appealing to talented SC2 players compared to the broodwar generation where compensation & allure are basically equal...
|
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.
|
On August 14 2012 01:04 finlurrrr wrote:
To be more specific, I'd be asking banks to sponsor teams like Quantic or Eclypsia so they can move into a more baller house with maids, coaches, mentors, travel agents, masseuses, and groupies (live-in "booth girls"). This alone can get people to change their major at college or drop out to live a baller lifestyle at one of the extravagantly funded team houses. This one idea could literally make SC2 about 10x more appealing to talented SC2 players compared to the broodwar generation where compensation & allure are basically equal...
Did you write this with a straight face?
|
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.
On August 14 2012 01:03 sekritzzz wrote:
trust me, if e-sports is a good investment, banks would of already been in it. Don't get me wrong, e-sports will be very succesful in the future, but right now its not a good investment. Its all about timing and banks got that in the bag.
On August 14 2012 01:03 bonifaceviii wrote:
E-sports is barely in the realm of venture capital, and you're shooting for institutional investment. Try again in a few years.
Thanks for the constructive criticism you guys. I appreciate your feedback and will work harder to make my idea more appealing and reasonable to both the players and to the banks. 
|
Banks have invested into Esports. Where do you Sundance got his 11 million from?
|
On August 14 2012 01:05 FreddYCooL wrote:
On August 14 2012 01:04 finlurrrr wrote:
To be more specific, I'd be asking banks to sponsor teams like Quantic or Eclypsia so they can move into a more baller house with maids, coaches, mentors, travel agents, masseuses, and groupies (live-in "booth girls"). This alone can get people to change their major at college or drop out to live a baller lifestyle at one of the extravagantly funded team houses. This one idea could literally make SC2 about 10x more appealing to talented SC2 players compared to the broodwar generation where compensation & allure are basically equal...
Did you write this with a straight face?
Yes, have you ever heard of Andrew Robl and his site? The ultimate baller lifestyle originated in poker when the first wave of early adopters started making money hand over fist, which is what professional MMA fighters and professional NASCAR drivers make. Without big sponsors (no offense to low-level sponsors like razer headphones or red bull vitamin water) the average compensation for an SC2 pro will be in the same ballpark as a brood war pro.
Thanks for your constructive feedback. I hope I answered your valid criticism well.
|
On August 14 2012 01:06 McFeser wrote:
Banks have invested into Esports. Where do you Sundance got his 11 million from?
Do you have a source for this?
|
On August 14 2012 01:10 finlurrrr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 01:06 McFeser wrote:
Banks have invested into Esports. Where do you Sundance got his 11 million from? Do you have a source for this?
I think he meant as in he took out a loan.... not that they gave it to him for free...
|
On August 14 2012 01:10 finlurrrr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 01:06 McFeser wrote:
Banks have invested into Esports. Where do you Sundance got his 11 million from? Do you have a source for this?
His wrong. Sundance got it from venture capital. MLG would not be able to afford to pay of high interest rates.
|
On August 14 2012 01:05 Cleomenes wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On August 14 2012 01:17 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
On August 14 2012 01:17 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Not to mention that it appeals to an even more specific demographic than youngins: nerds. I'm not sure what the demographics are, but surely nerds are more likely to have money for and spend money on things like computer parts and games, right? Surely nerds are more likely to go into fields like programming and systems management which will feature large growth in the future, right?
|
On August 14 2012 01:23 mememolly wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Hold on folks. It's really easy to listen to this and instantly think it's a bad idea, but let's examine how this could work. I don't think anyone disputes that razor blades have nothing to do with video gaming or e-sports, but Gillette still plays commercials during MLG, as does Bic, I believe.
This would have to be something small where we can guarantee an ROI for the bank, and it might be easy. One of the first things a young kid will do once he gets a job is get a bank account. I think a 15-30 second MLG ad, even one that is generic and pre-built, might reach an audience that banks don't typically get. What about the subset of 18-22 year old college students that choose not to own a TV (like myself).
Furthermore, while I prefer the taste of Monster to Redbull, I really enjoyed the Redbull battleground, and so I choose to purchase Redbull. It's more than just advertising when it's e-sports, it's a sense of endearment that TV commercials don't bring as easily. This MIGHT be sell-able. It would just take the right guy.
To the OP, however, I do NOT think that a large-scale investment would be wise for a financial institution at this time.
|
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 would 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.
|
On August 14 2012 01:35 diplomatten wrote:
Hold on folks. It's really easy to listen to this and instantly think it's a bad idea, but let's examine how this could work. I don't think anyone disputes that razor blades have nothing to do with video gaming or e-sports, but Gillette still plays commercials during MLG, as does Bic, I believe.
