"Fee-Fi-Fo-Funds"

From Athletics Management

Review by Rocky Morris Jr. in KIN 435 


This article discusses different ways to introduce or raise fees to increase the revenue of athletic departments within NCAA school divisions. Most of the schools that have already implemented an increase in these fees discuss how they have handled this situation when it is presented to the school as a whole and what sorts of reactions take place. The Athletic Directors of these schools see the fees as a necessary income to be able to compete at the highest level that they can at their given conferences, while understanding that it is difficult to convince an already money-strapped school to justify increasing tuition costs. For the majority of the schools in the article, they listed that they reached out to the students in one way or another and made sure that there was appropriate communication as to why fees needed to be gathered. The Athletic Director from Missouri State implemented the help of a student committee and ran a campaign to help promote a fee. At Georgia Tech, a pre-planned committee made up of only a handful of individuals decides on whether to raise additional costs, while a vote at California State University Long Beach went against a price increase because of the possible technological issue of new voting methods that didn’t quite resonate with students. Afterward, a re-collaboration from different department heads decided on a student excellence fee to bring in more funds. Still at other schools such as Buffalo State College, a fee increase means a lot and must go through much scrutiny and possible cuts to athletic budgets before getting passed. Education of why raising fees is beneficial and working together ultimately wins over the drawbacks.

---

Review by Brent Henchen in KIN 435

Every semester colleges go through an internal struggle it seems as to whether or not to increase tuition and fees. Especially with the value students and alumni place on sports, there is continually mounting pressure on college athletics to perform well; and sometimes they need more funds to stay with the competition. So, those schools are forced to increase student fees. In “Fee-Fi-Fo-Funds” Dennis Read asks directors from different school how they increase fees and asks what the resulting consequences are. In most colleges, like Missouri State, Utah State, and Georgia Tech, an increase in fees has to be passed by a legislative body. And that body usually contains current students. Dennis investigates the reactions to fund increases and examines ways in which some directors have gotten bills to increase fees approved by the required number of students.

A few of the techniques the administrators have used are to: try to influence student leaders, who will in turn influence a lot of the student body; view the proposal from the student’s perspective in order to know what benefits to convey to the students; educate the students on the athletic department’s needs; putting together a student committee to help; show the fees they charge in relation to the fees charged by other schools in the same conference, and so on. These methods, some of them used together, were mostly successful. Fees increased without upsetting a majority of the student body.

This article can help other administrators with a list of do’s and don’ts when trying to increase fees for athletics. Every year it seems more money is needed to keep up with a growing college or college athletic program. Knowing how to “sell” a fee increase is very important for maintaining a balanced budget and staying out of debt. The same selling tactics cannot be used year after year, so new persuasive arguments will need to be used, which will require administrators to continually face the problem of convincing students and faculty to approve an increase in student fees. Therefore, a universal answer to this problem cannot be determined, but instead temporary answers will have to be implemented and disposed of yearly.

"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.