From OregonLive.com
Review by Alex Boecker in KIN 332
For the 2002-2011 football seasons, Reebok had exclusive manufacturing and marketing rights over all of the NFL’s authentic and replica jerseys, sideline apparel, hats, and onfield footwear. That all changed late in 2011 when the NFL signed a 5 year contract with Nike for jersey manufacturing. This also meant that the new jersey designs wouldn’t be unveiled until April 3rd, 2012 which raised some worry. Recently, Nike had redesigned the Oregon Ducks football jerseys and had made them significantly more flamboyant than that of previous designs. Fans were worried that Nike would take the same approach to the new NFL jerseys making them look foolish. That was not the case thought, and many were quite pleased that Nike took a much more conservative route with the jerseys. Leo Kane, the NFL’s senior vice president of consumer products, said that they are “very happy with the partners we chose” and dismissed the idea that the recent Oregon Ducks design may have caused hesitation when choosing their new partner.
Although the Seattle Seahawks were the only team to receive completely redesigned uniforms, many teams are now boasting performance related improvements in the new uniforms such as lighter fabric and new pads where there were none before. Even though only one team has been wearing a new uniform design, it can be expected that many more will come under this new Nike contract, including the Vikings who are revealing their new uniforms on April 25th of this year. However, the league does set up some stipulations to make sure that teams are not constantly changing uniforms. Not only must the team talk to the NFL before talking to the apparel manufacturer, but they must also wait at least 5 years in between uniform changes.
While uniform changes can be very important to the image of a team, it is important not to overdo it. Fans want their teams to be attractive and have good looking apparel, but if you go over the top, such as the Oregon Ducks, it may turn off fans. Also, changing the image of a team too frequently can lower sales if fans cannot afford to keep purchasing the new apparel. That is why it is important for the marketers to stay ahead of the curve and aim for apparel that is going to be popular now as well as several years down the road.
Showing posts with label uniform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label uniform. Show all posts
Friday, April 19, 2013
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
"Exploring saturation levels for sponsorship logos on professional sports shirts: a cross-cultural study"
The article, “Exploring saturation levels for sponsorship logos on professional sports shirts: A cross-cultural study” analyzed the effectiveness of sponsor logos on professional hockey jerseys and their effect on the brand itself. The researchers were testing to see whether increased amounts of sponsor logos on the jerseys themselves had an effect on brand identity, affiliation, and effectiveness.
The researchers categorized jerseys into three categories: the logo-free (clean) approach used by the NHL (only the team logo present), the restrained approach used by the American Hockey League and Russian Kontinental League (up to two sponsor logos present), and the unrestrained approach (characterized by unlimited amounts of sponsor logos on the jersey). They then created three hypothetical “alternate” jerseys for various hockey teams with varying amounts of sponsor logos and surveyed hockey fans to gauge their reactions to the shirts. The study measured the intensity of the shirt advertising on the fans’ attitude toward the team, intention to purchase team merchandise/apparel, and sponsor brand recall rate among the three different shirts.
The results followed the researchers’ proposed hypotheses. In terms of the sponsors’ interests, there was an abrupt drop-off in brand recall when more than two logos were present on the jerseys. In terms of the managers of the team/franchise, it appeared that attitude towards the team and purchase intentions did not significantly drop when there were two or fewer logos on the jersey, but the presence of more logos resulted in more negative attitudes. In general, the more logos that were present lead to more negative attitudes towards the team and jersey.
I feel like this study is important and practical in several ways. As a leader in this industry, we may one day be forced to make a decision regarding issues similar to this. How we balance the financial gain and benefit that sponsorship presents with retaining a loyal fan base willing to purchase our merchandise is an extremely important discussion to be prepared for. According to the results of this study, team identity and fans’ purchase intentions do not significantly decrease with two or fewer logos; therefore, one can reasonably assume that selling two sponsorships will generate revenue while retaining desired fan behaviors and attitudes. It is also an insightful study into the benefits that sponsors receive from choosing a specific team or organization to partner with. Sponsorships should be a win-win deal for both sides, but this study shows that, at least in terms of these jersey sponsorship logos, the product will be diluted and the recall will be less significant with the presence of other sponsor logos on the same product. This creates a less effective sponsorship and could lead to certain companies severing their deals with the team. It obviously also affects the organization itself, as it has a direct influence on merchandise sales and perhaps more importantly on team affiliation and positive attitudes about the franchise.
I also think that this study is relevant because it can be expanded to include other sports and other leagues. The NBA is currently discussing adding sponsor logos on their jerseys for the first time, and this can serve as a relevant blueprint for the NBA and other leagues to follow to maintain their apparel sales and fan loyalty. It also is a telling fact that those surveyed in this study were college student-aged individuals, which is a high-priority demographic market for most sport leagues. They want to touch this demographic in order to build long-term fans, as fans who are affiliated with a team for a longer time may be more inclined to purchase that team’s merchandise.
