"those tazos...we only get $1000"

[Karmawave]

Just thought I'd offer you the opportunity to back up your argument but no, you choose the sillymessenger approach. Bold proclamations and no evidence.

You might dare say that, you can dare say almost anything you want, but it doesn't necessarily make it true. Without figures to back up your claim, it's a moot point.

Dude, you're sounding like an idiot. I said Smiths make millions of dollars profit ( actually hundreds of millions via their parent company ), and clearly they do. I didn't think I'd have to back up some statement about such a major corporation like Pepsi-Co with proof that they are a massively successful company :lol:

I gave you think links to their websites - go and read about it.

They have a parent company called PEPSI-CO for gods sake. You think they are a small company from down the road?

Some things don't need " links or sources " because quite frankly, its basic bloody common sense.

 

[nqboy]

You're missing the point. I suspect that's because you can't prove it and so you're offering a diversion but the claim I'm taking issue with is your statement "Some people here might want to compare what the chip company makes profit wise over the course of the promotion and line it up side by side to the $1,000 Gasnier is getting."

I didn't ask anything about who their parent company was or any other sidetrack you wish to invent, just how much they made over their promotion.

I don't expect you to admit that you understand. If you did, you wouldn't have to use diversions. You could just admit that you made an unprovable claim on no evidence and we could all move on.

 

[Karmawave]

You're missing the point. I suspect that's because you can't prove it and so you're offering a diversion but the claim I'm taking issue with is your statement "Some people here might want to compare what the chip company makes profit wise over the course of the promotion and line it up side by side to the $1,000 Gasnier is getting."

I didn't ask anything about who their parent company was or any other sidetrack you wish to invent, just how much they made over their promotion.

I don't expect you to admit that you understand. If you did, you wouldn't have to use diversions. You could just admit that you made an unprovable claim on no evidence and we could all move on.

:lol: Ok NQ. I will let you continue to make a goose of yourself.

I provided you with the company websites. GO AND LOOK AT THEIR ANNUAL REPORTS DUDE! You might have to click on one or two extra links from what I provided heaven forbid ...

For gods sake dude. Do you need instructions?

1. Click on provided link.

2. Click on investor information.

3. Click on Annual Report :lol:

For more specific information about their individual promotions try http://www.smiths.com.au/contact/index.htm and give them a call :lol: I'm not going to do it for you man.

Basic common sense tells you if a company continues to do the same tazo promotions year in year out, and they are a multi million dollar company, the promotion has gotta be doing something right yes?

Saying Pepsi-co doesn't make much money out of any of their promotions is like saying the Westpac Bank doesn't make money either.

 

[dannyboy]

Dude, you're sounding like an idiot. I said Smiths make millions of dollars profit ( actually hundreds of millions via their parent company ), and clearly they do. I didn't think I'd have to back up some statement about such a major corporation like Pepsi-Co with proof that they are a massively successful company :lol:

I gave you think links to their websites - go and read about it.

They have a parent company called PEPSI-CO for gods sake. You think they are a small company from down the road?

Some things don't need " links or sources " because quite frankly, its basic bloody common sense.

No, the basic bloody common sense of the matter is actually basic bloody economics - for the argument to be valid that the footballers deserve more than the token $$$$ they have been given would require proof that the added tazos added a significant profit to Smiths/Pepsi-Co for production and sales of the produce sold. How much the company makes from its other markets & produce is irrelevant.

 

[forward pass]

Does anyone actually go out and buy chips in the hope they get a little round disc with Mark Gasnier's face on it? Fair dinkum!

Yes they do mate. You mustn't have kids.

 

[Karmawave]

No, the basic bloody common sense of the matter is actually basic bloody economics - for the argument to be valid that the footballers deserve more than the token $$$$ they have been given would require proof that the added tazos added a significant profit to Smiths/Pepsi-Co for production and sales of the produce sold. How much the company makes from its other markets & produce is irrelevant.

Do you think if the company wasn't successful with the tazo promotions they would continue to do it year in, year out? That's the bottom line of all this.

Why does the NRL refuse to disclose their contract details with Smith Snackfoods for the tazo promotions?

 

[Johnny Bravo]

You might dare say that, you can dare say almost anything you want, but it doesn't necessarily make it true. Without figures to back up your claim, it's a moot point.

