PowerPoint by William Lin and Travis Oyler in SRM 435
Showing posts with label branding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label branding. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
"Panthers playoffs: Building brand loyalty"
From Charlotte Business Journal
Analysis by Bethany Doman in KIN 501
Loyalty and fandom is the feeling of emotional attachment and connection that one develops towards a sports team, brand, company, etc. It may be passed down traditionally, may be dependent upon your location, or could be in support of a particular player, but nonetheless, loyalty can be expressed in many different ways and on many different levels.
In my foundational article, “Panthers playoffs: Building brand loyalty”, the author Erik Spanberg discusses how playoff wins and appearances leave a larger impression on fans and ignite fan loyalty, especially for the Carolina Panthers. Being only 20 years old, the Panthers have not had an ample opportunity to develop a strong, deep fan base as other older teams like the Pittsburgh Steelers may have. The Panthers have never had consecutive winning seasons, with only six playoff appearances and one Super Bowl presence in their short life span. Team executives reported that because of the back-to-back playoff appearances (January 2014 and 2015), bonds between the Panthers, their fans, and their sponsors have been strengthened. Building off this postseason enthusiasm, the team is about to embark on a six-year, phased-in makeover of their stadium, backed by taxpayers’ dollars. Team executives believe that this stadium will also boost fan loyalty and additional fan interest.
Within that article, I derived three marketing factors that I felt the Carolina Panthers are contributing to their present and future increase of fan loyalty and engagement. Playoff appearances is the first factor and only recently have the team representatives been able to see the benefits. After losing a divisional matchup in January of 2014 and then a few weekends ago against the Seattle Seahawks, the national attention brought to Carolina has awoken and drawn in more of the fan base. As a marketer, it is crucial to play on the postseason wins and appearances because they are so fresh and a lot of fans are motivated by the intensity and enthusiasm built up during the postseason, regardless of the outcome. Historically, fans cling to those wins and appearances.
In 2013, the Emory Sports Marketing Analytics team conducted a study on the NFL’s fan bases and determined fan equity from historical data. They used winning percentage, pricing, stadium capacity, metro area population, metro area median income, etc. as the historical data. Then, they took model forecasts of each team’s last three years to determine fan equity. The researchers chose a three-year span because the sports world is constantly changing (i.e. player trades, new management and coaching, new rules) and they felt that three years would be enough ground to prove that postseason successes and championships are sources of long-term fan equity. In this analysis, they took the first three years of data (2002-2005) and compared it to last three years of data (2010-2012) and they were able to see the rises and drops in fan bases and loyalty. Since the Colts had seen a dramatic increase early on and then Denver climbing up to #4 in fan equity in the latter years, they determined that Peyton Manning was the common denominator and had an effect on both teams. In the video, Seinfeld jokingly says we are essentially cheering for the clothes of our favorite team since the players are constantly changing and the athletes aren’t necessarily loyal to the teams anymore. We love a player while he plays for our favorite team, then when he gets traded, we tend to hate him. It’s an interesting illogical trend that seems to hit the nail on the head when breaking down fan loyalty.
The second factor is social media chatter and engagement and with technology growing rampant, fans are able to voice their opinions and passions on numerous platforms. In a study at Emory University looking at sports franchises, fan interest, financial investment, and social media chatter, the Carolina Panthers rank in the bottom third, 23rd in fans’ financial willingness and 30th in social media equity. Manish Tripathi, one of the Emory marketing professors said in the article, “There is an opportunity to get better here. Postseason success has a strong impact in the NFL, especially for the younger fan base” (Spanberg, 2015). However, in the social media world, the Panthers may seem to lag in comparison to other teams, but according to the team president Danny Morrison, there have been consistent gains on all social media platforms, pointing to the recent attraction of the younger fan base. In the sports marketing realm, it is important to stay adaptable and up to date with the constant changes in society and technology. To strengthen fan bases, teams can inspire loyalty through social media promotions, athlete and fan interactions via social media, or encourage fans to contribute to the team through submitting photos, videos, suggestions, etc., all of which create value for the fan and ultimately builds an emotional connection towards a team. This is relevant because it is a route everyone can use towards creating a quality product or service, satisfying a customer, and promoting loyalty no matter what the position may be (i.e. sports, parks and recreation, retail, etc.).