An interesting extension of this study would be to expand it to more popular sports in the United States (NFL, NBA, and MLB) and also to analyze the effect that these logos have in professional soccer, where on-shirt advertising is already popular. A future study could also include a more broad demographic, rather than focusing almost solely on college students. I like the idea of a survey of the fans, and I think that could be especially useful (and good PR) if they are involved in a similar survey in order to choose a new alternate jersey for the team. This gets them involved, makes them feel like they have a voice with their team, and allows for the team to create a jersey that they know is popular with fans and will therefore hopefully sell well. By judging the purchase intentions and attitudes reflected onto the team by their fans, team managers can then pursue the appropriate amount and type of sponsors for on-shirt advertising while not diluting their product or the sponsor’s gain by a significant amount.
This study is interesting and applicable for our class in that it deals directly with marketing and shows the potential pitfalls of oversaturation. While we talk about the importance of lining up sponsorships and generating those revenue streams, this is a good example of how thin of a line it is at times to balance each interest (revenue and maintaining fan interest). The study is a good read for an aspiring leader of a sports organization and was an interesting discussion with the trend of on-shirt advertising becoming more popular on the professional level.
Monday, September 26, 2011
"Under Armour grabs attention, mixed reviews for 'bold' Maryland uniforms"
From Baltimore Business Journal
Review by Sam Dowell in KIN 332 (Section 1)
Under Armour and the University of Maryland open up the college football season this year with a uniform that caught just about everyone’s eye. The design was so radical that it sparked conversations and got everyone talking about the University of Maryland. Interestingly enough, there were as many negative opinions as there were positive ones. The two-sided jerseys seemed to serve the purpose of giving Under Armour and the University of Maryland plenty of exposure.
The specific jerseys that the Terrapin players sported were the Maryland Pride uniforms which showcased the two different patterns on the Maryland flag. This was a great marketing move because it garnered support from the Maryland citizens as UMD wanted people to know that state pride is an integral value of the university. The Maryland Pride jerseys are one of 32 different combination patterns that Under Armour has designed for the 2011 season. Under Armour is taking a page out of Nike’s book, who designed the Oregon Duck’s uniforms that became incredibly popular last season. The one thing that both Oregon and Maryland’s jersey had in common was the fact that they were both eye catching and they created free publicity. Free publicity is a fantastic way to market a university but the only downside is there is no way to control what the public thinks of the product once it is out there. Some observers from Maryland’s season opener described the uniforms as “wild” and “hideous.” This is the one downfall for designing such a bold product but in the end, the positives seem to outweigh the negatives and the jerseys served the purpose of getting the program noticed and talked about nationwide. Under Armour is at the forefront in changing the strategy of a traditional marketing program. Under Armour as well as Nike are starting to put more emphasis on appearance than on merchandise. They are customizing helmets, gloves, football pants, etc, to garner as much attention as possible. Fans don’t regularly purchase these products so; these schools are counting on adding fan support through the style and originality of their gear. I personally think this would be most effective establishing a larger fan base with the youth population. This market loves the cool, sleek new jersey styles and is less likely to be loyal to another university. Once the fan base is established, the merchandise will also become more and more popular. The University of Maryland blazed a new trail with their creative jerseys and I expect other Universities to come up with some wild designs themselves to get their name out nationally as well.
Review by Sam Dowell in KIN 332 (Section 1)
Under Armour and the University of Maryland open up the college football season this year with a uniform that caught just about everyone’s eye. The design was so radical that it sparked conversations and got everyone talking about the University of Maryland. Interestingly enough, there were as many negative opinions as there were positive ones. The two-sided jerseys seemed to serve the purpose of giving Under Armour and the University of Maryland plenty of exposure.
The specific jerseys that the Terrapin players sported were the Maryland Pride uniforms which showcased the two different patterns on the Maryland flag. This was a great marketing move because it garnered support from the Maryland citizens as UMD wanted people to know that state pride is an integral value of the university. The Maryland Pride jerseys are one of 32 different combination patterns that Under Armour has designed for the 2011 season. Under Armour is taking a page out of Nike’s book, who designed the Oregon Duck’s uniforms that became incredibly popular last season. The one thing that both Oregon and Maryland’s jersey had in common was the fact that they were both eye catching and they created free publicity. Free publicity is a fantastic way to market a university but the only downside is there is no way to control what the public thinks of the product once it is out there. Some observers from Maryland’s season opener described the uniforms as “wild” and “hideous.” This is the one downfall for designing such a bold product but in the end, the positives seem to outweigh the negatives and the jerseys served the purpose of getting the program noticed and talked about nationwide. Under Armour is at the forefront in changing the strategy of a traditional marketing program. Under Armour as well as Nike are starting to put more emphasis on appearance than on merchandise. They are customizing helmets, gloves, football pants, etc, to garner as much attention as possible. Fans don’t regularly purchase these products so; these schools are counting on adding fan support through the style and originality of their gear. I personally think this would be most effective establishing a larger fan base with the youth population. This market loves the cool, sleek new jersey styles and is less likely to be loyal to another university. Once the fan base is established, the merchandise will also become more and more popular. The University of Maryland blazed a new trail with their creative jerseys and I expect other Universities to come up with some wild designs themselves to get their name out nationally as well.
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)