Considering that they constantly run these promotions, whether it be the simpsons, shrek, the NRL or whatever. One can assume with pretty good accuracy that it sells packets of chips... Next thing you'll argue is that toys with happy meals don't make more money for McDonalds :lol:

 

[Karmawave]

Next thing you'll argue is that toys with happy meals don't make more money for McDonalds :lol:

Do you have a link or source to back up that claim :lol: ;-)

 

[Digga Hole]

Do you think if the company wasn't successful with the tazo promotions they would continue to do it year in, year out? That's the bottom line of all this.

Do you expect companies to do things for no profit?

A price was negotiated between two parties, either who could have walked away if it didn't suit.

Yes I think it is likely they made a profit. I, like Gasnier, have no idea if they would have made a profit at an increased price, maybe they would have walked away and he would have got $0.

 

[dannyboy]

Do you think if the company wasn't successful with the tazo promotions they would continue to do it year in, year out? That's the bottom line of all this.

So you don't have the figures then...just speculation?

Why does the NRL refuse to disclose their contract details with Smith Snackfoods for the tazo promotions?

Don't know....care to reveal to all of us on this forum your personal & private financial dealings?

 

[Karmawave]

So you don't have the figures then...just speculation?



Don't know....care to reveal to all of us on this forum your personal & private financial dealings?

You just played your hand to reveal exactly why individual promotion information is not always publically available from corporations :lol: They are in competition with other companies you know? Bit hard finding something if the company doesn't make it available isn't it? Just like the NRL won't do with their Smiths deal :lol:

One would not need to speculate that a multi million dollar , stock market listed corporation would not continue to provide tazo's in chip bags if they did not contribute heavily to their profit results year in year out :roll:

 

[smeghead]

One would imagine the actual sales increase in a brand such as Smiths for a Tazo would be minimal considering their already high exposure and turnover within the marketplace. It does however allow them to tie their image to that of sport which is in it's best interest considering the questionable nutritional content of their product and their targets in marketing.

I am just throwing figures around here with a view to trying to put things in some perspective.

 

[Adsy]

Did someone hold a gun to Gasnier's chin and force him to appear on the tazo's?

The kid is a giant dousche.

 

[Karmawave]

Did someone hold a gun to Gasnier's chin and force him to appear on the tazo's?

The kid is a giant dousche.

I think you'll find that while ever a player is contracted to the NRL, that their image/likeness can be used by the NRL, and subsequently any companies that the NRL sign contracts with ( footycards/tazos etc ). Those players that the contracted companies choose to use, would then be reimbursed by the NRL out of the money they received from the contract - hence Gasniers $1,000 payment , and why Gasnier is upset.

Gasnier didn't choose to be a tazo :lol:

For whatever reason, the NRL has refused to discuss the contract with Smiths, and they'd go a long way in dispelling the accusation that the players are not getting a big enough slice of the Smiths contract if they made the information public.

As it stands, its hard not to side with Gasnier ( unless you are clearly anti Gasnier to start with ).

In the end, even if Smiths made a LOSS from the tazos ( which they wouldn't ) its irrelevant when the NRL signs a contract for a certain amount of money with Smiths.

What the NRL gets out of the deal is what matters here. Yet the NRL won't provide those details.

If it turns out the NRL is pocketing a much larger chunk of the money than the players being used in the promotions, then I can understand 100% why Gasnier would be cut.

While ever the NRL won't provide the full details ( and it's certainly fishy why they don't ) , we will never know anything other than at least one player involved wasn't happy.

 

[Adsy]

It's ver easy not to side with Gaz. If he asked for $100,000 to be on the tazos and the promotion made no increase to an already large profit for Smiths - (which I'm pretty was nqcowboy's point) then should he give them some of that money back?

Gaz is whinging that thousands of tazos n cards were sold but he only saw $1,000. If every NRL contracted player got $1,000 that would have cost $400,000 just to player payments.

 

[Karmawave]

Not every player is used in the Smiths promotion Adsy. Only a handful I believe.

Lets make this a bit more clearer.

The NRL gets a certain amount of money from Smiths for the promotion. What Smiths sell or don't sell using the tazos is irrelevant to the NRL because their contract fee is already set.