A newly renovated stadium is the last piece that I drew from the article as means to the Carolina Panthers developing fan loyalty. Rather than make a sales pitch, the Panthers are going to use the postseason as an “affirmation of the excitement and impact the franchise has in the Carolinas” as a strategy towards renovating their stadium (Spanberg, 2015). The team believes that they will have the support, but also gain additional fan loyalty through this six-year, $87.5 million makeover funded by taxpayers. They hope to create a “Dallas Cowboys effect”, where Jerry Jones’ new stadium increased fan loyalty immensely over a three-year span. When trying to gain the physical, emotional, and financial support of the local fan base to build or renovate a sports facility, marketers need to paint a picture so the fans can see and feel the value and potential experiences throughout the whole process.
Analysis by Bethany Doman in KIN 501
Loyalty and fandom is the feeling of emotional attachment and connection that one develops towards a sports team, brand, company, etc. It may be passed down traditionally, may be dependent upon your location, or could be in support of a particular player, but nonetheless, loyalty can be expressed in many different ways and on many different levels.
In my foundational article, “Panthers playoffs: Building brand loyalty”, the author Erik Spanberg discusses how playoff wins and appearances leave a larger impression on fans and ignite fan loyalty, especially for the Carolina Panthers. Being only 20 years old, the Panthers have not had an ample opportunity to develop a strong, deep fan base as other older teams like the Pittsburgh Steelers may have. The Panthers have never had consecutive winning seasons, with only six playoff appearances and one Super Bowl presence in their short life span. Team executives reported that because of the back-to-back playoff appearances (January 2014 and 2015), bonds between the Panthers, their fans, and their sponsors have been strengthened. Building off this postseason enthusiasm, the team is about to embark on a six-year, phased-in makeover of their stadium, backed by taxpayers’ dollars. Team executives believe that this stadium will also boost fan loyalty and additional fan interest.
Within that article, I derived three marketing factors that I felt the Carolina Panthers are contributing to their present and future increase of fan loyalty and engagement. Playoff appearances is the first factor and only recently have the team representatives been able to see the benefits. After losing a divisional matchup in January of 2014 and then a few weekends ago against the Seattle Seahawks, the national attention brought to Carolina has awoken and drawn in more of the fan base. As a marketer, it is crucial to play on the postseason wins and appearances because they are so fresh and a lot of fans are motivated by the intensity and enthusiasm built up during the postseason, regardless of the outcome. Historically, fans cling to those wins and appearances.
In 2013, the Emory Sports Marketing Analytics team conducted a study on the NFL’s fan bases and determined fan equity from historical data. They used winning percentage, pricing, stadium capacity, metro area population, metro area median income, etc. as the historical data. Then, they took model forecasts of each team’s last three years to determine fan equity. The researchers chose a three-year span because the sports world is constantly changing (i.e. player trades, new management and coaching, new rules) and they felt that three years would be enough ground to prove that postseason successes and championships are sources of long-term fan equity. In this analysis, they took the first three years of data (2002-2005) and compared it to last three years of data (2010-2012) and they were able to see the rises and drops in fan bases and loyalty. Since the Colts had seen a dramatic increase early on and then Denver climbing up to #4 in fan equity in the latter years, they determined that Peyton Manning was the common denominator and had an effect on both teams. In the video, Seinfeld jokingly says we are essentially cheering for the clothes of our favorite team since the players are constantly changing and the athletes aren’t necessarily loyal to the teams anymore. We love a player while he plays for our favorite team, then when he gets traded, we tend to hate him. It’s an interesting illogical trend that seems to hit the nail on the head when breaking down fan loyalty.
The second factor is social media chatter and engagement and with technology growing rampant, fans are able to voice their opinions and passions on numerous platforms. In a study at Emory University looking at sports franchises, fan interest, financial investment, and social media chatter, the Carolina Panthers rank in the bottom third, 23rd in fans’ financial willingness and 30th in social media equity. Manish Tripathi, one of the Emory marketing professors said in the article, “There is an opportunity to get better here. Postseason success has a strong impact in the NFL, especially for the younger fan base” (Spanberg, 2015). However, in the social media world, the Panthers may seem to lag in comparison to other teams, but according to the team president Danny Morrison, there have been consistent gains on all social media platforms, pointing to the recent attraction of the younger fan base. In the sports marketing realm, it is important to stay adaptable and up to date with the constant changes in society and technology. To strengthen fan bases, teams can inspire loyalty through social media promotions, athlete and fan interactions via social media, or encourage fans to contribute to the team through submitting photos, videos, suggestions, etc., all of which create value for the fan and ultimately builds an emotional connection towards a team. This is relevant because it is a route everyone can use towards creating a quality product or service, satisfying a customer, and promoting loyalty no matter what the position may be (i.e. sports, parks and recreation, retail, etc.).
