WPBA Had Best Marketing Plan

Johnnyt

Johnnyt

Burn all jump cues
Silver Member
IMO the WPBA had one of or the best marketing plans ever in pool tournament history. From the start they only had a few players that could win the tournament. They got on TV and only showed the very best on TV. In most tournaments that were on TV, the same few made the finals on each one. Through clever editing the “C” and weak “B” players were never shown to TV land. Mostly only the good shot were shown. As far as most viewers knew, they all played like the top six did.

IMO putting the tour on stream and showing matches of the lower tier players on the tour, it started showing the same viewer that only the cream were real good players. I know the economy had a lot to do with the tour losing sponsors, but the above had a big effect also IMO. I don’t mean any of this to be negative, I’m the first person that will tune in when the tour gets some wind behind its sails again. Johnnyt
 
I thought the only reason that they were on TV was because they were paying to be,
meaning the WPBA was paying to get the show on TV.
If that is wrong please correct my statement.
 
I could not disagree more. Their marketing plan was trash & is part of the reason the tour is virtually dead at this point. People do not want to see the same faces all the time as it gets boring, especially for a game that most find to be just that.
 
All sports "pay" to be on TV, if not directly, then indirectly

itsfroze said:
I thought the only reason that they were on TV was because they were paying to be,
meaning the WPBA was paying to get the show on TV.
If that is wrong please correct my statement.
Click to expand...

All sports "pay" to be on TV....that's the business "TV" is in, to make money off their programming.

The only difference is in what source is paying them directly....they make the most money off the bigger, "first tier" sports through inflated commercial revenue.
 
TheLoneSilencer said:
I could not disagree more. Their marketing plan was trash & is part of the reason the tour is virtually dead at this point. People do not want to see the same faces all the time as it gets boring, especially for a game that most find to be just that.
Click to expand...

The WPBA are a struggling lot!

It appears to me that there are a few conflicting visions within the organization that need to be sorted out. I have heard of some elected members who are quick to resign when they meet too much resistance and I've witnessed a lot of discontent and gossip amongst players, which doesn't help the situation, but does indicate that something isn't right.

I've been to several of their events in the past 3 years and I've had the pleasure of meeting all the players, elected board members and appointed officials.

I've entertained the idea of promoting them a little more, but there has been resistance from some of its elected members to filter my point of view to suit the WPBA, and also due to their so-called 'contract' with ESPN (Which, by the way, the WPBA does pay for).

By the time I was given full clearance to shoot video at one of their events in Oklahoma, I had lost interest. I looked in the mirror and said to myself, "This organization could implode at any moment. Is it really worth it to endorse or promote?"

If you want my honest opinion of what I've observed during this 3 year period, I get the general sense that most of the female players feel that The WPBA needs a damn good house-cleaning, but can't get it done! Hence, much of the frustration, dissension and not to mention, general 'shit' talk.
 
Johnnyt said:
IMO the WPBA had one of or the best marketing plans ever in pool tournament history. From the start they only had a few players that could win the tournament. They got on TV and only showed the very best on TV. In most tournaments that were on TV, the same few made the finals on each one. Through clever editing the “C” and weak “B” players were never shown to TV land. Mostly only the good shot were shown. As far as most viewers knew, they all played like the top six did.
Click to expand...

I agree. I loved their hour format as well. With proper editing just about any match can be made more "exciting" and they certainly were good at that at espn. They knew which games to highlight, which shots were "turning points" etc. It was all really good stuff and I loved watching them. There was also enough variety in the field that a handful of the good players would randomly bubble up to the top. Then there were heros like Core, and Fisher that were almost always in the finals which brought a lot of drama to the show. I wish I could find all the broadcasts as I'd watch them all again.
 
Last edited:
RE; Marketing
An individual or organisation can draw up the best thought out marketing plan in history.
Unless it is delivered 100% at each directive and tailored when things are not working - the best marketing plan means NOTHING!

This is why Marketing is done within dedicated unified teams.
 
CJ Wiley said:
All sports "pay" to be on TV....that's the business "TV" is in, to make money off their programming.

The only difference is in what source is paying them directly....they make the most money off the bigger, "first tier" sports through inflated commercial revenue.
Click to expand...


OK, everybody pays.

Let me rephrase my question. Was the WPBA making money out of the deal by being on TV? How was the WPBA benefiting from being on TV other than the exposure?

Did the players realize any benefit from this other than the TV exposure, as in bigger prize funds?
 
Last edited:
POVPOOL said:
The WPBA are a struggling lot!

It appears to me that there are a few conflicting visions within the organization that need to be sorted out. I have heard of some elected members who are quick to resign when they meet too much resistance and I've witnessed a lot of discontent and gossip amongst players, which doesn't help the situation, but does indicate that something isn't right.

I've been to several of their events in the past 3 years and I've had the pleasure of meeting all the players, elected board members and appointed officials.

I've entertained the idea of promoting them a little more, but there has been resistance from some of its elected members to filter my point of view to suit the WPBA, and also due to their so-called 'contract' with ESPN (Which, by the way, the WPBA does pay for).

By the time I was given full clearance to shoot video at one of their events in Oklahoma, I had lost interest. I looked in the mirror and said to myself, "This organization could implode at any moment. Is it really worth it to endorse or promote?"

If you want my honest opinion of what I've observed during this 3 year period, I get the general sense that most of the female players feel that The WPBA needs a damn good house-cleaning, but can't get it done! Hence, much of the frustration, dissension and not to mention, general 'shit' talk.
Click to expand...

I have heard the same things about them. I do not blame you one second for losing interest & questioning the point of promoting them. Until they clean house & start fresh with a no nonsense approach, they will be nothing but another acronym.
 
Their marketing was fine but ESPN made a big mistake in not putting some money into their tour. WPBA was far more entertaining that the garbage they use as filler and a million or two a year is chump change for that network.

ESPN gave those gals hope and then pulled the rug out from under them.
 
itsfroze said:
OK, everybody pays.

Let me rephrase my question. Was the WPBA making money out of the deal by being on TV? How was the WPBA benefiting from being on TV other than the exposure?

Did the players realize any benefit from this other than the TV exposure, as in bigger prize funds?
Click to expand...

I prefer to answer this in theoretical terms, and not as it pertains to the WPBA, for I don't know their current economics. To oversimplify things, a tour's deal with hotel venue sponsors tends to work like this if ESPN TV is in play:

The tour agrees to deliver its product, a defined group of professional players who will compete, to the venue in exchange for a fee, generally referred to as a sanctioning fee. What the venue gets for its money, again oversimplified, is revenue from ticket sales and hotel room sales, and marketing exposure from having its name and brand mentioned repeatedly on ESPN. Without a telecast, the sanctioning fee that the venue sponsor would be willing to pay to that tour is lowered, which reduces the tour's ability to add money to the prize fund.

So yes, televised pool generates more money from sanctioning fees, which results in more added money to events. In addition, televised pool enhances the brand of the tour itself.

That's the five cent version of how it works and, again, I've left out a bunch of stuff just to keep it simple. As Fran Crimi recently posted, it was a business model that worked well for the WPBA for fifteen years (approx. 1993-2008).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top