Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

[David Ottosen]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

Sponsors are generally not looking to "get their money back", but they may be looking for ROI (return on investment) which most of the times takes the form of INTANGIBLES (impossible to put into dollar and cents) in terms of image, credibilitty and visibility.

Jean, I will gladly and categorically say that I cannot claim any opinion I have about chess games/knowledge is superior to yours. However, I can just as categorically state that you are 100% wrong about sponsors; when my company sponsors anything, there is a very strict control and forecasting to determine what dollars and cents benefit is going to come out of it. Any successful company does exactly this with their sponsorship budget - any marketing executive going to a board of directors and stressing the main value of the marketing dollars as being "intangible" will not have a very long marketing career. Obviously, charitable donations is a different story.

Whether you call it "sponsorship" or "donation" is beside the point

It is very much not beside the point; in fact, it's the central crux of understanding how chess should present itself to businesses to seek money from them.

Sponsorship is a business partnership where both sides gain from a third party (the marketplace), and a situation where both parties have direct and measurable incentive to continue, and extreme effort is not required by either side to continue.

Donation is a charity act where the side receiving the "charity" must consistently and aggressively ensure that the relationship continues by constantly approaching the donator and pushing for resources.

Take this Empresa (whatever they do). If they accept that their money in this tournament is not going to result in $50K+ back to them, then it is encumbent on the tournament/organizers/players to continually justify to Empresa why they should keep paying. If it/they/you don't, eventually the company will find other, more profitable uses for their money.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

Sponsors are generally not looking to "get their money back", but they may be looking for ROI (return on investment) which most of the times takes the form of INTANGIBLES (impossible to put into dollar and cents) in terms of image, credibilitty and visibility. Whether you call it "sponsorship" or "donation" is beside the point. The results are the same: better and bigger tournaments, and more exposure for the game that you obviously hate.

Whether you call it "getting money back" or "return on investment" is beside the point, Mr. Hebert. From what we know from other posters, this tournament despite $50,000 donated did not have signs, did not have adequate internet coverage, did not have media attention. Now you tell us the FACTS, Mr. Hebert: where was the representative from Empresa who was supposed to make sure there were signs, make sure there was adequate internet coverage, make sure there was media attention? What was that representative doing if not his or her job?

I submit that there was no such representative or that such representative was too busy enjoying to do any actual work, which means Empresa didn't give a crap about any tangibles OR intangibles, which means you received a DONATION, aka SYMPATHY MONEY, aka TAX WRITEOFF. My evidence has been presented by other posters on this thread for all to read.

Sponsorship, Mr. Hebert? I think NOT! There is a difference, and it's an important difference: sponsorship money will make sure that the ROI is being realized, while donation money doesn't know or care what ROI is.

Come to find out that this has been going on for 10 years now. Oh, really? Ten years and what do we hear, "30 or 40 spectators per day" this year.. OMG! Could that be 3 or 4 more per day than they got 10 years ago? Wow, Mr. Hebert, let's all bow down to your concept of "bigger and better tournaments and more exposure for the game". Ten years and we got ourselves up to 30 or 40 spectators per day, of which 39 will turn out to be area chessplayers to whom the name "Empresa" means nothing, and one will be found to be a homeless man there for the free coffee.

And here's the kicker: Mr. Hebert isn't posting any virulent comments against the TIM organizer, Langlois! No, save that for Hal Bond, who didn't have $50,000 in donations, who didn't have 10 years. Get rid of Hal Bond! But save Langlois, he's a good one!

Donations, sympathy money, tax writeoffs aren't going to gain chess any ground, whether you look back 10 years or 30+ years. Nor will Mr. Hebert and his personal vendettas nor his hypocritical pronouncements nor his "I am right and everyone else is an idiot" attitude.

P.S.: the homeless man is asking if next year, can Empresa provide free veggie dogs? He appreciated the GM simul, but.... he'd really rather have a veggie dog.

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

Well of course he's weird. He's a chess player. It's a pre-requisite for Pete's sake.

Nevertheless ... having had the pleasure of knowing Hugh for over 35 years, I can tell you that he is one of the most decent people I have ever met; in chess or any other sphere. From the lifetime 1200 player to the masters, he treats everyone the same. I have never heard anyone speak badly of him before you began doing so.

He is tireless in supporting and helping those chess causes in which he believes. If he has doubts or criticisms, he has earned the right to voice them.