A newly renovated stadium is the last piece that I drew from the article as means to the Carolina Panthers developing fan loyalty. Rather than make a sales pitch, the Panthers are going to use the postseason as an “affirmation of the excitement and impact the franchise has in the Carolinas” as a strategy towards renovating their stadium (Spanberg, 2015). The team believes that they will have the support, but also gain additional fan loyalty through this six-year, $87.5 million makeover funded by taxpayers. They hope to create a “Dallas Cowboys effect”, where Jerry Jones’ new stadium increased fan loyalty immensely over a three-year span. When trying to gain the physical, emotional, and financial support of the local fan base to build or renovate a sports facility, marketers need to paint a picture so the fans can see and feel the value and potential experiences throughout the whole process.
Monday, September 10, 2012
"How being open, honest and professional can build a brand"
From SportsBusiness Journal
Review by Philip Pierce in KIN 501
Ryan Richeal’s article How being open, honest, and professional can build a brand summarized the success former Red Sox owner Tom Yawkey accomplished with Fenway Park and Boston Fans.
Guided by his personal values, Yawkey focused on the team and not individual players. Moreover, Yawkey knew the importance of connecting with Boston’s fanatics and made it a priority to build that relationship.
Richeal’s article combats some of the most obvious reasons a brand could falter such as the team’s recent poor performance and unfortunate traits of social evolution. “People are more transient, attention spans are shorter,” Richeal writes, “expectations are higher and more immediate.” (Richeal, 2012.) Despite the obstacles, Richeal urges “any company should start by recognizing the value of reputation.”
The Red Sox traded Babe Ruth but have always seen the value in their employees. The Red Sox disposed of Roger Clemens in his prime but will always embrace the community. And most recently, the Sox unloaded Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford, and Josh Beckett to the Dodgers while staying true to Red Sox Nation – the fans.
Richeal highlights those three crucial pieces (employees, community, and fans) as a foundation to creating and maintaining a reputation that will build a brand. “Encouraging employees to be socially responsible allows them to benefit from better teamwork and greater work satisfaction,” Richeal writes. Furthermore, social responsibility extends beyond the Green Monster out into the community. “A truly successful effort will link prosperity between the team, its employees and the community to result in the long-term emotional bond of the team,” he adds.
Yawkey’s idea of a social conscience is reflected in Boston’s Customer Relationship Management strategy and has given them a marketing advantage over other teams. “All organizations should realize that the health of a community is interwoven with the health of a team”. (Richeal, 2012)
I could not agree more with Ryan Richeal’s ideas for building a successful brand. It seems like many brands in turmoil, the organizations or athletes that fill recent news headlines are in a branding nightmare because they forgot one of the three: openness, honesty, or professionalism. In addition, I think Richeal hit the bull’s-eye focusing his article on three central components of sport brands: employees, community, and fans. Richeal is right, times are changing. Some teams respond by spending more money but I agree with Ryan, invest in more time, effort and thought.
People are the backbone of sport teams. The more teams can connect with their people, the more fanatics will emerge, and the backbone to the business will be strong. In Tom Yawkey’s case, a Nation will be formed. “Teams don’t have the luxury of building on decades of tradition any longer,” Richeal added, “but, as Yawkey taught, stay true to the brand, and love and respect the customer. The team will be rewarded with a stellar reputation and a fan connection that is stronger and more enduring than the average business-consumer relationship and less influenced by the cycles of on-field performance and off-field competition.”
Review by Philip Pierce in KIN 501
Ryan Richeal’s article How being open, honest, and professional can build a brand summarized the success former Red Sox owner Tom Yawkey accomplished with Fenway Park and Boston Fans.
Guided by his personal values, Yawkey focused on the team and not individual players. Moreover, Yawkey knew the importance of connecting with Boston’s fanatics and made it a priority to build that relationship.
Richeal’s article combats some of the most obvious reasons a brand could falter such as the team’s recent poor performance and unfortunate traits of social evolution. “People are more transient, attention spans are shorter,” Richeal writes, “expectations are higher and more immediate.” (Richeal, 2012.) Despite the obstacles, Richeal urges “any company should start by recognizing the value of reputation.”
