When did Adelaide change?

[Mike Smyth]

Did you see Hinkley in his presser talking tough and bragging about how much of a hard running side his lot are? They only beat Carlton who were all depressed with less than half a stadium of fans, in march.

He would have to be one of the luckiest men in football to inherit that list. Even Neil Craig could take that list into a prelim finals exit.

 

[cmndstab]

Wins.


Port had wins last year. Media fap.

We has wins in 2012. Media fap.


Win a few games, perception changes. We need to get on with football and win.

Sent from my GT-I9295 using Tapatalk

This is exactly right. It's nothing to do with a media conspiracy, nothing to do with a stagnant administration, nothing to do with fan attitudes or anything like that. it's purely and simply wins.

If we win more games, we'll get more media coverage.

 

[spexau]

This is exactly right. It's nothing to do with a media conspiracy, nothing to do with a stagnant administration, nothing to do with fan attitudes or anything like that. it's purely and simply wins.

If we win more games, we'll get more media coverage.

Yet it took 109 posts to come to this conclusion

 

[Mike Smyth]

I do think they've pantsed us off the ground.

New sponsors, recruiting players and staff both clubs wanted, etc.

Winning covers up alot of sins. Look at the Aussie cricket team we were a basket case before the start of this summer.

They have managed to do 3 things over the last 3-5 years that we haven't been able to do - 1) retain required players, 2) trade in quality players (most 1st round draft picks) and 3) and most importantly, get hold of those all important top 7 draft picks that comes when you bottom out and you need to be a genuine contender. Does this indicate a better football department or just luck?

I would reluctantly concede their marketing department seems to be better than ours. On the way home from work yesterday I saw a port/Adelaide Oval bus stop, bus and tram. I haven't seen one thing celebrating our move to the Adelaide Oval.

 

[alex_is_on_fire]

I would reluctantly concede their marketing department seems to be better than ours. On the way home from work yesterday I saw a port/Adelaide Oval bus stop, bus and tram. I haven't seen one thing celebrating our move to the Adelaide Oval.

And yet, we still have 51,400 members.

Imagine how many members we could fit into Adelaide Oval if we spent some money on marketing the club. 52,000 maybe.

If we had 25,000 members, then yes we should be spending money on marketing the club to attract new members to build that customer acquisition. However, since we are almost at the ceiling with memberships -we only need to use subtle marketing.

 

[AFC3000]

And yet, we still have 51,400 members.

Imagine how many members we could fit into Adelaide Oval if we spent some money on marketing the club. 52,000 maybe.

If we had 25,000 members, then yes we should be spending money on marketing the club to attract new members to build that customer acquisition. However, since we are almost at the ceiling with memberships -we only need to use subtle marketing.

This is a pretty good point, as much as we would probably like to see our name out there a bit more just to have a good feeling about things and some positivity it would probably be a little pointless right now.

If there is a limited budget for marketing I would rather see it spent in a month or two once the new stadium effect wears off. Promote individual games, 3 game memberships to bigger games later in the season, I would worry that most 3 game memberships bought pre-season would be used up by the half way point of the year. Use the free publicity of the (hopefully) great reviews of people who have seen the team play at AO and attract people then.

Remember Ports plan is to spend money they can't really afford to spend to hopefully buy success which will then hopefully = profit later. They aren't in the making money phase of that plan.

 

[Slippery Pete]

Gen Y.

**** all people from this generation support the Crows.

Port are seen as the hipster option.

Underrated post.

But back to the OP.

I don't think the problem is as much an inherent media bias as it is a lack of smart Crows people in the media. I've touched on this in other threads.

Port people - in the media, and in general - seem to be cut from the same cloth. It might be a butt-ugly cloth, but it's still the one cloth. They stick to the same agenda, and for some reason, seem to be smarter at the mind games. Especially lately.

I have no doubt that a lot of it starts with Rucci. Like it or not, he drives the footy-media agenda in SA. He's a master manipulator. You can argue all day about whether or not he's biased (he's very good at covering his tracks) but one thing we know FOR SURE is he's never going to give the Crows a free kick.

Part of the reason we don't have a Rucci-equal in the media might be that such an equal wouldn't survive.

