Friday, October 18, 2013

"Will Controversial Sports Team Names Be Gone in Five Years?"

From Adweek



Analysis by Natalie Bernstein in SRM 435 (section 1)

The article we chose to discuss was by Adweek and it was entitled “Will Controversial Sports Team Names Be Gone in Five Years? Prominent Native American Activist Says Yes” by David Gianatasio. In the article, Gianatasio shows how this year’s fight to change the Redskins name has gained a significant amount of momentum. He provides examples of this through quotes from various people who are closely linked to the Redskins name. While most people seem to agree that there needs to be an immediate change, people like Dan Snyder, owner of the Redskins, says he will never change the name.

From a marketing standpoint, this type of rebranding is going to cost a significant amount of money, not to mention the thousands of fans that will be infuriated. The question also arises that if they change the Redskins, a name that has been around for eighty-one years, will people even accept the change? Will they buy the new merchandise? This instantly makes me think of JMU’s Rose Library; the name was changed from east campus a couple years ago and students still refer to it by its old name, and this is just a library. When examining a multi-million dollar organization, changing the name will not solve all of the protestors’ problems. I doubt people will instantly stop referring to their favorite team as the Redskins, and I predict that it is going to be a challenge for several years after the official switch. However, with all of the negative sides to changing the team name, I believe the Redskins don’t have a choice. When broadcasters and other media sources refuse to even speak the team name, you have a major problem. Everyone is focusing more on the racism and less on the sport of football. So hopefully this change will bring people back to what this sport is all about with a politically correct name, that way both sides are happy. 

This topic is relevant to our course because it deals with a sports team who is about to undergo serious rebranding. When the name gets changed, the Redskins are going to have to come up with a completely different marketing strategy in hopes to make the name stick.


---

Analysis by Connor Massei in SRM 435 (section 1)


This article questions whether or not the Washington Redskins and other controversial professional sports franchises will change their name within the next five or ten years. The article gives quotes and examples for reasons as to why these franchises will change their names as well as to why they will not. The article explains that with current pressure and support from Native Americans as well as from other groups, these organizations and the Washington Redskins in particular may not be able to resist changing their name in the near future. However, Redskins owner Dan Snyder has been quoted as saying he will never change the team name.

Analyzing this article from a marketing perspective brings up some interesting points. I feel that if the Redskins were to change their name, sales in different departments would, at least initially, decrease. I think fans would shy away from buying new team merchandise because they have previously spent money on merchandise when the team was still referred to as the Redskins. I also believe that ticket sales would initially decrease. I think the organization would lose a substantial amount of supporters because so many people are against a name change. I wouldn’t be surprised if some fans boycotted going to games as long as the Redskins have their new name. It could be difficult to market the franchise as the Washington-anything-other-than Redskins. Redskin fans and NFL fans in general are so used to seeing and hearing the Redskins’ name that it could cause problems for marketing and promotion teams when trying to make a different team name catch on.


This article is relevant to the course because whether or not you think controversial team names should change, it undoubtedly would affect these franchises from a marketing standpoint. They would have to figure out ways to promote the new name, logo, or even fight song. Fans would have to be persuaded to continue to buy game tickets whether they supported the name change or not. Marketing teams would have to use many of the strategies and things learned in class in order to successfully deal with the changing of any professional sports team name.

"NFL playoff expansion would come at a price"

From USA Today



Analysis by Sean Cunningham in SRM 435 (section 1)

The article that James and I did for our presentation talked about the recent owners meetings where the commissioner of the NFL Roger Goodell proposed a plan to expand the NFL postseason from 12 teams to 14 teams. The article was written in USA Today on October 9th and was titled, “NFL Playoff Expansion Would Come at a Price”. The way this expansion would happen is by adding an extra wildcard team to both the NFC and AFC. By doing this it would allow for more meaningful games at the end of the season because more teams will have a chance of making the playoffs. This proposed expansion would be put into place at the earliest for the 2015 NFL season and would eliminate one preseason. Commissioner Roger Goodell believes the NFL is in strongest position it has been in during his 32 years with the NFL, and by expanding the playoffs, would only make it stronger.