The Red Sox traded Babe Ruth but have always seen the value in their employees. The Red Sox disposed of Roger Clemens in his prime but will always embrace the community. And most recently, the Sox unloaded Adrian Gonzalez, Carl Crawford, and Josh Beckett to the Dodgers while staying true to Red Sox Nation – the fans.
Richeal highlights those three crucial pieces (employees, community, and fans) as a foundation to creating and maintaining a reputation that will build a brand. “Encouraging employees to be socially responsible allows them to benefit from better teamwork and greater work satisfaction,” Richeal writes. Furthermore, social responsibility extends beyond the Green Monster out into the community. “A truly successful effort will link prosperity between the team, its employees and the community to result in the long-term emotional bond of the team,” he adds.
Yawkey’s idea of a social conscience is reflected in Boston’s Customer Relationship Management strategy and has given them a marketing advantage over other teams. “All organizations should realize that the health of a community is interwoven with the health of a team”. (Richeal, 2012)
I could not agree more with Ryan Richeal’s ideas for building a successful brand. It seems like many brands in turmoil, the organizations or athletes that fill recent news headlines are in a branding nightmare because they forgot one of the three: openness, honesty, or professionalism. In addition, I think Richeal hit the bull’s-eye focusing his article on three central components of sport brands: employees, community, and fans. Richeal is right, times are changing. Some teams respond by spending more money but I agree with Ryan, invest in more time, effort and thought.
People are the backbone of sport teams. The more teams can connect with their people, the more fanatics will emerge, and the backbone to the business will be strong. In Tom Yawkey’s case, a Nation will be formed. “Teams don’t have the luxury of building on decades of tradition any longer,” Richeal added, “but, as Yawkey taught, stay true to the brand, and love and respect the customer. The team will be rewarded with a stellar reputation and a fan connection that is stronger and more enduring than the average business-consumer relationship and less influenced by the cycles of on-field performance and off-field competition.”
Monday, September 26, 2011
"Revolutionizing the Market: Innovative Electronic Branding Strategies within NCAA Athletic Departments"
From the International Journal of Sport Management
The article I chose to read was titled Revolutionizing the Market: Innovative Electronic Branding Strategies within NCAA Athletic Departments, and was published in the International Journal of Sport Management. This article describes a very scientific approach to get a better idea of the electronic strategies that Division I athletic departments use to build brand equity.
The importance of brand loyalty is simple: the stronger the brand loyalty among consumers, the more likely it is these consumers will remain fans even while the team or school is struggling to win. That is why researchers Cooper, Ross, and Southall conducted this survey-style research. They wanted to know what athletic administrators were doing to build a brand electronically. The researchers sent out surveys to 64 athletic departments representing all 11 FBS conferences. The survey consisted of 16 Likert-type questions, in which the administrators were asked to indicate which strategy they thought was most useful in today’s industry on a scale of 1 to 6. For example the mean response for the relevancy of using video broadcasts on department websites was a 5.32 (1 was strongly disagree, 6 was strongly agree). The results showed that for department websites, administrators felt that using video broadcasts was the most effective (5.32) and that the use of message boards was least effective (3.03). The researchers also found that video sharing (4.53), text messaging (4.49), and social networking sites (4.47) were effective tools used by athletic departments when dealing with independent technologies.
These results were not surprising to me because of the constant desire for information in the sporting world. Video broadcasts online are a great tool, and I think most universities utilize this by uploading highlights and interviews, or even streaming live game footage. However, I am somewhat surprised that the numbers from the independent technologies section were not higher. Sites like Facebook and Twitter are used by universities on a daily and even hourly basis, and I think that adds a lot of value to their athletic departments. For example, JMU uses Twitter very effectively by updating followers with game updates, and news about current and former athletes. As a consumer I value that kind of information and it adds a little more loyalty to the JMU brand.
In “Revolutionizing the Market: Innovative Electronic Branding Strategies Within NCAA Athletic Departments” by Coyte Cooper, Stephen Ross, and Richard Southall these men set out to quantitatively determine the importance of electronic media on college brands. They wanted to give the sports world some guidance as to what marketing vehicles to use since “several scholars have emphasized the importance of the realization of strong brand equity for sport organizations looking to maximize their financial endeavors.” Brand equity is the primary goal of many sports marketers. Increasing the positive connotation associated with a brand will in turn increase sales. “Researchers in the business field have illustrated that strong brand equity is directly correlated with the following consumer benefits: enhanced product value, improved purchase intention, and immunity to product-associated crises.” This carries over to increased immunity from declining sales when a team is underperforming. According to Gladen & Funk, 2001, “Scholars have expanded on pervious findings when explaining that consumers with a strong brand loyalty are more likely to remain fans when a team struggles from a performance standpoint.”