[...]
Thanks for the first positive criticism I've gotten today! Thanks!
|
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?
|
How about we just rob banks. I'm sure some of us are good hackers.
If they banks are sitting on so much money, why not hack into them and transfer the money to 10000 separate accounts across the globe. Then divide the money further, buy a ton of swag with it, sell the swag for street profit. And now we have a lot of cash money we can deposit into one large bank account for eSports.
|
On August 14 2012 02:57 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
How about we just rob banks. I'm sure some of us are good hackers.
If they banks are sitting on so much money, why not hack into them and transfer the money to 10000 separate accounts across the globe. Then divide the money further, buy a ton of swag with it, sell the swag for street profit. And now we have a lot of cash money we can deposit into one large bank account for eSports.
That's what FullTiltPoker tried to do and the FBI shut 'em down. Your idea was funny but unhelpful. :/
|
Why do I and bonifaceviii think you're trolling? Here's why. Did you REALLY suggest that we should add members of the disabled and under represented minorities to teams so that banks would sponsor esports? I don't want to sound rude but you should really consider your thoughts some more before you hit the post button. -insult removed- You're certainly not viewing the problem with the growth of esports from the right perspective, nor do I feel you are asking the right questions. Here's what you're suggesting: I have a meeting with an important investor at a bank.
I say "Sir/Ma'am, I have an investment proposition for you"
"What is it?"
"I think you should invest into the emerging market of eSports, competitive gaming. The market is for people in the age range of 18-28 who are mostly from the middle class with internet access."
"Sounds interesting, why would this be a good idea?"
"Because the biggest teams in the scene just added a disabled war vet, a homosexual, and a cancer patient and I know how much you value good will"
"..."
|
On August 14 2012 03:10 phiinix wrote:
Why do I and bonifaceviii think you're trolling? Here's why. Did you REALLY suggest that we should add members of the disabled and under represented minorities to teams so that banks would sponsor esports? I don't want to sound rude but you should really consider your thoughts some more before you hit the post button. -insult removed- You're certainly not viewing the problem with the growth of esports from the right perspective, nor do I feel you are asking the right questions. Here's what you're suggesting: I have a meeting with an important investor at a bank.
I say "Sir/Ma'am, I have an investment proposition for you"
"What is it?"
"I think you should invest into the emerging market of eSports, competitive gaming. The market is for people in the age range of 18-28 who are mostly from the middle class with internet access."
"Sounds interesting, why would this be a good idea?"
"Because the biggest teams in the scene just added a disabled war vet, a homosexual, and a cancer patient and I know how much you value good will"
"..."
Sorry I thought you knew my reference to down syndrome was a joke. I'm trying to say we need players who have a marketable appeal (someone who overcame a hardship, or someone who comes from a minority group). The rest of my post was serious, and I believe I asked the right question in my most recent post before this one:
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?
|
I can only imagine
GS acquires Evil Geniuses
GSIdrA
There is way too much hate on EG and if they merged with GS there would be 2x more haters
Conclusion = Bad Idea :D
|
I say we change the image by highlighting lessor known (and possibly lessor skilled) starcraft 2 progamers. I'm thinking to poker when during the WSOP coverage they went in-depth to poker players who were fighting cancer, or were blind, or were very likeable.
Poker also has a bad image. Recently there was an NFL umpire who lost her job because she competed in a gambling competition at the WSOP.
There are also gruesome, shark killing tournaments sponsored by Budweiser & 12 other national brands: http://www.makomanianj.com/ & youtube.com/watch?v=XaZjmT8mHbU
Maybe my idea is too unoriginal. That means we just gotta get creative or scrap my idea and let somebody else propose a better one. If SC2 is going to get exponential growth, then an SC2 progamer should make about 10x as much money compared to a Brood War progamer, so that they can have a "baller lifestyle" which creates the same envy as poker has done for Elky, RainKhan, Grrrr, or Rekrul.
