Macc. Programme

Oldgobbin · 10-03-2010, 10:44

It's all very well for people to talk about giving fans financial incentives to come along to matches, but I have to say that if anyone bought a programme last night, they had a genuine grievance. Not only were folks being asked to pay £3 for something which was three months out-of date, but also - and this is the bit that I thought was really sick -= described as "on view" were Macclesfield, together with manager Keith Alexander! Is it too much to expect someone to CHECK things like this, and even if finances dictate that you need to charge full price for a three-months-old read, then at least avoid causing offence in the wake of the difficult period that Macclesfield have just experienced.

smudgie · 10-03-2010, 10:47

im sure the programmes are ordered and printed weeks in advance, which is probably why Keith was still in there which is probably un-avoidable.

To be honest mate, I havent bought a programme in ages they are very poor and overpriced compared to some of the others.

The club need to look at Torquay's and Port Vale's to see what should be achieved.

Oldgobbin · 10-03-2010, 10:49

Yeah, Smudgie, I take your point to some extent - but the programme was DATED November, and the information in it was from November!

smudgie · 10-03-2010, 10:57

In that case then its very poor indeed

Reamer · 10-03-2010, 11:10

Wasn't that the date of the original fixture that got postponed ? Suspect the progs were printed for that date

Dan · 10-03-2010, 12:16

Let me try to clear a couple of things up here...
1) The programmes were the ones from the original game as for financial reasons the club couldn't afford to have new ones printed. However, you should have received a sleeve with the programme with the correct and up to the date information which was new. This isn't a situation that I'm happy with, but conversely I can understand why the club would be unprepared to spend thousands on new programmes and chuck old ones away. I did suggest that in this circumstance a new programme should be printed, but it isn't my place to spend Accrington Stanley's money. Oldgobbin, if you didn't get the sleeve with your programme, let me know where you bought it and I'll find out why they weren't being distributed.

2) Smudgie (and I'm almost certainly going to get in trouble for saying this) I agree that the programme is overpriced. However, it's a chicken and egg situation - in order to bring down the cost per unit the club needs to order more units and therefore sell more. So more need to be sold before economically the price can come down. Hope that makes sense.

3) I've been knocking about for too long to be offended by "I havent bought a programme in ages they are very poor and overpriced compared to some of the others.

The club need to look at Torquay's and Port Vale's to see what should be achieved" but I'd like to say that there's been a lot of effort by a lot of people in the last month or so to improve the quality of the content within the programme. Hopefully the improvement will continue and I'd urge you to have a read of the Rochdale programme and compare to one from several months ago. I hope everyone will be able to see that improvement. It may still be "poor" compared to Port Vale's (which is compiled by a large, full-time team) but I hope that it is going in the right direction.

No offence meant by any of this, just hoping to clear up some myths and get some facts out there. Any questions email [email protected]

Ta
Dan

Exile on Spencer St · 10-03-2010, 12:19

Dan, as the Bonzos once said " sometimes you just can't win".

smudgie · 10-03-2010, 12:34

Im only trying to be constructive.

I spend my money on a season ticket every year and have done for a long time but in my opinion our programme is not worth the £3 extra on a match day.

Fair enough if last nights where already ordered/ printed, theres nothing anybody can do about postponements.

Surely Torquay dont "have a large, full-time team" ????

Im just saying if people that produced/ contributed to the programme had a look at Torquay's for example then that is the correct direction to go in. It was £2.50, and superbly put together.

Dan · 10-03-2010, 12:45

I wasn't for a second saying that you weren't being constructive. I was trying to address the points that you made. Clearly I've failed.

Accrington Stanley are the ONLY club in League Two not to have an individual responsible for their publications/website etc. That's a fact. Everyone who contributes to the programme (except the designer, who is paid by the printers) is a volunteer. This isn't an excuse. It's just a fact.

I haven't seen the Torquay programme, but I know the club have been consulting dozens of publications from different clubs to try to help improve their offering.

£3 is too much. But at the moment the programme does not make a profit. Most weeks it just about breaks even. So that's the situation. Doubtless there is a solution somewhere, but I'm not the man to make the decision.

If anyone has feedback and criticism about the programme, let me know and I'll pass it on. Even if it's the standard of spelling or punctuation, tell me. What do you want to see, how can the content be improved and have you noticed a difference in the last month? All thoughts are welcome.

Dan

Exile on Spencer St · 10-03-2010, 12:56

As is your right, Smudgie.

Seems like the majority would wish the programme to be cheaper (including me), but whether they'd sell sufficiently more is the big unknown.

Personally, I sometimes wonder whether the crowds would increase if it was £10 to stand, and that a bit more would also be made on 'extras' like programmes, raffle, shop sales, etc. This is the Ryan Air approach to marketing; make the product appear cheap but encourage folk to want, and then charge for, extras. If it could be done with a little less cynicism that at Ryan Air, I wonder if it might tempt more marginal fans into the ground.

Don't know if the programme personnel are involved in the "full story" on the Stanley's official web site but that is much improved; despite the result of the game, last night's report was especially good.

smudgie · 10-03-2010, 12:59

Good point well made there Exile.

I agree the match report's on the website are much better.

Revived Red · 10-03-2010, 15:00

It's not too difficult to bring down the cost of the programme.

!. Why does it need to be printed on such good quality paper? The weight of the paper and cover are far too high.

2. Why do we need more or less the same information from the club's top brass? It does not need the Team Manager, Chief Exec, Club Captain, General Manager etc to say more or less the same things - welcome the visitors, review of ASFC progress, looking ahead. Cutting all that back could save 4 pages.

3. Find a new printer. I can assure you that printers are desperate for work at the moment. Does the club have a contract with the current printer? If so, renegotiate it. If not, get other estimates.

4. This is specific to the Notts County programme. The Club Crest page and feedback form should have been on an insert. Why should we have to mutilate the programme by cutting out the feedback page?

5. Please ... PLEASE ... PLEASE ... find someone who is literate to read a proof of the programme prior to printing. The standard of English has improved - slightly. There is still a long way to go.

lukeogtfc · 10-03-2010, 16:58

Grimsby have the best programmes in the league apparently!

About time we had something good

Outback Ozzy · 10-03-2010, 18:22

Can I add my twopenneth. I went to Torquay and bought a programme, the quality of which left a lot to be desired IMHO - not much news and far too many adverts. I do appreciate that adverts bring in revenue towards printing costs, but that particular programme might just as well have been yellow pages.

VALAIRIAN · 10-03-2010, 19:27

Understand about the date of programmes for rearranged games, but I do believe that in this one instance that I would rather have not had a programme, than to have one that talked about a man - who has not even been buried yet - as if he was stilll alive!! Disgrace.