"PepsiCo expands lucrative NFL partnership"

From SportBusiness

Review by Matt Curtis in KIN 435 


The article that will be critiqued is called “PepsiCo expands lucrative NFL partnership.” The article was about the relationship PepsiCo has with the NFL. It first starts off by saying that PepsiCo has had a 28-year relationship with the NFL and will expand their deal with the NFL for 10 years, lasting through the 2022 play-offs. The article says the exact terms of the deal have not been disclosed but the contract is estimated to be worth $2.3 billion. Under the contract, PepsiCo also sponsors the NFL international series, which is a game that takes place in London and had been running for 5 consecutive years. Pepsi Max is still going to be the official soft drink of the NFL, and the Gatorade G series will support athletes and back education programs. PepsiCo’s Quaker Oats and Tropicana brands will now become partners of the league in order to promote those products. The article ends with saying how the NFL commissioner Roger Goddell, and PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi are happy with the deal.

The article was a little vague. It didn’t go into any details about the actual ways they plan on marketing the new products. It also talked about some programs they plan on running but didn’t give any information as to what they were. Also, when talking about the contracts, it didn’t elaborate on what exactly it means to be the official sponsor of the NFL. There are some heavy sales implications that stem from the article however. The contract being worth $2.3 billion was only an estimate, but that shows the importance the NFL means to PepsiCo. They are basically saying that investing $230 million each year into the NFL alone will earn them more than that in revenue. Not to mention the money they will have to spend on their marketing campaigns.

---

Review by Sky Powell in KIN 435

PepsiCo has been partners with the NFL for 28 years now, and just recently signed a new contract to extend that for ten more. The contract will last until the 2022 play-offs and is reported to be worth up to $2.3 billion. The new deal will start at the beginning of the 2012 season and is one of the most profitable signing deals ever for the league and a sponsor.

With the agreement, Pepsi will continue to be a sponsor of the NFL International Series, which is when two NFL teams play a regular season game in London. This will be the fifth consecutive year they have done this in an effort to help promote American football to a European crowd.

PepsiCo also plans to gain exposure through the NFL for their other brands as well. They are the owners of Gatorade, Pepsi Max, Frito-Lay, Quaker Oats and Tropicana. Pepsi Max will continue its role as the official soft drink of the NFL, while Gatorade will remain supporting athletes through their Gatorade G Series campaign. Gatorade is also involved in an educational program called “Beat the Heat,” in which they are concerned in teaching athletes, parents, and coaches heat-related illness and the importance of staying hydrated before, during, and after practices and games. Quaker Oats as well as Tropicana will become new partners with the NFL at the beginning of next season and it is estimated that both brands will be investing at least $15 million per year.

Since the 1980’s, Gatorade has been a sponsor of the NFL, but PepsiCo did not gain the main sponsorship of the league until 2002. Their rival, Coca-Cola had held those rights for almost 20 years, but Pepsi was able to strike up a better deal to land the spot as the primary sponsor. Pepsi and the NFL hope to build a better relationship between athletes and fans through their top of the line marketing schemes. They want to work together to bring the fans a more NFL-themed promotion all year round.

I think that the contract is beneficial for both sides because Pepsi is allowed to promote all aspects of their company, while the NFL is going to gain exposure through each of those brands.

"Marketing the 'Big Game': Developing a Student Rewards Program in College Basketball"

From Sports Marketing Quarterly

Review by Ryan Richardson in KIN 332 (Section 2)


Kansas State University found the student population to be sparse at non-marquee games leading up to the historically sold-out Kansas State vs. Kansas University basketball game (also known as the “Sunflower Showdown”). KSU also had a “first come, first serve” seating policy for students at home games, which created a mad rush when the gates were opened. To increase student turnout on the non-marquee games leading to the Sunflower Showdown and to create a safer alternative to students rushing to seats, KSU created a student rewards program.

Students were encouraged to sign up for the program in groups of two to ten people. Students were awarded a point for each home game they attended. The average number of games attended by members of the groups determined their seating for the

Sunflower Showdown. Pre-determined seating would eliminate the unsafe rush for marquee games and rewarding students with seats to the Sunflower Showdown would give students incentive to attend the games leading to it.

The program consisted of 3,324 students in 999 groups. Grouping the students would encourage entire groups to attend games. Registering in groups also emphasizes attending sporting events because of their social nature. Pressure is created on the students to organize and connect with members of the group for each game. This social aspect would also impact less committed spectators who want to be involved in a group. Also, if an individual’s reference group approves of going to the game, the game experience itself is perceived more favorably. Any student who only attended marquee games would be forced to attend other games.