Banks have the perfect storm of conditions being met right now for such an idea to pass their feasibility test...
|
Last thing I want in something I love is banks who's only goal is to maximize profit and their investment.
|
In the long run, investing in e-sports is not really appealing due to the nature of IP rights and laws of software. Major banks want to make sure they can maximize success to generate high millions or billions before they invest into it. If there is that much money going around in e-sports, you can assume the companies with the IP rights to the games that are in e-sports want some of that money too. Even though I don't know the exact figures of what's going on around e-sports right now, it pales in comparison to other markets banks can invest in.
|
How about pushing them off a cliff?
|
On August 14 2012 04:05 ImAbstracT wrote:
Last thing I want in something I love is banks who's only goal is to maximize profit and their investment.
the same goal anyone throwing an sc2 tournament, don't kid yourself.
|
You guys are looking at this the wrong way. It's not about whether the investment pays off compared to typical investments. It's about how much publicity they can generate from it. The point is that you have SO many people playing games and a relatively large audience considering you'd be pitching 200k in the direction of a tournament and getting at least 100k viewers (across multiple games) in the young, not yet commited adults category. These guys are usually tech savy or at least college level educated and prime targets for their marketing. Being the "cool bank which understands you" could mean a big surge in that relatively weakly explored area. More importantly, these are highly socially active people, no matter the stereotypical image. Sports brings people together, we have Twitter and Facebook and therefore easily measurable indicators. As currently the usual ROI can't be achieved with typical investements, the budget for "charity" and whatever image improving things they have should at the same time increase (as it's measured against it's opportunity cost as well) AND banks just got hit by about a dozen PR disasters over the last two years. They need the trust back and they won't get it from the people they screwed over the last 20 years. Mind you, any consumer bank relies on average Joe's money and even the pure investment banks would have a hard time without those banks and therefore their money. At the very least this is worth a shot, put in 500k and see where it goes, I can't see any reason not to given the circumstances. Just remember, it only makes sense for banks with a lot of consumer business. Citi probably won't care 
|
Money goes to where it can grow, not to where it's needed. Demonstrate the industry will generate a profit and money will flow in naturally.
|
On August 14 2012 02:15 mememolly wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 02:03 finlurrrr wrote: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
I think he edited the post to make it obvious it was a troll (ie. adding the part about Liquid Rising), it wasn't very obvious from the original post.
|
TBH I know 2 teams of SC2 right now, Team Liquid and EG. And that's just because I come to this site so... yeah. -_-"
|
well untill esports has gained some recognition it just not gonna happen. From a bankers point of view he doesnt even know if giving money to esports will generate positive reaction from the public. I mean usual video gamers are kids, banks dont care about their opinion. On the other side they care about their parents opinion and that might be counter productive. I mean for example: wtf that bank is doing donating money to those stupid video game contests, now my stupid son will spend even more time playing those stupid video games.
|
On August 14 2012 01:16 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 01:10 finlurrrr wrote:On August 14 2012 01:06 McFeser wrote:
Banks have invested into Esports. Where do you Sundance got his 11 million from? Do you have a source for this? His wrong. Sundance got it from venture capital. MLG would not be able to afford to pay of high interest rates.
Pretty much every major bank, be it commerical or investment focused has a private equity firm, so in a sense venture capitalism is part of the broader spectrum of banking.
|
Nope, we are not looking it at the wrong way, it's more about how people try to sell or pitch their idea to investors. Investors might like the ideas, but that's different from relying on people to carry out those ideas. Running a business, in this case, an industry, is totally different than having good ideas for it. You can give numbers, plans, ideas, suggestions, but if you don't have the right attitude and communication skills, no one is going to invest in you. There are going to be many problems and issues that will come up from investing in e-sports, and when people decide to invest in it, they would want someone else to make sure that those issues get taken care of as best they can. Although I know that the thread opener is not planning to run e-sports, most likely... it's the same about winning a statement though. You have an idea/statement, sell us on it.
|
On August 14 2012 05:50 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 01:16 Hider wrote:On August 14 2012 01:10 finlurrrr wrote:On August 14 2012 01:06 McFeser wrote:
Banks have invested into Esports. Where do you Sundance got his 11 million from? Do you have a source for this? His wrong. Sundance got it from venture capital. MLG would not be able to afford to pay of high interest rates. There's not really much of a difference between most investment and commercial banks nowadays, so in a sense venture capitalism is part of banking.
Yeah VC fills a completely different role to traditional banking, be it investment or commercial. Seriously. Look up Dawn Capital, do some reading, stop posting rubbish. There is a huge difference between taking deposits/making loans/handling bond issuance/making 'bets' on the markets to what VC does.