As an invidual so closely aligned with the Montreal Open, I wonder why you are so aggressive with critics. Is this the face of the event that Ahuntsic CC really wishes to present? As a sponsor, is this a facet of your company you want us to see first?

I have mentioned to you privately that a little thicker skin might be in order. Of course you are free to react as you will, but then you must not be surprised if others claim the same right.

What a game of politically correctness! It simply does not work for me.

This guy is and asset for sure and I do not blame his work. On this he has a lot of credibility and I was there to applaude when he got his trophy.

You have my opinion on one important aspect of Hugh. We need to have higher standards on every aspect. Glamour and modernity is an important factor to bring kids and women. If you want to associate me to a club I have never been in, no problem.

Langlois has been here for many years and Hebert too. Read this thread, I don't see your opinion about them and their assets!

Carl

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

Jean, I will gladly and categorically say that I cannot claim any opinion I have about chess games/knowledge is superior to yours. However, I can just as categorically state that you are 100% wrong about sponsors; when my company sponsors anything, there is a very strict control and forecasting to determine what dollars and cents benefit is going to come out of it. Any successful company does exactly this with their sponsorship budget - any marketing executive going to a board of directors and stressing the main value of the marketing dollars as being "intangible" will not have a very long marketing career. Obviously, charitable donations is a different story.



It is very much not beside the point; in fact, it's the central crux of understanding how chess should present itself to businesses to seek money from them.

Sponsorship is a business partnership where both sides gain from a third party (the marketplace), and a situation where both parties have direct and measurable incentive to continue, and extreme effort is not required by either side to continue.

Donation is a charity act where the side receiving the "charity" must consistently and aggressively ensure that the relationship continues by constantly approaching the donator and pushing for resources.

Take this Empresa (whatever they do). If they accept that their money in this tournament is not going to result in $50K+ back to them, then it is encumbent on the tournament/organizers/players to continually justify to Empresa why they should keep paying. If it/they/you don't, eventually the company will find other, more profitable uses for their money.

You live in one business world. But there is many. A service company related to professionnals should benefit from the ASSOCIATION with chess. Chess gives "brain" credibility to a company. André of Empressa when he got the TV, Radio and Newspapers said to me : "This is worth 1 million dollars".

Personnaly I feel Chess is not a so bad thing for Empressa.

Let take a recruiting company of head hunters. They could benefit from being associated with "brains" on their website and the promotion of Chess activity for young brains. You never know, some carzy businessman and women find some interest in everything.

This is my opinion.
Carl

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Proper Decorum is very Important

I was at the TIM and I saw a Hugh Brodie so badly dress with the same t-shirt I was scared he would come dressed up like this on the next Montreal event. If you want to kill the glamour in an event you know how to do it for sure.

This one needs to be kept in here, just in case Mr. Bilodeau changes his mind and decides to speak like a reasonable human being.

[Benoit St-Pierre]

A Word from Our Sponsors

Let take a recruiting company of head hunters. They could benefit from being associated with "brains" on their website and the promotion of Chess activity for young brains. You never know, some carzy businessman and women find some interest in everything.

This is my opinion.

This is even insider's opinion : Mr. Bilodeau is the president, no general director of such company : www.recrunet.ca

[Neil Sullivan]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

What a game of politically correctness! It simply does not work for me.

This guy is and asset for sure and I do not blame his work. On this he has a lot of credibility and I was there to applaude when he got his trophy.

You have my opinion on one important aspect of Hugh. We need to have higher standards on every aspect. Glamour and modernity is an important factor to bring kids and women. If you want to associate me to a club I have never been in, no problem.

Langlois has been here for many years and Hebert too. Read this thread, I don't see your opinion about them and their assets!

Carl

I'm having a little trouble following your thought process here.

If you consider calling someone weird to be an opinion on an "important aspect" of that person then I am at a loss to respond.

Your association with "a club I have never been to" is simple. Ahuntsic is organizing an event for which your company is a sponsor and for which you are a spokesperson. It's not like I invented something from whole cloth.

Finally, no, you are aren't seeing my opinion about Messrs. Hébert and Langlois. I had no intention of offering my thoughts on everyone in the thread. Why on earth would I? What does this have to do with speaking up in regards to Hugh Brodie?

