Monday, January 5, 2009

The Influence of Sponsors

I want to introduce you to a friend of mine. On this blog only, he is going to go by the name of "Lying Mattress". He is a real friend and isn't a character I have made up. He'll make guest appearances from time to time. He promised me a picture to use but didn't deliver the goods ... so he is stuck with this one until he delivers.

You see, Lying Mattress a) loves a conspiracy theory and b) he hates marketing. That's right, he thinks it is all a bunch of bullshit and hates how a lot of it is filling every available space and controls everything! He has some cracker views and some pretty nice conspiracy theories as well so I thought I might start sharing some of them with you.

Lying Mattress loves the cricket but he, like me, thinks the Channel 9 commentary is pretty boring - certainly nowhere near as good as the commentary on ABC Radio (O'Keefe is an absolute cack). During the boxing day test I tried to play the ABC Radio commentary through the net while having the TV out on the deck but they were not synced well. I just put it down to internet vs live TV gremlins but Lying Mattress thinks their is evil work afoot.

Lying Mattress recons that Channel 9 deliberately ensure that the TV telecast and the radio commentary are out so that you can't turn the TV sound down and listen to the radio commentary instead. This then ensures that you have to listen to all the advertising messages that Channel 9 have saturated the cricket with.

I recon he might just be on the money.

Not trusting anyone, Lying Mattress also noted that in one of the Johnny Walker trivia segments the correct answer was "3" which one commentator then nicely plugged something along the lines of "The answer is 3 which is nice as 3 Mobile are the test series sponsor". Coincidence or deliberate?

Once he got of the phone Lying Mattress sent me this link about how players might only be being kept in the team because the sponsors have them in their ads in the summer, particularly Matthew Hayden and Andrew Symmonds . Both have both been in very poor form and plenty of questions are being asked of the selectors. Admittedly , I had recently thought it would be pretty uncomfortable for the sponsors to have an ad with Hayden or Symmonds in it if they were no longer in the team. But it was just a passing thought. What do you think? Are they only being kept int he team because of their starring roles in major sponsor ads?

Do you think the influence of sponsors in sport has gone to far?

BTW - I hope Hayden smashes a ton tomorrow if only to see the sheer relief and joy in his celebration.

5 comments:

Nathan Bush said...

Goes to show how desperate Channel Nine are - threatened by a radio show. Did you think you would hear of that in 2009? I agree tat the radio broadcast is better than the TV except for the Bill Lawry moments. Nine are obviously looking after their sponsors very well as we are seeing the same advertisers every year - 3, KFC, Selleys, Ford, Solo. And this is despite continually decreasing ratings since the Ashes (the Ashes year will boost it back up as is the cycle). Here's hoping for a big Haydos tonne tomorrow!

Stan Lee said...

I smell a conspiracy.
Or do I?
Actually I think it might be a Backyard Bucket.

jules said...

It's all true Oyster. Your alter ego is right on the money on this one. Symonds is the most overrated player in the team, but the most marketable.

And for Hayden.... is there any conspiracy theory of how he escaped a plumb as LBW in what should be his last test innings? There will certainly be more people through the gate on Day 4 to see his last performance in the test team.

Brett Lee's another one. He's bowled like crap since India, but he's the pretty blond weetbix boy. The selectors are fortunate injuries have made their job easy for them.

Matt Granfield said...

Bah! Cricket is uncorruptible. Just ask any Indian bookmaker.

Nathan Bush said...

Too bad there wasn't a conspiracy theory which could save Hayden from knocking that ball back onto his stumps.