2 questions for Jean Hebert

[David MacLeod]

Re: Did I Get That Right Larry?

Jean, you've forgotten who I work for! I'm under a gag order. Supporting chess is not too expensive, but unfortunately companies don't get all that free publicity that certain sports do. If you leave a sports channel on for over an hour you'll often see the same home run hit about four times with some company's logo on the wall where the ball goes over the fence. Poker, darts and other activities make the "sports" grade for these shows, but alas we've not found the magic formula to sell chess to the mass audience. Hopefully a channel that shows bridge, chess and the like will come into being and that will make things a lot easier. Chess would do just fine if North Americans had the same participation rates of some European countries.

[Jean Hébert]

Re: Did I Get That Right Larry?

Jean, you've forgotten who I work for! I'm under a gag order. Supporting chess is not too expensive, but unfortunately companies don't get all that free publicity that certain sports do.

How much free publicity can you expect for a few thousand dollars ? Banks and Companies sponsor all kind of activities big and small for all kinds of reasons. The company that pays millions for a 15 second ad certainly do not expect the same kind of return that the company spending a couple of hundred or a couple of thousand dollars on chess do. It is self defeating to whine about our absence from television. We are not competing with baseball or golf. As Gillanders would say, too many negative people around... :)

[David Ottosen]

Re: Did I Get That Right Larry?

How much free publicity can you expect for a few thousand dollars ? Banks and Companies sponsor all kind of activities big and small for all kinds of reasons. The company that pays millions for a 15 second ad certainly do not expect the same kind of return that the company spending a couple of hundred or a couple of thousand dollars on chess do. It is self defeating to whine about our absence from television. We are not competing with baseball or golf. As Gillanders would say, too many negative people around... :)

Just curious, are you going to answer Larry's questions?

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Did I Get That Right Larry?

How much free publicity can you expect for a few thousand dollars ? Banks and Companies sponsor all kind of activities big and small for all kinds of reasons. The company that pays millions for a 15 second ad certainly do not expect the same kind of return that the company spending a couple of hundred or a couple of thousand dollars on chess do. It is self defeating to whine about our absence from television. We are not competing with baseball or golf. As Gillanders would say, too many negative people around... :)

Now, Jean, I think it is YOU who isn't understanding Larry's questions. Behind those questions is the distinct feeling that chess could by now be doing better, and that many people were at one time putting some wind in its sails, and that the days of getting more than just a few hundred or a couple thousand dollars sponsorship were not too far off.... but those people and their resources left the game and the wind went out of the sails.

But you continue to talk about just a few thousand dollars sponsorship at most. Agreed that it is too soon to be thinking about competing with baseball or golf, or even tennis in Canada to which I think chess in Canada can most be compared in terms of sport (heads up matches, tournaments, ELO ratings, they share these aspects). Maybe never is too soon for that. Even darts or bowling are ahead of chess in Canada; they do get on TV.

As we've seen with the MonRoi debacle, chess in Canada not only can't get on TV, it can't even get live OTB games on the Internet.

At least with the Internet, huge sponsorship isn't necessary. Just some simple device to transmit moves live as they are being played. The attempt is made, the technology is broken, and what we get is a photo of an anonymous guy in a Canada sweatshirt trying to fix hardware as the games are being played. That photo says many thousands of words for the state of chess in Canada: the Canada sweatshirt was the coup de grace. Photo of the year, IMO.

Larry asks about lost opportunity. We could similarly ask about flower power in the Sixties. The vast majority of hippies from that era moved on, and have become today's senior bankers, administrators, lawyers, politicians, because they realized flower power was a dream that could never materialize in a material world. Therein lies the true answer to Larry's questions. The excellent people moved on because chess cannot offer the rewards they seek, even though it was a nice dream while they were involved. David Ottosen did speak very well to this aspect.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are more hippies in Canada today still believing in flower power than there are people who seriously think chess can grow, as it is, beyond your model, Jean, of a few thousand dollars sponsorship per event.