Since “investigating brand equity in web or Internet contexts is a relatively new research area” these three men decided to take it upon themselves to do some substantial research in this area. They sent out survey invites to NCAA Athletic Departments and ended up with 64 participants. All the participants were asked to identify, on a scale of 1 to 6, “the e-branding strategies that are most relevant in today’s competitive entertainment industry.” The strategies were divided into 2 groups: Department Websites and Independent Technologies. In the Department Website category participants were asked to rank the following: video broadcasting, audio broadcasting, podcasts, newsletters, blogs, interactive chat, interactive fan poll, and message boards. In the Independent Technologies category the vehicles ranked were: video sharing, text messaging, social network sites, podcasts, blogs, twitter, and message boards. The research found that when talking about department websites video & audio broadcasts were the two most important marketing ploys and the message boards were the least important strategies. For independent technologies the most important marketing ploys are video sharing and text messaging; with the least important category being message boards, again.
This research can increase the workload for sports marketers but also prevent a ton of headaches. Message boards are hard to police and are usually dominated by fans with extreme views. But if this data is taken as truth, sports marketers do not have to worry as much about message boards anymore. Unfortunately, now the fun starts in trying to make text messaging, video, and audio broadcasts current and plentiful. Video and Audio broadcasts take more effort to create than texts but do not need to be numerous. Texts messages, on the other hand, require minimal effort but need to by abundant.
Looking at the statistical analyses I was a little disappointed. I appreciate the work they put into the research but a few things pop out at me. Why did they interview the marketers and not the consumers? Wouldn’t interviewing a consumer tell you exactly what influences their image of a brand? Also, why did they use a scale 1-6? I always try to use an odd number so that responders can choose “neutral/neither.” The last problem I had with the result is the random p-values. Where did they come from? No hypothesis was being tested so there shouldn’t be a p-value to test for statistical significance. The p-value is the percent chance that you falsely rejected the null hypothesis. So, in order to have a p-value you must be comparing an expected value against an observed value. In the research paper there was no expected value or expected mean for the grading system. They simply observed and measured the values without guessing what the result would be. Therefore, I cannot determine why there is a p-value associated with the mean value in each category. Communication with the authors would be the only step to solving this problem.
Review by Patrick Pelletier in KIN 332 (Section 2)
The article I chose to read was titled Revolutionizing the Market: Innovative Electronic Branding Strategies within NCAA Athletic Departments, and was published in the International Journal of Sport Management. This article describes a very scientific approach to get a better idea of the electronic strategies that Division I athletic departments use to build brand equity.
The importance of brand loyalty is simple: the stronger the brand loyalty among consumers, the more likely it is these consumers will remain fans even while the team or school is struggling to win. That is why researchers Cooper, Ross, and Southall conducted this survey-style research. They wanted to know what athletic administrators were doing to build a brand electronically. The researchers sent out surveys to 64 athletic departments representing all 11 FBS conferences. The survey consisted of 16 Likert-type questions, in which the administrators were asked to indicate which strategy they thought was most useful in today’s industry on a scale of 1 to 6. For example the mean response for the relevancy of using video broadcasts on department websites was a 5.32 (1 was strongly disagree, 6 was strongly agree). The results showed that for department websites, administrators felt that using video broadcasts was the most effective (5.32) and that the use of message boards was least effective (3.03). The researchers also found that video sharing (4.53), text messaging (4.49), and social networking sites (4.47) were effective tools used by athletic departments when dealing with independent technologies.
These results were not surprising to me because of the constant desire for information in the sporting world. Video broadcasts online are a great tool, and I think most universities utilize this by uploading highlights and interviews, or even streaming live game footage. However, I am somewhat surprised that the numbers from the independent technologies section were not higher. Sites like Facebook and Twitter are used by universities on a daily and even hourly basis, and I think that adds a lot of value to their athletic departments. For example, JMU uses Twitter very effectively by updating followers with game updates, and news about current and former athletes. As a consumer I value that kind of information and it adds a little more loyalty to the JMU brand.