In my opinion and coming from a marketing and sales standpoint this is a win, win situation for the NFL as a league and its players. The player’s union was strongly against extending the regular season form 16 games to 18 games so by only expanding the playoffs it seems to be a compromise between both parties. The NFL as a league will gain extra revenue through TV contracts, more fans watching or buying tickets for meaningful games, and more marketing and sponsorship opportunities for the NFL. From the player’s side, every team and player wants to play in the playoffs, so by expanding the playoffs them it only increases those chances of making the playoffs and achieving the ultimate goal of winning a Superbowl. The only cons I can see from expanding the playoffs are that it could increase the risk of injuries, it could create a watered down playoff product by having too many teams, and that if the NFL is the strongest its ever been why mess with it. The NFL playoffs have been set at 12 teams since 1990, which has been the time when the NFL are grown the most so why fix something that has got you to become the most popular sport in our nation. 


This topic is relevant to our Sports Marketing and Sales course because a move like this by the NFL has a ripple effect on the marketing and sales of each individual team, along with the league as a whole. New marketing plans and sponsorship will need to be put in place for the two extra playoff games and the new playoff format. Also, new TV deals will need to be made for the extra games along with having more advertisement space for the NFL to sell. In conclusion, like I said before I believe this is a win, win situation for both the NFL and the players and if it is implemented it could only increase the popularity of the NFL, not hurt it.

---

Analysis by James Daniel in SRM 435 (section 1)

NFL owners are always looking for ways not only to expand its product (generate more revenue, increase marketability, etc...). As Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones said, “They can find another way to grow the pie.” Which brings us to the NFL’s proposal to expand the NFL playoffs from 12 teams (six per conference) to 14 teams (seven per conference). The expansion in terms of logistics would create only one means for a 1st round bye, win the number one overall seed. The league sees this as a tool to generate more revenue of course through more games competitive and meaningful games being shown towards the season’s end. A huge part of the league's toolbox to generate more from its deals with television networks is its ability to use flex scheduling. Flex scheduling allows NBC (the network that hosts NFL Sunday Night Football) starting week 11 to the end of the regular season, to select a different game from its regularly scheduled contest to broadcast. It is used to bump less relevant games in favor of games with playoff implications. This of course generates a good portion of money from network deals due to the fact that highly competitive games will be aired in primetime, when everyone watches. Fox & CBS however do have protected games that cannot be flex scheduled and there are regulations behind how many times a team can be on primetime games, a small form of revenue sharing. Another aspect of scheduling would be whether the games in the opening round would be a three-three format or a two-two-two format. Essentially, the league would have to decide whether to broadcast triple header on Saturday & Sunday of wild card weekend or to air two games on a Friday evening. 

Another aspect of the proposal would be a removal of preseason games (one) in favor of the expanded postseason. Players are not a fan of this as it cuts the offseason calendar, which was altered by the league under the new CBA (Collective Bargaining Agreement) to limit player injuries before the start of regular season action, an effort to protect a better product. Also, they believe it will dilute the quality that the playoffs bring by having average or subpar to making the playoffs, which could back fire it such were to happen. Roger Goodell has been on record saying that the quality of preseason games is not up to league standards. Of course, NFL teams normally do not play their starters in the final preseason contest. The expansion would not take place before the 2015 NFL season so it has time to further evaluate. It is seen as a compromise as the NFLPA shutdown the idea of an 18 game regular season schedule. At the beginning, the expansion would without a doubt, reap rewards from where it currently is. The question is in the long run, how will this pan out for the NFL.

Friday, October 11, 2013

University of Louisville's Sport Administration Program Open House


The Sport Administration program at the University of Louisville would like to invite prospective master's students to attend an Open House on November 1, 2013, from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm.

The Open House will take place virtually via Google+ Hangout. Students can attend simply by signing into the hangout using their Google+ ID. The event schedule is below:

Open House Itinerary
11:00               Welcome and introductions
11:10               Program overview - curriculum, application process, Q&A
11:40               Open discussion with current students
12:00               Adjourn

Interested students should complete the registration form through the website link below:


This will be a great opportunity for interested prospective students to learn about our program.