This thread is a joke. You're not going to get banks to sponsor 'E-sports' and to be honest I don't see why you'd want too. All we've seen so far is a load of tournament organisers throwing money down a black hole. If the scene can't sustain itself, its not good for anyone in the long run, and I don't think we're a banks a target audience at this stage -_-
|
As some one with an actual background in finance and accounting, this by far has been the most humorous thread of the day for me. Not just the obvious ignorance of financial terms, but the clutch moment was the posting of MIRR to satisfy the search for ROI.
|
On August 14 2012 05:58 Trowa127 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 05:50 1Eris1 wrote:On August 14 2012 01:16 Hider wrote:On August 14 2012 01:10 finlurrrr wrote:On August 14 2012 01:06 McFeser wrote:
Banks have invested into Esports. Where do you Sundance got his 11 million from? Do you have a source for this? His wrong. Sundance got it from venture capital. MLG would not be able to afford to pay of high interest rates. There's not really much of a difference between most investment and commercial banks nowadays, so in a sense venture capitalism is part of banking. Yeah VC fills a completely different role to traditional banking, be it investment or commercial. Seriously. Look up Dawn Capital, do some reading, stop posting rubbish. There is a huge difference between taking deposits/making loans/handling bond issuance/making 'bets' on the markets to what VC does. This thread is a joke. You're not going to get banks to sponsor 'E-sports' and to be honest I don't see why you'd want too. All we've seen so far is a load of tournament organisers throwing money down a black hole. If the scene can't sustain itself, its not good for anyone in the long run, and I don't think we're a banks a target audience at this stage -_-
I never said it wasn't different from traditional banking? All I was pointing out is that the two are much more intertwinned and most of them operate their own private equity firms, or at least have substantial dealings with them. If Sundance didn't get his investments directly from private individuals, he probably dealt with a "bank" in one way or another.
edit: you're right, my first post was pretty badly worded.
|
On August 14 2012 03:00 finlurrrr wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 02:57 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
How about we just rob banks. I'm sure some of us are good hackers.
If they banks are sitting on so much money, why not hack into them and transfer the money to 10000 separate accounts across the globe. Then divide the money further, buy a ton of swag with it, sell the swag for street profit. And now we have a lot of cash money we can deposit into one large bank account for eSports. Your idea was funny but unhelpful. :/
That's basically what the banks are going to say if anyone with power in a bank sees this. Unfortunately, a high level member of a bank will not take investment advice from what they see as gamer kids on an online forum.
Why don't we just come to the conclusion that eSports is growing slowly, but not dying, and will be big one day. But not tomorrow. Is that so bad?
|
On August 14 2012 06:51 Gogleion wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 03:00 finlurrrr wrote:On August 14 2012 02:57 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
How about we just rob banks. I'm sure some of us are good hackers.
If they banks are sitting on so much money, why not hack into them and transfer the money to 10000 separate accounts across the globe. Then divide the money further, buy a ton of swag with it, sell the swag for street profit. And now we have a lot of cash money we can deposit into one large bank account for eSports. Your idea was funny but unhelpful. :/ That's basically what the banks are going to say if anyone with power in a bank sees this. Unfortunately, a high level member of a bank will not take investment advice from what they see as gamer kids on an online forum. Why don't we just come to the conclusion that eSports is growing slowly, but not dying, and will be big one day. But not tomorrow. Is that so bad?
As opposed to ... "actual" gamer kids on an online forum ?
|
I think esports is far too young to have banks investing in it, imagine if wells fargo investoed 100 mil into esports and only got a few mil back? Do you think anyone would ever touch it again? probably not, and that would really suck.
We just have to wait patiently for everyone in the world to realize how great this is and the big sponsors will come naturally i think.
|
On August 14 2012 07:27 Oaky wrote:
I think esports is far too young to have banks investing in it, imagine if wells fargo investoed 100 mil into esports and only got a few mil back? Do you think anyone would ever touch it again? probably not, and that would really suck.
We just have to wait patiently for everyone in the world to realize how great this is and the big sponsors will come naturally i think.
From an investing standpoint, how is it great ?
|
On August 14 2012 07:20 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 06:51 Gogleion wrote:On August 14 2012 03:00 finlurrrr wrote:On August 14 2012 02:57 FeUerFlieGe wrote:
How about we just rob banks. I'm sure some of us are good hackers.
If they banks are sitting on so much money, why not hack into them and transfer the money to 10000 separate accounts across the globe. Then divide the money further, buy a ton of swag with it, sell the swag for street profit. And now we have a lot of cash money we can deposit into one large bank account for eSports. Your idea was funny but unhelpful. :/ That's basically what the banks are going to say if anyone with power in a bank sees this. Unfortunately, a high level member of a bank will not take investment advice from what they see as gamer kids on an online forum. Why don't we just come to the conclusion that eSports is growing slowly, but not dying, and will be big one day. But not tomorrow. Is that so bad? As opposed to ... "actual" gamer kids on an online forum ?