---
Review by Brent Henchen in KIN 332 (Section 2)
In “Revolutionizing the Market: Innovative Electronic Branding Strategies Within NCAA Athletic Departments” by Coyte Cooper, Stephen Ross, and Richard Southall these men set out to quantitatively determine the importance of electronic media on college brands. They wanted to give the sports world some guidance as to what marketing vehicles to use since “several scholars have emphasized the importance of the realization of strong brand equity for sport organizations looking to maximize their financial endeavors.” Brand equity is the primary goal of many sports marketers. Increasing the positive connotation associated with a brand will in turn increase sales. “Researchers in the business field have illustrated that strong brand equity is directly correlated with the following consumer benefits: enhanced product value, improved purchase intention, and immunity to product-associated crises.” This carries over to increased immunity from declining sales when a team is underperforming. According to Gladen & Funk, 2001, “Scholars have expanded on pervious findings when explaining that consumers with a strong brand loyalty are more likely to remain fans when a team struggles from a performance standpoint.”
Since “investigating brand equity in web or Internet contexts is a relatively new research area” these three men decided to take it upon themselves to do some substantial research in this area. They sent out survey invites to NCAA Athletic Departments and ended up with 64 participants. All the participants were asked to identify, on a scale of 1 to 6, “the e-branding strategies that are most relevant in today’s competitive entertainment industry.” The strategies were divided into 2 groups: Department Websites and Independent Technologies. In the Department Website category participants were asked to rank the following: video broadcasting, audio broadcasting, podcasts, newsletters, blogs, interactive chat, interactive fan poll, and message boards. In the Independent Technologies category the vehicles ranked were: video sharing, text messaging, social network sites, podcasts, blogs, twitter, and message boards. The research found that when talking about department websites video & audio broadcasts were the two most important marketing ploys and the message boards were the least important strategies. For independent technologies the most important marketing ploys are video sharing and text messaging; with the least important category being message boards, again.
This research can increase the workload for sports marketers but also prevent a ton of headaches. Message boards are hard to police and are usually dominated by fans with extreme views. But if this data is taken as truth, sports marketers do not have to worry as much about message boards anymore. Unfortunately, now the fun starts in trying to make text messaging, video, and audio broadcasts current and plentiful. Video and Audio broadcasts take more effort to create than texts but do not need to be numerous. Texts messages, on the other hand, require minimal effort but need to by abundant.
Looking at the statistical analyses I was a little disappointed. I appreciate the work they put into the research but a few things pop out at me. Why did they interview the marketers and not the consumers? Wouldn’t interviewing a consumer tell you exactly what influences their image of a brand? Also, why did they use a scale 1-6? I always try to use an odd number so that responders can choose “neutral/neither.” The last problem I had with the result is the random p-values. Where did they come from? No hypothesis was being tested so there shouldn’t be a p-value to test for statistical significance. The p-value is the percent chance that you falsely rejected the null hypothesis. So, in order to have a p-value you must be comparing an expected value against an observed value. In the research paper there was no expected value or expected mean for the grading system. They simply observed and measured the values without guessing what the result would be. Therefore, I cannot determine why there is a p-value associated with the mean value in each category. Communication with the authors would be the only step to solving this problem.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
"Clothes make the brand"
From the Sports Business Journal: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2011/08/22/In-Depth/Branding
Review by Renard Robinson in Kin 332 (Section 2)
In Street & Smith’s Sports Business Journal, I chose the article “Clothes Make the Brand” to write my critique on. In the section, it discusses how the idea came about of being different in designing new uniforms and the importance of having unique uniforms to attract top level recruits to their universities. With some traditional powers succumbing to modern day styles; it seems the only option to go is with the evolution of new uniforms.
It all started in 1996 following a disappointing bowl loss. Nike chairman and Oregon alum, Phil Knight, had asked his design team a simple question: “How can we help the University of Oregon attract better students and student athletes?” In order to help get Oregon on the college football map, its simplest decision was to create uniforms that were out of the norm. Like always, with change comes controversy. Many sports writers despised the uniforms, but it was all part of the grand scheme of things. Over the past 5 years, the University of Oregon has been a perennial top 25 caliber team. Prior to that, they were arguably the laughing stock of the Pac – 10. What helped them attract the recruits they needed to compete in the Pac – 10 and nationally was the best uniforms in college football.