Student attendance to the nine games leading up to the Sunflower Showdown increased on average by 1246 a game when compared to the previous season. That is an 18.2% average increase per game! The program was so successful KSU incorporated it into their other sports. This article shows marketing a rivalry is good. A rival can create an Us vs. Them mindset which helps increase the value of that specific game. Students will also be willing to attend other games to get seats for a rivalry game. It brings in the question of what else students will do to get seats to an important game. The rewards program could be implemented across all sports so attendance to less popular sports increases. The students are provided with a motivation to attend games. The perceived value or importance of non-marquee games increases. This could generate more hype and students not even involved in the program may attend because so many others are.

The program’s reward must be appealing to the customer segment you are targeting. Also, existing marketing activities such as half-time giveaways and entertainment must still be provided. It is important to keep marketing strategies focused on forming stronger connections with the team during a rewards program. Also, the social aspect of attending a game should be highlighted so win or lose, the fans enjoy their experience.

---

Review by Jake Kennelly in KIN 332 (Section 2)

In the article it discussed how UNLV was losing attendance at their sporting events and how Kansas St faced a similar issue. It outlined the problem and solution that K. State came up with, and how UNLV could apply it to their own problems. I though the article was very interesting and the idea behind it was very clever, but I don’t think it was necessary to add the UNLV section to it in addition to the Kansas State. I understand that it set up the rest of the article but they could have just based it on Kansas State as they were the ones who were actually implemented the reward system. However, I think the rewards system in a great idea and that it could be used not only in college sports but in all sports as well. I think that JMU could greatly benefit from this system as well. My friends and I only go to a few select games, similar to the situation at Kansas St. and if this reward system was in place I think it would greatly increase student attendance. Also this could be an effective strategy in the 25 strong campaign as well for next year and even for when more renovations are done on Bridgeforth. Kansas State was able to achieve an 18.2% increase in student ticket sales, combine that kind of success with all sports and you can see the potential. This article also had interesting points as to the reason people attend games. The main distinction was between fans and spectators; fans attended because of a deep rooted connection with a team and a spectator attended just to attend. So this system could also potentially turn casual spectators into die-hard fans which would increase profits in not just ticket sales but other areas as well.

"Ambush Marketing and the Right of Association: Clamping Down on References to That Big Event With All the Athletes in a Couple of Year"

From the Journal of Sport Management





Review by Nicole Crivellaro in KIN 332 (Section 2)


The article chosen is about ambush marketing. It is a peer-reviewed article that goes in to great detail about the complications ambush marketing brings to companies and sporting events. It starts by defining ambush marketing in two ways. Even though each definition is different, both describe ambush marketing as a company marketing themselves or their product without consent from the event owner. This causes problems with the sponsors/advertisements that do get consent from the event owner due to a number of legal issues. To name a few, the article mentions and describes unfair competition, trademark infringement, tort of passing off, false/misleading representations, false advertising, and disclaimers. These legal issues have not stopped ambush marketing due to freedom of speech laws and consumer perceptions. To further explain, any company that has marketed their product during a sporting event without consent is not allowed to deceive the consumers. This being stated, companies have found ways to market their company/product without committing any crimes or deceiving the consumers attending the events. Thus, a new legislation was enacted and is now strongly enforced in a number of different countries. The Sydney Olympic Games was the first to establish such legislation and many have followed. New Zealand established MEMA, South Africa established the Trade Practices Act, 1976 and Merchandise Marks Amendment Act, 2002, London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act (2006), and Canada enacted Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act of 2007. Along with these legislations, the right of association addresses ambush marketing on a national level. Even with these laws, ambush marketing will always be a problem in the sports world. Sports marketers, companies, consumers, etc. are affected each day with the legal implications brought by ambush marketers and need to know how to deal with such issues.

---

Review by Vince Mullhausen in KIN 332 (Section 2)

Teresa Scassa concentrates on both sides of the issue when it comes to Ambush Marketing in her article Ambush Marketing and the Right of Association: Clamping Down on References to That Big Event With All the Athletes in a Couple of Years. Ambush Marketing broken down is an organizations effort to be associated with an event without paying legal sponsorships fees. She wrote about countries that already enacted laws against this technically legal issue, in relation to how the laws are made to actually protect the consumer as well. Finishing the article with how the Ambush Marketing laws that have been enacted infringe on personal rights and freedoms.

This creates a problem for the sports market industry on a global scale. Organizations advertise at sporting events and obtain association without paying sponsorship fees. Therefore, it creates an unfair advantage with the organizations that did pay for their advertising rights. Misleading the consumer, false advertising, and trademark infringement are some of the legal issues that can arise. However, the evidence of most Ambush Marketing cases is based on the consumer and how far the consumer was mislead, deceived, or confused. This creates many issues with prosecuting or enforcing these laws because it is very difficult to prove how far the consumer was misinformed. Despite that the laws are made to protect the consumer as well as organizations and their events. Critics of these regulations argue that they infringe on personal rights and freedoms. The new laws limit the street activity that can occur by protected events.

Ambush Marketing is a controversial and often contradicting issue. With so many factors that play into Ambush Marketing it is hard to say a concrete solution will arise anytime soon.