Quote: EHW "exactly. I think McManus has said that in 2015, for the first time SKY money will cover the full salary cap. Where is the incentive to pay for marketing staff, advertising etc...when you don't actually need that many people coming through the doors as the bulk of your costs are already covered.
The next step is to enforce a minimum investment in marketing, either done at club level or by a contribution to a centralised marketing fund. All the clubs put £100k into the pot (£1.2m in total), and then it is spent on advertising and marketing of club games at a regional level.'"
I don't agree with a centralised marketing fund (the onus should be on the clubs, not the RFL) and I don't think that setting a minimum spend on marketing is necessarily the answer, but setting KPIs on increasing crowds should certainly be on the agenda.
It should be down to clubs to market in the right ways for them - social media advertising, for example, is much cheaper than buying some billboard space or ads in the local paper and could have a better return - the clubs should know what works best for their audiences. I also suspect that a £100k marketing budget buys a lot more in St Helens than it does on London.
Perhaps a portion of central funding should be ringfenced and only paid based on certain KPIs being met? Tie a portion of Sky money to things like marketing, commercial operations and community activity and you'll soon get clubs taking it seriously.