hmmm the first thing that comes to mind is the Marlies Ransom pack TFC ticket package holders had to buy a few seasons back... That's a good example of 1 brand trying to feed off the success of another in the same portfolio. Would you say that experiment was a success?Originally Posted by BuSaPuNk
As for Tannenbaum, he doesn't have a great history in the sports world when it comes to piggy backing off other teams successes - unless you are only focused on the financial aspects of the moves.
He failed to land an NBA team in Toronto, so he purchased one a few years later along with their stadium, then shoe horned the Maple Leafs into the plans which effectively killed the atmosphere for hockey games that once existed at MLG. There are areas in that arena where you can't see parts of the ice for Leaf games and you are still paying almost $70 a ticket for it. Sure corporate greed (lead by Tannenbaum) played a key role in killing that atmosphere, but stadium design plays a huge part in that as well.
At the end of the day, just because two brands exists in the same portfolio - doesn't mean they are a match made in heaven. This is a stadium that was built with a specific purpose and is now being shoe horned to accommodate two separate experiences.
I've only used MLSE examples here because it seems like you have information that says MLSE are the actual owners of the Argos. So these are great examples of that specific ownerships incompetence when it comes to merging/sharing properties and resources.
Anyone who works in the ad industry will tell you the merger of two agencies based on the success of one rarely works out.
This one is a stretch, but it is yet another example of two brands coming together for mutual benefit and failing.
