Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 70

Thread: Citibank to lay off 50,000 workers.......

  1. #41
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,451
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;2867674]I'm frankly suprised Stadiums still garner such silly deals. I doubt any has turned much of a profit for the name-buyer.[/QUOTE]

    Yeah...who comes away from a ballpark after a game and says, "Thank God I saw that billboard!! Now I know who to do my banking with!"

  2. #42
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Timmy-y-y-y;2867070]The real problem is middle managers through executive officers making too much cash. The top twenty percent of this country lives like the top one percent in other countries. Too many people with the giant homes in the burbs. It was all eventually going to crash. This place was, and still is, Disneyland. The party's over.

    Time for businesses to adopt pay scales of other industrial countries. They might want to channel some of the money used for advertising into research and development too. How about offering good products instead of trying to convince us with stupid commercials.

    This is gonna hurt for years.[/QUOTE]

    Really? Exec comp is the problem? What is the average percentage of expenses allocated to exec comp?

    People say this all of the time, but we need to see if it's true or not.

  3. #43
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2867239]This is a pretty ignorant post.

    Naming rights are just another form of marketing, and companies that are struggling need to spend money on marketing to attract more customers ... so they don't have to lay workers off.

    The fact is, Citi bought itself a very prominent billboard that will get huge exposure in an important market for generations. Hardly a waste of money, imo.[/QUOTE]
    You're making it seem like advertising always pans out. It doesn't. I'd like to see a study that looks into companies that invest in naming rights. Still, the sample size is probably too small to be meaningful.

  4. #44
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    astoria
    Posts
    5,307
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Timmy-y-y-y;2867070]The real problem is middle managers through executive officers making too much cash. The top twenty percent of this country lives like the top one percent in other countries. Too many people with the giant homes in the burbs. It was all eventually going to crash. This place was, and still is, Disneyland. The party's over.

    Time for businesses to adopt pay scales of other industrial countries. They might want to channel some of the money used for advertising into research and development too. How about offering good products instead of trying to convince us with stupid commercials.

    This is gonna hurt for years.[/QUOTE]then they are gonna have a hard time getting people to become managers.in my company i wouldn't move up unless they doubled my salary.too much headaches,no time with your family and getting constantly yelled at by your boss.plz.
    Last edited by 2foolish197; 11-17-2008 at 07:07 PM.

  5. #45
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,161
    Post Thanks / Like
    [url]http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/Citigroup-execs-buy-large-chunk/story.aspx?guid=%7B9A098627-13F2-4ABD-BABC-6CCAAD141B5F%7D[/url]


    Something to consider....buying "C" while it's hugely out of favor.

  6. #46
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,162
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jman21;2867554]Not so fast. Citi inked the largest naming rights deal to date. It's a moneygrab for the team/stadium. And it really hasn't been proven that stadium naming rights have convert to positive dollars. Lately it's been equivilent to the Si cover curse/jinx.

    Enron Field
    Proplayer
    Adelphia Coliseum
    Trans World Dome
    Worldcom
    Ameriquest [/QUOTE]

    At some point you have to wonder if it's worthwhile marketing or wasteful largesse. Nice point Jman21.

  7. #47
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2867791]You're making it seem like advertising always pans out. It doesn't. I'd like to see a study that looks into companies that invest in naming rights. Still, the sample size is probably too small to be meaningful.[/QUOTE]

    Of course advertising doesn't always work. But "not advertising" pretty much always fails if you operate direct-to-consumer businesses like Citi does.

    Naming rights are like any other type of ad: There are effective deals and ineffective deals.

    Yes, a lot of companies overextended to do it. Others failed for reasons wholly unrelated to their expenses (like Enron, which was basically a shell game masquerading as a company.)

    Citi's usual ad budget is huge and can easily accomodate a stadium naming deal without added expense.

  8. #48
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2868152]Of course advertising doesn't always work. But "not advertising" pretty much always fails if you operate direct-to-consumer businesses like Citi does.

    Naming rights are like any other type of ad: There are effective deals and ineffective deals.

    Yes, a lot of companies overextended to do it. Others failed for reasons wholly unrelated to their expenses (like Enron, which was basically a shell game masquerading as a company.)

    Citi's usual ad budget is huge and can easily accomodate a stadium naming deal without added expense.[/QUOTE]

    It's not a huge part of their advertising budget, but their troubles are more likely due to poor real estate bets than lack of promotion. And you did call someone ignorant for criticizing the move. It may not work out.

  9. #49
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    14,776
    Post Thanks / Like
    It makes Citi look arrogant. IMO.

    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2868152]Of course advertising doesn't always work. But "not advertising" pretty much always fails if you operate direct-to-consumer businesses like Citi does.

    Naming rights are like any other type of ad: There are effective deals and ineffective deals.

    Yes, a lot of companies overextended to do it. Others failed for reasons wholly unrelated to their expenses (like Enron, which was basically a shell game masquerading as a company.)

    Citi's usual ad budget is huge and can easily accomodate a stadium naming deal without added expense.[/QUOTE]

  10. #50
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,451
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=2foolish197;2867799]then they are gonna have a hard time getting people to become managers.in my company i wouldn't move up unless they doubled my salary.too much headaches,no time with your family and getting constantly yelled at by your boss.plz.[/QUOTE]

    So why don't we just outsource those jobs too? We will save money and Chinese sweat shop employees rarely ***** and moan about "headaches" and "not getting enough time to spend with the family" or having the boss yell at you.