Rucci - and Port media people in general - get away with as much as they do because they frame themselves as the inherent underdog. The downtrodden. The victim of the SANFL. The victim of stadium deals, of inherent monetary biases. The poor forgotten child of SA football. The alternative to the big, bad, greedy, corporate franchise that is the Crows... (this is why they attract the contemporary hipsters, too- well picked up, Jackster).

For twenty years, Port people successfully ran with the rhetoric that their initiative was the reason the Crows even existed. Just think about the level of ego behind that rhetoric for a minute. We are the reason you even exist.

And now, they're doing it all over again with Adelaide Oval.

Adelaide Oval exists because of Port's initiative, they loudly proclaim. They, smartly, realize that this rhetoric greatly serves their club's brand and culture

Nevermind that it is a taxpayer-funded upgrade; that those funds were solely dependent on the Crows making the move; that the move saved Port from complete and utter financial ruin. These are the facts that should propel the Crows' own media machine, but they don't. The Crows - be it the club or the media - repeatedly do nothing to assuage the lies and half-truths.

This statement is worth repeating - Port people are cut from the same cloth. Most of them even vote the same politically. As a species, they have much more of their ego invested in their football club.

The result of this is an arena of Port people - in the media and in general - getting their way like children throwing tantrums under the weary authority of amiable parents. The state guernsey fallout was a perfect example of this.

This gives us some insight into how Port are currently trumping us in the media and PR stakes. They are galvanising their club with rhetoric and half-truths ("we invented Adelaide Oval"), they're all on the same page, and they push it until it becomes accepted.

The same can't be said of us.

The Crow-aligned media personalities are totally ineffectual. Rowe, Jarman and KG all sound like permanent Jon Blake parodies. They're the gift that keeps on giving for Port fans.

McDermott may as well be a Port person.

Types like Capel, Dillon and Roo go out of their way not to upset anyone.

I can't think of ONE Crows person in the media who has said that Trigg should not be there. They are all shit-scared they'll be cut out of the loop.

 

[PrideOf]

Yet the Smears (what I call the PAPs) still whine about 5 Double Crow and the Crowvertiser.

Despite the fact that their media manager works at 5AA ... so if it's still too Crows-focussed, sack the prick and get a proper media manager.

As for the Crowvertiser ... honestly, if you can't see the Port bias coming from their footy department, you don't want to see it.

It wasn't that long ago that the most newsworthy thing at a Port game was the bay covers. Now they're starting to win a bit, they're coming out of the woodwork ... and that includes the fanbois in the media.

When we hit our straps again, I hope the pendulum will swing back ... but I sense a real effort by some 'independent' media people that will fight against that.

 

[PrideOf]

I have cancelled my subsription as well, I have had the Advertiser delivered every day for over 20 years but the level of journalism has be declining for years.

It has just been a habit, should of cancelled years ago - some days it went straight into the bin with the wrapper still on, haven't missed it at all.

I've cancelled my Advertiser subscription too - not because of a backlash against the football coverage - but because I'm a fan of journalism and real news.

 

[Mike Smyth]

Underrated post.

But back to the OP.

I don't think the problem is as much an inherent media bias as it is a lack of smart Crows people in the media. I've touched on this in other threads.

Port people - in the media, and in general - seem to be cut from the same cloth. It might be a butt-ugly cloth, but it's still the one cloth. They stick to the same agenda, and for some reason, seem to be smarter at the mind games. Especially lately.

I have no doubt that a lot of it starts with Rucci. Like it or not, he drives the footy-media agenda in SA. He's a master manipulator. You can argue all day about whether or not he's biased (he's very good at covering his tracks) but one thing we know FOR SURE is he's never going to give the Crows a free kick.

Part of the reason we don't have a Rucci-equal in the media might be that such an equal wouldn't survive.

Rucci - and Port media people in general - get away with as much as they do because they frame themselves as the inherent underdog. The downtrodden. The victim of the SANFL. The victim of stadium deals, of inherent monetary biases. The poor forgotten child of SA football. The alternative to the big, bad, greedy, corporate franchise that is the Crows... (this is why they attract the contemporary hipsters, too- well picked up, Jackster).

For twenty years, Port people successfully ran with the rhetoric that their initiative was the reason the Crows even existed. Just think about the level of ego behind that rhetoric for a minute. We are the reason you even exist.