The point is, what does the NRL get for the promotion, and how much of it is going back to the players used on the tazo images? Obviously Kade Snowden or Scott Dureau or Beau Ryan or Aiden Tolman et al are not getting $1,000 when their images aren't used.

The contract wasn't between Smiths and Gasnier. Gasnier did not deal with Smiths directly, and neither did any player used on a tazo.

It was between the NRL and Smiths with the NRL having the rights to use its registered players images however they see fit. In this sitaution they allow Smiths to use registered players on a promotion.

It is up to the NRL to ensure that a fair portion of whatever the Smiths contract is goes to the players used on the tazos ( which is not every player in the NRL ).

That's Gasniers gripe, and I can understand it completely.

I just want the NRL to detail the contract for us all. It might be that Gasnier only deserves $1,000, but until the NRL show what % of their Smiths contract is going to the players used on the Tazo's we can never know.

It might be that the NRL has undersold the rights in general to Smiths.

They do have form with underselling the NRL rights to other companies for other things after all? Why can the NRL detail what their radio/tv rights are publically but not the Smiths deal? What are they hiding?

 

[Eels Dude]

Yes they do mate. You mustn't have kids.

Not that I know of. Though I was a kid myself when the tazo craze first started. Thankfully I was prevented from eating chips on such a regular basis that I was able to collect them.

 

[Adsy]

You make a good arguement Karma.

Gaz should have aired his dramas about this sooner though. He just looks like a sore greedy loser to the majority of fans now.

Anyways I think the NRL should have taken the majority of money made from the deal and put it into junior development. Little kids are buying the chips and getting fat so the NRL should then target them and help promote junior rugby league.

 

[dannyboy]

I just want the NRL to detail the contract for us all. It might be that Gasnier only deserves $1,000, but until the NRL show what % of their Smiths contract is going to the players used on the Tazo's we can never know.

How is that any of our business? The players are contracted to the NRL and I dare say their contract provides for them and/or images of them to be used in promoting the game. The fact that Gaz was paid anything at all would be a bonus....why is he or the others that appear any more deserving than the 300 (approx) who don't appear. Its a photo ffs which he didn't have to pose for - an image taken from a game which the NRL has the copyright over. In the end, some of those $$$ that the NRL received from Smiths/Pepsi-Co DO go back to the players through the annual payments to each of the clubs.

 

[Eels Dude]

Not every player is used in the Smiths promotion Adsy. Only a handful I believe.

Lets make this a bit more clearer.

The NRL gets a certain amount of money from Smiths for the promotion. What Smiths sell or don't sell using the tazos is irrelevant to the NRL because their contract fee is already set.

The point is, what does the NRL get for the promotion, and how much of it is going back to the players used on the tazo images? Obviously Kade Snowden or Scott Dureau or Beau Ryan or Aiden Tolman et al are not getting $1,000 when their images aren't used.

The contract wasn't between Smiths and Gasnier. Gasnier did not deal with Smiths directly, and neither did any player used on a tazo.

It was between the NRL and Smiths with the NRL having the rights to use its registered players images however they see fit. In this sitaution they allow Smiths to use registered players on a promotion.

It is up to the NRL to ensure that a fair portion of whatever the Smiths contract is goes to the players used on the tazos ( which is not every player in the NRL ).

That's Gasniers gripe, and I can understand it completely.

I just want the NRL to detail the contract for us all. It might be that Gasnier only deserves $1,000, but until the NRL show what % of their Smiths contract is going to the players used on the Tazo's we can never know.

It might be that the NRL has undersold the rights in general to Smiths.

They do have form with underselling the NRL rights to other companies for other things after all?

Tazos and footy cards are something fun for the kids and is a great promotion of the game. Gasnier and others should be proud of the fact that kids and fans idolise them and want to collect cards with their images on it. Instead he's sitting back and going "where's my slice of the pie". If Gasnier thinks 1000 dollars isn't fair, perhaps he should call David Gallop and tell him he doesn't want his picture used on any tazo or promotion in the future.

The money the NRL gets is going back into the game anyway, whether it's to Gasnier himself or bringing through the next Gasnier. It's a promotion of the game also. I'd rather see NSW kids swapping a Nathan Hindmarsh for a Greg Inglis, then see them happily swapping a Brendan Fevola for a Barry Hall.