Well not everyone here is a 'gamer kid' and a lot of people here are smart about money/investments, so I didn't want to stereotype everyone here as that. But I believe a skeptical outsider will see a community like this as 'gamer kids'.
|
Try to convince them it will generate growth like the energy drink market and maybe they'll bite. Have to appeal to their desire to make money. You'll need to figure out a good profit model for teams as well if you want banks to invest. Anyway, I wish you the best of luck in this endeavor.
|
Starcraft 2 is not esports, and it never will be. And thank god for that. The things I love about starcraft are the things that differentiate it from games like League of Legends.
|
Am not sure if banks should be eager to sponsor sc.
Manny people in the working world still see playing video games as a huge waste of time for the yought.
I believe in china consoles are even banned to protect the younger generation from them.
Sc and videogames are definatly on the way up but reality is that manny people see it as basicly a waste of time and would rather have young people spend their time on other things.
No clue if this is a reason why banks are holding off, but i can imagine it could be one.
|
If you think young 20 year olds would choose a bank over another because one supports competitive gaming, then you are either delirious of the power of money, or that 20 year old is an imbecile in money management. To me, a bank sponsoring esports is a sign of desperation for them to capture or penetrate into the 18 - 30 year old audience.
Yes this audience are likely to apply for their first loans and accounts, but to say you chose a bank that's going to manage your money and credit even slightly because it supports esports is like saying esports affected how you manage your money.
|
Yeah.. I feel like e-sports isn't nearly as mainstream enough as it needs to be for that kind of sponsorship yet.
|
Trust the banks to securitise the teams and then create an entire secondary market for trading shares of sc2 teams, no thanks. Banks dont give a shit whether or not esport succeeds, the moment it becomes unprofitable they will ditch the scene so fast esports will be pushed back a few years.
|
Funnily enough, the recession was part of the reason why eSports caught on so well in Korea.
But why would banks want to loan to the demographic normally associated with eSports? So that they can take tons of students loans for a college degree that well not help them find a job with which to pay back the student loan they took out? Doesn't sound like a winning investment for the banks to me.
|
On August 14 2012 01:05 FreddYCooL wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 01:04 finlurrrr wrote:
To be more specific, I'd be asking banks to sponsor teams like Quantic or Eclypsia so they can move into a more baller house with maids, coaches, mentors, travel agents, masseuses, and groupies (live-in "booth girls"). This alone can get people to change their major at college or drop out to live a baller lifestyle at one of the extravagantly funded team houses. This one idea could literally make SC2 about 10x more appealing to talented SC2 players compared to the broodwar generation where compensation & allure are basically equal... Did you write this with a straight face?
Rofl. Your argument is that the banks should support students to change their major at college (to SC2? lol) or drop out of school. So everyone who wants to be a progamer instantly get S-class treatment, even the B-team practice partners? Also, why shouldn't the compensation and allure be equal? Besides that, the amount of compensation for the work put in is all relative. SC was attractive to Rekrul and Elky until they found out they can make way more money playing poker.
|
On August 14 2012 01:03 sekritzzz wrote:
trust me, if e-sports is a good investment, banks would of already been in it. Don't get me wrong, e-sports will be very succesful in the future, but right now its not a good investment. Its all about timing and banks got that in the bag.
how can you say this? it's highly likely that the people in charge of giving money to organizations that relate to esports never occurred to them. I bet you they dont even know what esports is.
|
I'd rather spend my time pushing Activision Blizzard to actually design a better e-sport game. But that time would most likely end up wasted.
|
On August 14 2012 13:06 emc wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 01:03 sekritzzz wrote:
trust me, if e-sports is a good investment, banks would of already been in it. Don't get me wrong, e-sports will be very succesful in the future, but right now its not a good investment. Its all about timing and banks got that in the bag. how can you say this? it's highly likely that the people in charge of giving money to organizations that relate to esports never occurred to them. I bet you they dont even know what esports is.
That's the thing though. If they haven't heard of it, it's not worth investing in it. They're banks, not venture capitalists. It's not their job to try to make money in a market they're unfamiliar with.
|
its all about viewer numbers. banks won't care for at most 50k (sometimes a little more but not enough) viewers for a sc2 game.
|
On August 15 2012 05:24 zimz wrote:
its all about viewer numbers. banks won't care for at most 50k (sometimes a little more but not enough) viewers for a sc2 game.
especially for the demographic with the least income.
|
On August 14 2012 01:16 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 01:10 finlurrrr wrote:On August 14 2012 01:06 McFeser wrote:
Banks have invested into Esports. Where do you Sundance got his 11 million from? Do you have a source for this? His wrong. Sundance got it from venture capital. MLG would not be able to afford to pay of high interest rates.
VC costs > loan interest. The reason sundance cant go to a bank is because banks are conservative and generally dont invest in startups.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