The success of their uniforms has spread throughout the country. In 2009, Nike released the Pro Combat Uniforms featuring 10 universities; Miami, Florida, Florida State, LSU, Ohio State, Texas, TCU, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Virginia Tech. Over the past few years, they’ve expanded to include West Virginia, Arizona State, and Boise State among others. With the popularity of these uniforms, top teams are annually at an advantage from a recruiting standpoint because these uniforms are a high commodity to high school athletes. It’s evident considering all of the universities sponsored by these uniforms are traditional powers or have been relevant within the past few years since unveiling new uniforms.
---
Review by Cathleen Crouch in Kin 332 (Section 2)
This article which appeared in the Sports Business Journal, written by Michael Smith, is about how it is becoming more prevalent for schools to alter their looks by changing their uniforms in hopes of gaining more exposure and attention. In the article’s introduction it discusses how the University of Oregon revamped their football team that had no recognition with a new look and now has one of the best known football organizations in the country. This was all possible due to the use of smart decision making with their marketing and branding. Oregon’s athletic director, Rob Mullens said, “We had not had much success, so why not be bold and try something new. We used to be ridiculed for being out there, but now you look across college football and it’s the trend”. Other colleges around the country are now starting to see the success that Oregon has had with being edgy and daring with their branding and merchandise. Many more universities are now starting to follow in Oregon’s footsteps hoping for the same successful results. But for some schools, tradition over flashy merchandise is what gains recognition respect, with teams such as Penn State, Auburn and Alabama. These schools don’t need to rebrand their look to be successful. Instead, they have a tradition of being successful on the field.
Although rebranding a team in some cases proves to be more successful, universities must keep in mind that while finding a new marketing strategy can prove to be a worthwhile. However, it is also a good idea to spend time focusing on teamwork.
Review by Renard Robinson in Kin 332 (Section 2)
In Street & Smith’s Sports Business Journal, I chose the article “Clothes Make the Brand” to write my critique on. In the section, it discusses how the idea came about of being different in designing new uniforms and the importance of having unique uniforms to attract top level recruits to their universities. With some traditional powers succumbing to modern day styles; it seems the only option to go is with the evolution of new uniforms.
It all started in 1996 following a disappointing bowl loss. Nike chairman and Oregon alum, Phil Knight, had asked his design team a simple question: “How can we help the University of Oregon attract better students and student athletes?” In order to help get Oregon on the college football map, its simplest decision was to create uniforms that were out of the norm. Like always, with change comes controversy. Many sports writers despised the uniforms, but it was all part of the grand scheme of things. Over the past 5 years, the University of Oregon has been a perennial top 25 caliber team. Prior to that, they were arguably the laughing stock of the Pac – 10. What helped them attract the recruits they needed to compete in the Pac – 10 and nationally was the best uniforms in college football.
The success of their uniforms has spread throughout the country. In 2009, Nike released the Pro Combat Uniforms featuring 10 universities; Miami, Florida, Florida State, LSU, Ohio State, Texas, TCU, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Virginia Tech. Over the past few years, they’ve expanded to include West Virginia, Arizona State, and Boise State among others. With the popularity of these uniforms, top teams are annually at an advantage from a recruiting standpoint because these uniforms are a high commodity to high school athletes. It’s evident considering all of the universities sponsored by these uniforms are traditional powers or have been relevant within the past few years since unveiling new uniforms.
---
Review by Cathleen Crouch in Kin 332 (Section 2)
This article which appeared in the Sports Business Journal, written by Michael Smith, is about how it is becoming more prevalent for schools to alter their looks by changing their uniforms in hopes of gaining more exposure and attention. In the article’s introduction it discusses how the University of Oregon revamped their football team that had no recognition with a new look and now has one of the best known football organizations in the country. This was all possible due to the use of smart decision making with their marketing and branding. Oregon’s athletic director, Rob Mullens said, “We had not had much success, so why not be bold and try something new. We used to be ridiculed for being out there, but now you look across college football and it’s the trend”. Other colleges around the country are now starting to see the success that Oregon has had with being edgy and daring with their branding and merchandise. Many more universities are now starting to follow in Oregon’s footsteps hoping for the same successful results. But for some schools, tradition over flashy merchandise is what gains recognition respect, with teams such as Penn State, Auburn and Alabama. These schools don’t need to rebrand their look to be successful. Instead, they have a tradition of being successful on the field.
Although rebranding a team in some cases proves to be more successful, universities must keep in mind that while finding a new marketing strategy can prove to be a worthwhile. However, it is also a good idea to spend time focusing on teamwork.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)