I think your problem, Jean, is that you believe your model is scalable. You honestly believe that it is only lazy or incompetent organizers that are acting like levees, holding back the tide of sponsors that are seeking something to put a few thousand dollars sponsorship into. So if only organizers would get off their butts, every major event could have not just one sponsor putting in a few thousand, but several.

Again, David Ottosen did speak something to this; he compared chess against the Make A Wish Foundation. Wow, you can't get much more stark than that. Another excellent job by David.

So you see, Jean, even your dreams of scalability are like the dreams of flower power. Just can't cut it in a world full of sick kids that pull at people's heartstrings. It isn't lazy organizers, it's that the organizers have to search like crazy for "lazy sponsors" to give chess false hopes because they (the sponsors) weren't really looking for where to plop a few grand (if they were looking, they'd have easily found Make A Wish or something similar).

There aren't too many lazy organizers, and there are even less lazy sponsors. The former is good for chess, the latter is bad for chess (but good for sick kids!).

Bottom line: chess as it is in Canada, indeed in North America, cannot scale to previously unattained heights. Excellent people with resources have left because they dreamed for a little bit (being chess enthusiasts, after all), then like the Sixties hippies woke up. OTB chess CAN survive, by continuing the mostly revolving door practices of the past (in which a few hardy souls do stick around). That is the best it can hope for. Sorry, Larry. Dreams die hard. I do empathize.

[Ian Findlay]

How Luminato retains corporate sponsorship

If you want to see a good model for keeping corporate sponsorship, then read the story in today's Toronto Star - L’Oreal’s honeymoon with Luminato continues

http://www.toronto.com/article/68768...nato-continues

Luminato is one of the biggest Arts Festivals in the world and they do a fabulous job of fundraising. Perhaps chess could learn something.
I would say that Luminato's CEO, Janice Price is one of the best at raising money in the world, but I am biased, since I am married to her.

Larry, you and I and Janice should have lunch sometime, but not until Luminato is over this year (June 10-19).

[Kevin Pacey]

Re: 2 questions for Jean Hebert

For close to two years, the FQE has been privileged to have the President of Sobey's Quebec, Marc Poulin, as President of the Quebec Chess Federation. This has resulted in major (for chess) sponsorship of Quebec chess events.

The Canadian Chess Challenge, which is organized by the Chess'n Math Association, has benefitted from sponsorship from Ben & Jerry's (Unilver Canada) Lawtons Drugs the Bank of Montreal and Danone. In order to get the Canadian Chess Challenge off the ground in 1988, we had Ben Wicks (a famous cartoonist) who raised well over $100,000 for the event).

Last year, Brian Fiedler, who is an accomplished chessplayer and an important person at Canadian Tire, put on the Canadian Open. It was a great event! A few years ago, Sid Belzberg, was a major sponsor of the Canadian Closed and the Canadian Olympic team. In the 1970's (thanks to Roger Lemelin) La Presse put chess on the map in Quebec. We had the Montreal International for a decade thanks to Andre Langlois.

I guess what I am saying is...chess in Canada, throughout the decades, has had good people come forward (probably more so in Quebec than any other province in Canada). In Alberta, thanks to Ford Wong and the Alberta Chess Establishment of the past, money is not the major issue. Today I understand, these folks would have preferred a better followup.

Our problem is that we do not retain these excellent people.

Question 1: Why is that?

Question 2: Could these people have directed their contribution in a more constructive fashion?

Regarding sponsors, or those who might donate a very substantial amount to the CFC itself, I know of one (financially) very well off organizer who at times even posts here on chesstalk. Afaik he doesn't donate a very substantial amount to the CFC (or to given event(s)) in terms of his wealth, say annually, nor does he refrain from sometimes in some way criticizing the CFC on chesstalk. Would I say that he doesn't love chess or have little faith or love for the CFC? No, that would be unfair. People have a right to spend their funds as they see fit, just as they can criticize. It's up to them. Just as it's up to the CFC to try to improve itself before becoming more optimistic about garnering more sponsorship.