Even were I so inclined, I already have a full-time job and am thus incapable of commenting on all those you are in the process of alienating with your remarks. There simply wouldn't be enough hours in the day.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

I can just as categorically state that you are 100% wrong about sponsors...

Mr Ottosen,

If you want to play this game, do it with someone like Paul Bonham. I am sure that in no time you will find an excellent source of disagreement to chat endlessly about to show which one of you is the smartest.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

Mr Ottosen,

If you want to play this game, do it with someone like Paul Bonham. I am sure that in no time you will find an excellent source of disagreement to chat endlessly about to show which one of you is the smartest.

Instead of talking about playing games, Jean, why don't you address David's points? You are such a weak debater. You lose every time, and don't even know it, because it seems you are a legend in your own mind.

David has shown you that he is a potential chess sponsor, he could contribute to what you claim to have worked for for 40 years, and all you can do is tell him to go play games because he hurt your fragile ego.

What did you write elsewhere, that you still have the capacity for learning? Maybe over the chessboard, but nowhere else.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

My personal belief (and I stress that this is personal as a reasonably competent amateur) is that high level chess in Canada its current form has no mass market appeal for the game itself. The interest in almost every sporting activity comes not so much from deep understanding of the game, but a rooting interest for personalities and specific players.

Just think, for example, of the difference between watching your city's NHL team play on HNIC, or watching two random teams you don't care about. Both still hockey, but one game you care about infinitely more. Simply put, for a sponsor to get ROI, there have to be people interested in watching the event and hearing more about it - the ROI comes from the sponsor's name being in the fan's consciousness. If there are no fans, there is no name in consciousness and no ROI.

The other problem with chess in Canada is even the most casual observer knows that there are no world class players playing (I hope no one will take offense to this - by world class, I mean capable of being a top 10, WC candidate, Linares type player). Think of it as the WNBA - sure, they're the best female players, but the fan interest is not comparable to the real NBA.

If I was going to propose that anything in Canada be sponsored, it would be the Olympiad team - properly publicized, you have a group that the whole country would (theoretically) have some interest in following the results of over a series of days playing in an undeniably world class event - enough time to build a storyline about the team and get casual fans interested in following the results.

David, thanks for this detailed response. I like your idea about sponsoring of the Canadian Olympiad team, I hadn't thought of that. Have you heard of the U.S. Chess League? (www.uschessleague.com) It's the closest thing I know of to regularly sponsored chess with a team concept.

I've mentioned before an individual named Clint Ballard, he was in the Seattle area when I was also there in 2006 and 2007. He devised a point system that he claimed would discourage short non-fighting draws in chess and make chess palatable to TV networks. He called it the "BAP3" point system. He held a GM level event in Seattle, I think in 2007, using his scoring system. Unfortunately, Clint has disappeared from the chess scene, perhaps because he used his own money for the GM event and maybe went too far into debt (I'm just speculating). In any event, he had grand visions for chess and inspired me to start thinking along the same lines. I hope someday to contribute in some way to making chess more popular and exciting to watch for the non-chess-playing public.

I have tried not to drag you into the black hole that is arguing with Jean Hebert. He just can't see any other point of view besides his own. You are better off, if you want to sponsor chess in Canada, to bypass him altogether and shut him out of the process, IMO.

[Carl Bilodeau]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

...

If you consider calling someone weird to be an opinion on an "important aspect" of that person then I am at a loss to respond.

...

We are talking about respect here. My kids when they go in a tournament are well dressed. Why other people would not show the same respect to them.

How can someone go in Old Montreal Chic area, enter in a Sweet Restaurant with a 1970 2$ tshirt (too short, too tight) and then taking the same stairs as the Cabaret Customers and then show up in an International Tournament hall? It doesn't make sense at all. Even worst this person is making critics of this event!!! Coooooome oooonn! This is so weird!

On round 1 at the TIM, all the GMs were well dressed most of them with a nice suit. People were impressed and some told me they liked it. GMs do this because they are used to respect in tournaments all around the world. I had the feeling they were showing respect to André Langlois, to the Sponsors and to the spectators. It is common sense to me.

If I go see a hochey game I would not be surprise. In Golf or Tennis this would not be allowed. Why should we allow this? You think I am wrong? So is the golf community all around the world?

I think this is bad for sponsors and some organizers. If they want to have a prestigious tournament with hundreds of players this kind of thing is simply discouraging.