And now, they're doing it all over again with Adelaide Oval.

Adelaide Oval exists because of Port's initiative, they loudly proclaim. They, smartly, realize that this rhetoric greatly serves their club's brand and culture

Nevermind that it is a taxpayer-funded upgrade; that those funds were solely dependent on the Crows making the move; that the move saved Port from complete and utter financial ruin. These are the facts that should propel the Crows' own media machine, but they don't. The Crows - be it the club or the media - repeatedly do nothing to assuage the lies and half-truths.

This statement is worth repeating - Port people are cut from the same cloth. Most of them even vote the same politically. As a species, they have much more of their ego invested in their football club.

The result of this is an arena of Port people - in the media and in general - getting their way like children throwing tantrums under the weary authority of amiable parents. The state guernsey fallout was a perfect example of this.

This gives us some insight into how Port are currently trumping us in the media and PR stakes. They are galvanising their club with rhetoric and half-truths ("we invented Adelaide Oval"), they're all on the same page, and they push it until it becomes accepted.

The same can't be said of us.

The Crow-aligned media personalities are totally ineffectual. Rowe, Jarman and KG all sound like permanent Jon Blake parodies. They're the gift that keeps on giving for Port fans.

McDermott may as well be a Port person.

Types like Capel, Dillon and Roo go out of their way not to upset anyone.

I can't think of ONE Crows person in the media who has said that Trigg should not be there. They are all shit-scared they'll be cut out of the loop.

Great post. So how do you counter all this or do you just concede defeat?

Ironically the only media personality that has the balls to speak out against the Port drivel is Graham Cornes. His article post the state guernsey debacle was brilliantly written and brilliantly ignored.

Port are the masters at turning lies/half truths into accepted fact. Look how much they have bombarded the competition with the drivel about their history until most actually believe it. Why is that they are the only board on this website that include their est date in their title. Enough people keep telling a lie over and over and it soon becomes fact.

BTW I don't agree about Gen Y. The majority of Gen Y at my work place support the AFC. I would say Gen x are more likely to support Port as they jumped on the bandwagon during the Port Magpies dominance in the SANFL. Or their SANFL club was dominated by Port pre-AFL and they thought Port would carry that dominance into the AFL.

 

[Papa G]

Maybe one of the problems for you guys is that apart from Ricciuto, almost all of your media cheerleaders are mental short people and/or lack credibility.

 

[Mike Smyth]

Maybe one of the problems for you guys is that apart from Ricciuto, almost all of your media cheerleaders are mental short people and/or lack credibility.

You mean like Rucci?

I think its the opposite. I actually think our media supporters are too nice and too credible. They still don't realise that your average Port person is swinging from the gutter. We need to lower our standards.

 

[Papa G]

You mean like Rucci?

Sure. I have never heard Rucci refer to Port as "we" though. Compare this to the likes of Rowe, KG, Jarman, Cornes et al....

 

[PrideOf]

Maybe one of the problems for you guys is that apart from Ricciuto, almost all of your media cheerleaders are mental short people and/or lack credibility.

You've got a point there. I'd have Ricciuto and Cornes as our credible ones with Stephen Rowe in the very shallow end of the gene pool.

But I'd say our cheerleaders are so terrified of being seen as biased that they go out of their way to be seen as balanced. Your lot don't.

 

[dav3]

You've got a point there. I'd have Ricciuto and Cornes as our credible ones with Stephen Rowe in the very shallow end of the gene pool.

But I'd say our cheerleaders are so terrified of being seen as biased that they go out of their way to be seen as balanced. Your lot don't.

I'm sorry, but surely you can't be serious with that statement???

 

[Mattrox]

This is a pretty good point, as much as we would probably like to see our name out there a bit more just to have a good feeling about things and some positivity it would probably be a little pointless right now.

If there is a limited budget for marketing I would rather see it spent in a month or two once the new stadium effect wears off. Promote individual games, 3 game memberships to bigger games later in the season, I would worry that most 3 game memberships bought pre-season would be used up by the half way point of the year. Use the free publicity of the (hopefully) great reviews of people who have seen the team play at AO and attract people then.

Remember Ports plan is to spend money they can't really afford to spend to hopefully buy success which will then hopefully = profit later. They aren't in the making money phase of that plan.

