I think Leeds in particular should get much better attendances than they do, they never seem to grow them and they are in a massive city and have had a lot of success.

Headingley should sell out every home game.

Not to put on fine a point on it, they don't really need to bother. They run at a profit, they pay the SC, they have extensive facilities, coaching and youth development. They aren't really pushed to increase attendances. We have to remember they are already getting double or triple some SL clubs.

I have no doubt that if Leeds really wanted it 20k isn't beyond them now. I also don't doubt that in a growing league 30k isn't beyond them. I also have no doubt that right now they are milking the cash cow and have no real need to start trying to blow everyone put of the water attendance wise why spend that extra money?

Smokey's response is probably close to the mark. Also, a fair chunk of the ground's unused capacity is in the South Stand. When the attendance is at, or close to, 21k there will likely be just as many newbies who are put off by the experience as there are those who decide to try it again. I suspect that without major improvement work - in itself likely to reduce the ground's capacity - Leeds will never draw capacity crowds on anything other than an intermittent basis.

I think there is a bit of a timing issue aswell with both the north and south stands due for improvements it doesn't really make sense to set out on a big attraction campaign when that is happening

The problem is that different clubs have different challenges. The whole "Leeds should be getting 20k" argument demonstrates that.

The leisure market in Leeds is very different to the leisure market in St Helens or Castleford. Yes, Leeds is a much bigger catchment area, but Leeds also operates in one of the most competitive night-time economies in the UK. It also has a much more transient population than most other towns and cities in RL land. The people living within 10 mins walk of Langtree are probably lifelong St Helens residents and supporters. The same catchment area around Headingley is made up of people who live there for six months of their lives or Yuppies who have moved to work in Leeds from elsewhere.

The clubs should know their business and their target audiences better than anyone else, which is why an RFL mandated 'one size fits all' approach to marketing is not the way to go IMO. A club like Leeds may decide that they have enough 'families' and want to focus their efforts and budget on attracting high-value corporate supporters, whereas another club may feel that they don't have the facilities or capacity to achieve the same and would instead prefer to attract the 'family day out' dollar.

When we still have games of our supposed elite competition being watched by less than 6,000 people, the blame has to lie at the foot of the clubs rather than the RFL.

this is partly true. But there are different types of marketing we are looking at, and as much as some is at the grass roots, some is necessarily centralised. Of course clubs are responsible for their own marketing, but they can't market SL as a whole and even a single match has too parties to it. That needs a certain amount of central control simply because we have numerous parties involved.

also whilst I agree that clubs may have different strategies for their market, we dilute and even undermine our efforts if we are all going in different directions. Leeds can't sell their game against Cas as a premium event when Cas are selling theirs against Leeds as a discount family day out. Wire can't try and sell theirs as the biggest sporting event in the area if Salford are selling it as knock down Nigel's cheap and cheerful game.

We need our strategies to be coherent. Yes clubs are responsible for getting people spending and making them fans, but we need a central strategy and outlook otherwise we will be swimming with one arm going one way and one going the other and wondering why despite all our efforts all we are achieving is keeping our heads from going under.

The fact is we will have a lot more success with 12 clubs pulling in one direction towards common goals than we will have with 12 clubs running around doing their own thing and sometimes deliberately undermining and downplaying each other.

There are very simple things the RFL (and by that I mean SL aswell, you parachute your man in, you are responsible) could do to raise attendances and to make it easier for clubs to do so, for instance why isn't the first game of the season a replay of the GF on a stand alone weekend? That's simple, easy, free and would attract extra fans. It's something that can only be done by the RFL? Why don't we have a heritage weekend? These are simple easy things and that we don't have lies only with the RFL top brass.

The RFL need to create an environment where clubs are encouraged, able and supported in trying to grow, where ideas are valued and not only implemented but implemented well, where cooperation for the greater good of the game is not wanted but demanded. We don't have that, We don't have a cohesive strategy, and it should come as no surprise that we aren't growing.