There was another guy friend of Louis Robichaud. My kids were so surprised they talked about him as a Yeti a whole day to everybody. It was really incredible to see someone like that. Can you imagine having our customers in a tournament play a game against him and comeback the next year. Golf says no and we should do the same. They should be stopped at the door and have to come back well dressed. The next year everybody would comply anyway.

We need to have higher standards otherwise when we, as organizers, successfully bring 30 NEW players to the tables with our campains, ads, and money, we are afraid they will be upset about the community and never come back. This is discouraging.

And as a sponsor, if you would like to show your customers the event, you will think twice before doing it. It should not be! We must wake up now!

Some people think i am wrong but they are a minority probably because they saw this in Chess for 35 years. But I don't see this in all the pictures I see from Europe. I went in Internationnal event in poor countrys and I did not see this.

We want women, kids, profesionnals at our tables and we must have higher standards to acheive it... and it cost no money.

Carl

[David Ottosen]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

David, thanks for this detailed response. I like your idea about sponsoring of the Canadian Olympiad team, I hadn't thought of that. Have you heard of the U.S. Chess League? (www.uschessleague.com) It's the closest thing I know of to regularly sponsored chess with a team concept.

Odd that you should mention it, as my company already does some funding of this league which you can see prominently on their web site (primarily on my recommendation). In this particular case, the amount requested was not that high, and there is a strong crossover between chess players and my company's business, making me confident that I could see a strong likelihood that sponsoring this group would have a direct correlation on getting more customers and thus returning the funds to the company. As well, I had "known" Greg Shahade from the internet servers where he had always been friendly and approachable and willing to play a quick blitz game with a weak player.

When he wrote in, our owners asked me what I knew about USCL and Greg, and I said I didn't know USCL, but that Greg was a well known person in the US chess scene and reputable and a positive person. We've been a sponsor of the league for several years and it's been a perfectly acceptable agreement which I see as unlikely to be ceased (at least on our end).

As for Jean, I am not trying to win any kind of argument here. I have spent time around a lot of chess players and chess politicians, and I have spent quite a few years since I accepted I wasn't going to be a titled player working in a relatively high level business setting. I like to think I have a certain perspective on things, but you are of course free to disagree.

As it stands, however, if the organizer of the TIM came to us and asked for sponsorship, and I was asked by the owners my opinion, my response would be:

1) They publicize badly and this will not increase the exposure of our name
2) There is minimal live attendance and local recognition
3) Their web presence is not put together that well
4) The players are unstable and cannot be counted on to say positive things about us

and would recommend against it *on a sponsorship basis* - on a donation basis might be a different story, but that would be clearly differentiated. There are absolutely benefits to having your company associated with chess - but I can get every one of these associations by calling a random casting company and having some random actor sit at a chess board, because chess has no recognizable faces to the general public. For advertising purposes, Jean Hebert sitting at a chess board is just as good as John Smith.

Finally, Carl, let me ask you a very simple question. In the current economy, many businesses are struggling. If there was a simple way to get a million dollars of value (as this Empresa person claims) out of a $50,000 sponsorship of chess, do you really think chess would be struggling to find sponsorship?

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Not Spending is a Good Way to Make Money

In the current economy, many businesses are struggling. If there was a simple way to get a million dollars of value (as this Empresa person claims) out of a $50,000 sponsorship of chess, do you really think chess would be struggling to find sponsorship?

Not wanting to answer for nobody else : yes, there is. The trick is not to put any real money. All you have to do is offer garantees without any contract and then take care of the marketing all yourself. Then if you dare to declare having spent 50k worth (on salaries or else) on publicity, you even get some more incentive, and the win-win expression gets all new depthness.

[Benoit St-Pierre]

Insider's Information?

Correct, the company of which you are a director started the sympathy contributions and others jumped on the bandwagon.

It would be interesting if someone could expand on this.

[Neil Sullivan]

Re: Few personal notes about Canadian Closed

Again, you are so far off the mark you have lost me completely.

I took issue with you having insulted someone's character and personality. You reply by citing chapter and verse on a completely different post; one having to do with attire.

For the record, I never said a word about that topic, but you choose to expand on it rather than address the one with which I took issue.

I must conclude that your command of English, while functionally quite good, prevents us from having a worthwhile discussion. I would prefer to think that rather than believe you were being deliberately obtuse.