A good feeling and good news stories don't win games.

Sent from my GT-I9295 using Tapatalk

 

[dav3]

I don't buy it.

Port are exciting, engaging and on the rise.

We're stagnant, we don't present well, we keep making mistakes, and the goals we do kick (ie, Betts), we struggle to promote/capitalise on to the extent that we should.

Rightly or wrongly, I think our standing into the community is tainted, and it's making it difficult for us to gain/hold traction.

I think you're on the money, the Crows are relying on the old guard to keep pumping them up in the media, meanwhile Ports media department has stepped up their game (along with the rest of the club). Ports announcements since it's leadership changed have been big and flashy, and they've engaged the media and fans through social media with things like the 5 re-signings in 5 days announcements. The Crows announcements have been.... for want of a better word...... boring. Port's shitness over the last few season has made your mob a little complacent, now that we're an up and coming shiny exciting young club who turned our fortunes right around the media and AFL community is jumping on the bandwagon a little, and your guys need to step it up to keep up.

 

[CrowEater888]

You've got a point there. I'd have Ricciuto and Cornes as our credible ones with Stephen Rowe in the very shallow end of the gene pool.

But I'd say our cheerleaders are so terrified of being seen as biased that they go out of their way to be seen as balanced. Your lot don't.

Stephen Rowe?? You can't be serious!

 

[fabs33]

I think you're on the money, the Crows are relying on the old guard to keep pumping them up in the media, meanwhile Ports media department has stepped up their game (along with the rest of the club). Ports announcements since it's leadership changed have been big and flashy, and they've engaged the media and fans through social media with things like the 5 re-signings in 5 days announcements. The Crows announcements have been.... for want of a better word...... boring. Port's shitness over the last few season has made your mob a little complacent, now that we're an up and coming shiny exciting young club who turned our fortunes right around the media and AFL community is jumping on the bandwagon a little, and your guys need to step it up to keep up.

Say what? I thought you guys were established in 1870?

Unfortunately much of what you said is true.

 

[dav3]

Say what? I thought you guys were established in 1870?

Unfortunately much of what you said is true.

I mean average age

 

[BrissyCrow]

And yet, we still have 51,400 members.

Imagine how many members we could fit into Adelaide Oval if we spent some money on marketing the club. 52,000 maybe.

If we had 25,000 members, then yes we should be spending money on marketing the club to attract new members to build that customer acquisition. However, since we are almost at the ceiling with memberships -we only need to use subtle marketing.

Your very first line is so full of arrogance. Even if we had 60000 members we should be marketing the club. Its not really about what we have its about what we could have. Port had sweat FA two years ago and now we are complaining that they are getting a free ride from the press. Lets face it they are doing a job on us. Rather than focus on what Port have got and where they are we need to focus on what we are trying to achieve because if all we do is focus on beating Port we will always be second rate but perhaps that's OK because we might still be able to hang our hat on saying "we are the best team in SA". This wont win us a premiership. We must be the best in all of Aust

Now what do we have to do to make that a reality?? One sure fire way is to win games and get the public excited by our performance.

 

[BrissyCrow]

Talking about marketing the AFC. I might be wrong because I live in Brisbane but why don't I see our past champions talking up the club. I sometimes see a bit from Macca but none of our champs, heros, stars appear to talk up how great the club is and why its so great.

 

[PrideOf]

I'm sorry, but surely you can't be serious with that statement???

How can I not be serious? A State coach, a premiership coach, 300-odd games of SANFL footy and a Hall of Fame member. I respect his knowledge of footy like I respect Russell Ebert's - because he's got footy credibility.

You may not like what he says and the way he snipes at people, but he's got credibility.

 

[PrideOf]

Stephen Rowe?? You can't be serious!

Should have clarified. Rowe's in another pool, but still at the shallow end.

 

[skoobydoo]

One thing we have to accept with Port is that they have marketed themselves and stroked journalists and media. They have emerged from the swamp land and are presenting themselves on the national stage. Repeat -emerged from the swamp and are presenting themselves on the national stage!
Small bickies I know, but didn't they have Boak et al representing the club with Renault at the Grand Prix on the weekend?

The AFC by comparison is sporadic, miscalculating and somewhat lifeless.