Considering the quality of the game as a spectator sport, the history and the level of involvement around the country at various levels the RFL have proven time & again to be the worst marketeers of any sport ever..Even if they checked this thread alone they'd have half a dozen ideas that would be easy & relatively inexpensive to make happen.
It's all well and good saying the responsibility lies with clubs, to a degree and on a local level that's fine but raising brand awareness on a national level to not just increase attendances at SL level but furthering interest throughout every root of the game can only be achieved through a concerted and meaningful effort from the hierachy. There are some good bits but they fall woefully short time & time again spurning huge opportunities that somehow seem to alude the thinking of those supposedly being paid to help further the sport..it just isn't good enough, not by a long stretch.

It's not the ideas that are the problem. It is the implementation of them.

It needs experienced marketing professionals, not some guy that found social media at 45.
RL is a big business that needs to be marketed properly, at club and league level.
We have always struggled at that.

These projects are so far off that it shouldn't stop the club from attracting new fans - it would be a nice problem to have if they had to move to Elland Rd whilst the improvements were underway.

I don't agree with your Cas v Leeds idea. If Leeds played Wakefield it would be one Wakefield's biggest games of the year the reverse fixture at Leeds would not have the same importance. Same if Salford were playing Cas the same weekend Warrington were playing Wigan you can't market the two games in the same way.

What the RFL need to do is work out they can improve the product on the field and then how they can get that message across. Clubs need to conquer there own challenges independent of the RFL's bigger marketing effort.

I agree with your marketing point but they don't need to improve the product, just the message telling people about it. The product has always been looked after. The marketing has not.

Google rfl employs marketing guru. We've had a guy who apparently turned city into a global entity on board for 2 years now. As far as I can see he has given us some extraordinary cartoons and a decrease in fans at games......
The rfl will have trouble attracting true marketing talent until they understand that in marketing, you really do get what you pay for.

I could not disagree more.

If we prioritise some games.as big and important. By definition we declare some games as less big and less important. From a marketing point of view that makes no sense whatsoever. You have just made any attempt to sell Wakefield v Salford a million times harder. As we are finding we cannot sell some games as the pinnacle of sport, a huge clash between titans. World class players squaring up against world class players and hen others as a bargain basement day out for people who can't afford proper top quality sport.

The view our a me puts out cannot be 'hey come watch Super League, a fair amount of games are a bit but some are good'.

There is no intrinsic reason that Cas v Salford cannot be a big game, Salford are the Man City of RL, rich middle eastern owner v the green bay packers of RL the small town team punching above its weight. The clash of styles, the highly paid mercenaries v the home grown talent from the heartlands.

That's your pitch for Cas v Salford, not we know this game is a little poop so we have made it cheaper, don't worry though Wigan will be along soon.

We don't just need to improve the product, we don't just need to improve how we tell people about it. We need to decide what the hell the product is first. Is it the best Rugby competition or is it a cheap and cheerful day out for people who can't afford the football? Are we standing chest puffed out against any rugby competition in the world or are we happy being a cheap way to kill a few hours. We can't be both.

During the WC, the rfl said we were offered the chance to see world class sport from £5 per ticket. We need to know if we are selling the tickets on the basis they are £5 per ticket or because it's world class sport because people know world class sport doesn't cost £5 per ticket. Crap sport does. Those two messages we put out contradicted each other.

I'd go with that.

The RFL's job is simply to provide a structure and framework for the clubs to operate in. At the very basis level, this means organising the fixtures but at the more complicated level, it involves putting together a coherent and compelling message and set of brand guidelines.

From there on, it is down to the respective clubs to market the products that they sell (whether that is 13 home games, replica shirts, conference facilities or whatever).

Is the RFL providing the best possible framework for the clubs, probably not. But that doesn't excuse clubs from sitting on their hands and thinking that a few posters outside the ground constitutes a "marketing strategy". That lack of framework didn't stop Wigan marketing their game with Leeds at the end of the season and getting in excess of 20,000 (without resorting to discounted tickets) - it shouldn't stop any other club either.

We are selling something bigger than 13 matches, replica shirts etc.

You are right there are things that can be done on a local level but even picking one game, to fulfil it's potential, needs both clubs buy in and often these are clubs in competition with each other. That needs central leadership

There is also the huge economies of scale that would be gained by this being done centrally that we lose out on.

On a more 'philosophical' level of you will, the RFL are the games leaders, there is not much leadership in saying it's the clubs fault.