  11. #51
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Not bababooey and I resent the implication
    Posts
    21,029
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2868193]It's not a huge part of their advertising budget, but their troubles are more likely due to poor real estate bets than lack of promotion. [B]And you did call someone ignorant for criticizing the move[/B]. It may not work out.[/QUOTE]

    But the move was criticized for spending money on advertising while laying off workers, which nuu is correct, isn't something you should ever stop doing.

    Arguing about whether or not a stadium deal is the best allocation of marketing funds is a different debate..

  12. #52
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2868193]It's not a huge part of their advertising budget, but their troubles are more likely due to poor real estate bets than lack of promotion. And you did call someone ignorant for criticizing the move. It may not work out.[/QUOTE]

    What I criticized was the notion that it Is somehow a choice between buying ads and laying off workers. That's just not how corporations work.

    If they stop buying ads, believe me, they will be laying off even more workers.

    The notion that because they are "well known" they don't have to advertise just shows very little knowledge of how businesses work. Citi is a massive company, it sells many different services that need to be promoted, not just checking and savings accounts, but also credit cards, loan products, business-to-business type offerings, etc.

    If you stop advertising, you will sell less than you did when you were advertising, which means you will be losing money and eliminating more jobs.

  13. #53
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,451
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2868515]What I criticized was the notion that it Is somehow a choice between buying ads and laying off workers. That's just not how corporations work.

    If they stop buying ads, believe me, they will be laying off even more workers.

    The notion that because they are "well known" they don't have to advertise just shows very little knowledge of how businesses work. Citi is a massive company, it sells many different services that need to be promoted, not just checking and savings accounts, but also credit cards, loan products, business-to-business type offerings, etc.

    If you stop advertising, you will sell less than you did when you were advertising, which means you will be losing money and eliminating more jobs.[/QUOTE]

    You must work in advertising...lol.

  14. #54
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    15,550
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2868515]What I criticized was the notion that it Is somehow a choice between buying ads and laying off workers. That's just not how corporations work.

    If they stop buying ads, believe me, they will be laying off even more workers.

    The notion that because they are "well known" they don't have to advertise just shows very little knowledge of how businesses work. Citi is a massive company, it sells many different services that need to be promoted, not just checking and savings accounts, but also credit cards, loan products, business-to-business type offerings, etc.

    If you stop advertising, you will sell less than you did when you were advertising, which means you will be losing money and eliminating more jobs.[/QUOTE]
    You're talking in absolutes. Stop buying ads? I don't think anyone was suggesting that. He was criticizing the specific naming of the stadium.

  15. #55
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Chicago (Via Harlem, Via Madison WI)
    Posts
    2,571
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound;2867791]You're making it seem like advertising always pans out. It doesn't. I'd like to see a study that looks into companies that invest in naming rights. Still, the sample size is probably too small to be meaningful.[/QUOTE]

    Regardless of anyone's opinion on the ROI of such an investment, Nuu is correct in his assertion that this is a "strategic" marketing decision and these funds wouldn't have been allocated to the workforce anyway.

    Trust me, I work at a very large marketing driven cpg. There are things we spend money on that leaves me scratching my head sometimes. But as long as that spend is aligned with the business unit or strategic corporate vision, then it's money well spent as far as leadership is concerned.

  16. #56
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,774
    Post Thanks / Like
    You shouldn't stop marketing your product but you should see if this is the best route. Citifield is not one of them and has been criticized since it was announced. It was done just before a changing of the guard at Citi. I'm sure the new regime would have axed this deal if they could. In addition Citi fattened up on employees the past 3 years when they should have spent it on infrastructure.

    Unfortunately with Citi's naming rights purchase being the largest to date coupled with massive losses and layoffs - the average person who's dollars they are looking for will think negatively about the company - much like the original poster stated.

  17. #57
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=TerryBadway;2870324]Regardless of anyone's opinion on the ROI of such an investment, Nuu is correct in his assertion that this is a "strategic" marketing decision and these funds wouldn't have been allocated to the workforce anyway.

    Trust me, I work at a very large marketing driven cpg. There are things we spend money on that leaves me scratching my head sometimes. But as long as that spend is aligned with the business unit or strategic corporate vision, then it's money well spent as far as leadership is concerned.[/QUOTE]

    This is all I'm saying.

    The logic behind the OP --that there is some sort of "choice" between buying naming rights or keeping workers employed-- is wrong.

    And, btw, people keep saying that this is the "most expensive" naming rights deal ever.

    That may or may not be true.

    Ads are priced according to how many people see them, the demographics of those people, and the net worth of those people, among other things. (That is particularly important to financial outfits like city that need to reach people with lots of money.)

    NYC is the largest and wealthiest city in the country, so the deal may actually be comparably cheap compared to others, even if the total cost is more.

  18. #58
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2870174]You must work in advertising...lol.[/QUOTE]

    Sort of tangentially, but not exactly.

  19. #59
    Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,774
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=nuu faaola;2870338]This is all I'm saying.

    The logic behind the OP --that there is some sort of "choice" between buying naming rights or keeping workers employed-- is wrong.

    And, btw, people keep saying that this is the "most expensive" naming rights deal ever.

    That may or may not be true.

    Ads are priced according to how many people see them, the demographics of those people, and the net worth of those people, among other things. (That is particularly important to financial outfits like city that need to reach people with lots of money.)

    NYC is the largest and wealthiest city in the country, so the deal may actually be comparably cheap compared to others, even if the total cost is more.[/QUOTE] Sorry public perception is everything....It [I]tangentially[/I] doesn't look good.

  20. #60
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    6,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jman21;2870500]Sorry public perception is everything....It [I]tangentially[/I] doesn't look good.[/QUOTE]

    I will grant that it doesn't look good, but only to people who don't understand how these things work.

    The original post criticized the action, not the appearance.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us