Virgin to sponsor London eye?

BA loss Virgins gain? or should they be spending the money on the crew?

Here

[Darren Wheeler]

The Virgin Eye [:?]

Yes - I read it on BBC news
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7179268.stm

You'd think it would make more sense for Emirates to sponsor it as their owners also own 20% of the company!!!

[mcmbenjamin]

Well VF holds events on the Eye....

[Pete]

Originally posted by mcmbenjamin
Well VF holds events on the Eye....

I was thinking the same... [;)]

Coming only 48 hours after the strike over the pay dispute being called off, it's pretty insensitive of VS management, who were pleading poverty only days ago.

Sure, I understand that such sponsorship will come from the existing Marketing/PR budget, but I suspect some VS employees may not see it that way.

Mike

[Pete]

True, but any marketing activity should be able to prove its ROI, and I'm sure if the London Eye folks are looking for sponsorship of several million, then they'd have to have a presentation in their powerpoint library that shows the branding for the company will translate into business worth more than the sponsorship. Otherwise it's a bum deal.

[Darren Wheeler]

It's the old story of speculate to accumulate. Most big companies employ a marketing firm to look at these sort of opportunities as they can give a relativley impartial opinion on the worth.

The first hints of BA dropping it were made back in 2005, not doubt Virgin made overtures then and did a feasability study.

If it goes ahead, it'll make the first V-Flyer Awards held there something special.

I know the why's and wherefores of marketing deals. I get involved in them frequently.

I have a responsibility for 8 heads of staff in my current workplace, which with a total headcount of 24 people accounts for a third of the organisation.

From my experience here, I know that making such a public statement so hard on the heels of a period of industrial unrest, when emotions among the staff will have been high, is simply crass.

Rather than building much-needed bridges, it sends a signal of arrogance and a lack of respect for people's feelings.

I know it goes against the existing grain with VS, as they will almost always take a chance to get one up on BA if it's presented to them, but the bigger picture - corporate stability - is more important here.

Sure, go and quietly open negotations with the Eye to take over the sponsorship once BA are finished, but don't shout it from the rooftops and certainly don't put a number on it that you said last week you 'couldn't afford'.

It's bound to have upset some people, and I'm sure Galley FM was saying 'Oh, they couldn't give us a pay rise, but they can suddenly find several million to spend on sponsoring the eye'.

Whoever authorised the issue of that statement should be taking a long hard look at themselves.

Mike