Maybe they're going to add clips of the relevant teams/players who are playing in that weekends televised games, as they do with the aforementioned p !$$ poor football adverts.

In all fairness (and that idea would have been pretty perfect to be honest!), the deal with Stobart was only announced a week or so ago. This advert was probably made before Christmas.

Shame really as that would have made a far better advert, and being really apt.

Further evidence, if any were needed, that the RFL have no discernible marketing strategy and a dearth of talent amongst their senior team in terms of marketing and PR.

Here's a good one, RFL find out if Stobarts deliver for an electronics co ( currys,comet, etc, etc ) and chase them for ' associated ' sponsorship

TV ad, stobarts truck delivering telly for electronics co, a couple of SL players bring telly out of back of truck, instal, then dive into TV and into the action

And just as an aside, who will be the 1 st rlfans poster to start a thread with

I saw the ****** ******** advert truck today on the M **

I think we'll need a sticky sorting out

I'm amazed at how poor the advert is. Not only does it not show you any of the action (so you can see what the advert is for), there is no passion from the character. Surely a sport as exciting as RL should show people how exciting it can be!

An advert full of big hits and fast tries would at least get the brand across and raise the heart rate to get you excited to boot.

Last years advert is rlhererl. Not the most exciting RL montage video I have seen, but has more chance of getting new viewers than the latest offering.

I really am amazed that someone has got paid for the new one!

To advertise Subway, you show a Subway sandwich - not a fat man. To advertise Super League, you show Super League action - not a fat man.

why are the RFL being criticised for the production values of SKY Sports?

I think only one person has, and they've jumped on the "We announced our sponsor too late so they couldn't make a decent advert" excuse it seems...

No criticism of the RFL on my part, that is down to the broadcasting partner, I,m just suggesting future potential ideas

As I put on this and the other thread, if you have the visibility of a deal like the Stobarts one, the value of it is in having several partners and using them all colectively

You're right - I suppose it's perfectly reasonable to assume that a governing body who gives away the sponsorship rights of the second most watched sport on Sky TV to an international company for the princely sum of nothing, two weeks before the start of the season, would have absolutely no ability to influence the way it's product was advertised by the 'broadcast partner.'

You mean the governing body that was obliged to go the way the clubs voted on a sponsorship?
The same governing body that isn't in charge of making adverts for Sky Sports?

Yeah, perfectly reasonable.

Ta. Saved me a job.

Just seen the advert again.

Even worse. The tagline at the end (Watching Super League makes you tougher, or something to that effect) doesn't even appear. So now you're just left wondering what the entire point of the three clips was?!

No brain, no pain.

I get a feeling you're missing my point, probably on purpose for the sake of generating an argument?

I'm suggesting that whilst it's true that the RFL are not responsible for producing the advert, they should have sufficient clout and marketing nouse to a) influence the quality of it and b) ensure it ties in with their main sponsorship deal in some way. It's a poor effort by Sky, but given the value of the product in relative terms, one would have hoped it's governing body might have been able to raise the bar.