From Athletic Business
Analysis by Kevin Albright in KIN 501
The article that I came across was in the Athletic Business Journal and it deals with a reseating plan at West Virginia University basketball games. More specifically sources think that this reseating plan has lead to lower attendances for this season’s games. Season ticket holders seats were taken from them and the new reseating plan gave the better seats to those who were larger donors to the program. The first game of the season there was a good attendance but since then the average is nearly half of that first game. The author then goes on to examine if this reseating plan truly is harming the attendance. Although the number of season ticket renewals went down they do not think it is a result of the reseating plan because their donations increased and more money was raised from season ticket holders this year compared to last. He explains that last year the Mountaineers didn’t perform that well and this year is a rebuild year which is why attendance may be lacking. The author feels that the attendance numbers are down because the students are not coming out to support their team and he feels this is an area of concern across the country.
Attendance to sporting events is a huge focus of sport marketing and I think it is often tough to tell why or why not fans may be attending games. There are a lot of different factors that may affect attendance as you can see with this article. The issue that I would like to focus on is the lack of student support. I agree with the author that a lot of schools are suffering from minimal student support and it takes away from the college basketball atmosphere. Based on my experiences the students tend to be the most boisterous fans and they can have an impact on the game and create that home court advantage. Being at JMU I have seen great crowds for a college game and I have also seen poor crowds for a college game and in my opinion a lot of it has to do with the students. I understand that season ticket holders bring in the money which is a primary focus, I feel that to create that ideal atmosphere you need a good group of student fans. For example, Duke has the Cameron Crazies which is the name they give their student fans who show up regularly and camp out for tickets, stand the whole game, paint their faces, and are extremely loud. Duke is a program with a rich basketball history and has a habit of being very competitive so that may make it easier for student fans to rally behind the team.
I found this article interesting because like the author said, every school seems to be losing student fans and the sports marketing departments can help to recruit those fans back to games. I believe that seating does have an impact on the amount of fans that come weather they are season ticket holders or students. The better your seat is or the closer you are to the court the more you feel involved in the game which is the experience fans want to have. Obviously not everyone can have the best seats but I would be interested to see in venues around the country what seems to be the most beneficial seating arrangement for fans to maximize attendance.
From The Kansas City Star
Analysis by Nick Kusko in KIN 501
The article from the Kansas City Star addressed the lack of attendance throughout the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics. The article explained that there has traditionally been an increase in the turnout of events as the Olympics go on, but at Sochi, this rise has not occurred. The issue was so concerning that it reached the highest levels of the International Olympic Committee. As an example, the men’s downhill, which was considered to be the main event of the Alpine ski schedule, failed to reach a capacity crowd.
Tickets to the various events were sold beforehand, but the turnout has not been there. The Sochi Olympic Committee has resorted to using volunteers to get people in the stands. The Russian crowds that have made it to the events have not been especially enthusiastic, and the competition environment has been somewhat dull.
The Sochi Olympic venues have been the most expensive to construct in history. Unfortunately, people around the world just do not seem as interested in these games despite it showcasing the best athletes of the world. A large reason for the negative buzz around Sochi are the security worries and poor living conditions for the athletes. There have been threats of terror that have intimidated people away from the games, even including some families of the competing athletes. Airfare and hotel costs have also been recorded as being unreasonably high.
There has recently been a surge of pictures to hit the web entitled “Sochi Fails,” which include a lack of privacy in bathrooms, dangerous living conditions, and an overwhelming presence of stray dogs. This type of publicity was not the attention the Olympic Committee was hoping to receive.
The Olympics will always be under scrutiny due to its spectacular nature. Any Olympic Committee will expect to deliver excellence, and Sochi has arguably failed in this aspect thus far. One thing is for sure, Sochi will not be hosting any Olympic events anytime in the near or distant future.
From Athletic Business
Review by Jonathan Parker in SRM 435 (section 1)
Super Bowl XLVIII in New York was the first Super Bowl to be held in an outdoor venue. The NFL and economists are arguing if the host city earns any money for their economy from the Super Bowl and all of its events that are associated with it. Economists are saying that the host city, this year New York City, will receive very little to no money from hosting the Super Bowl. They argue that most of the spending was on the tickets, the beer, and the souvenirs associated with the game. Most of that money goes out of town with the retailers that sold these items. Also the NFL has a tax-exempt policy that allows employees working the Super Bowl to avoid any local sales tax on their food and lodging. From this policy, it was estimated that New Orleans lost around $800,000 from hosting the Super Bowl, the year before. The NFL states the economy of New York and New Jersey would see an increase of about $600 million from Super Bowl spending. The NFL’s reasoning was from the fact that more hotels and restaurants were being booked because of the Super Bowl. Also the NFL states that the host city spends a lot of money to lure the big game to their city. With the only reason for doing such, was because of the money their local economy would receive from the outside visitors.
The problem is that the NFL has not shown where they have come up with such a large number, keeping the economists skeptical. The economists fear displacement for the visitors not there for the Super Bowl, because the Super Bowl visitors would fill all of the hotels leaving other visitors to go elsewhere, but New York. The weather this year for the Super Bowl was actually a bonus because it was not during the main tourist season in New York City and from New York City, having so many hotels that it would not displace anyone regardless if they are there for the game or not. A non-NFL study showed the impact of the Super Bowl is around $30-120 million in overall spending. New York should experience around $100 million in increased revenue and a few million will be generated in the form of new taxes.
From a sports sales promotion, I think it is crazy that the NFL thinks the Super Bowl brings in $600 million for New York’s economy. I feel this way because the NFL has to get a certain percentage from all the money spent around the Super Bowl and also the vendors and sponsors for the Super Bowl would get their money as well. Meaning it would leave New York with some new money, but probably not as much as they deserve. Using a sales standpoint, I do not feel the economists see the benefit that a host city has when hosting the Super Bowl. I think the economists always take a worldly view, because they see the economy of the nation, not as a healthy entity and the fact that why would one event change the outcome of one city’s economic status. I think economists need to understand that the sports field continues to grow at an unprecedented pace and continues to attract more fans year by year. Because of this, it can cause a tremendous amount of money to be generated. Another sales point, is that the NFL makes a lot of money from merchandise, tickets, and sponsors that the host city deserves by hosting the Super Bowl. The host city spends a large amount of money in an attempt to host the game and the city that gets the game should actually see most of the revenue.
The NFL from a marketing and promotion point needs the Super Bowl Committee to release their stats a whole lot sooner than after four years have passed. I think they need to because economists, sales people, and local venues want to see the impact that the Super Bowl can have on host cities. Then they will know how to prepare and respond to the situation and see how the NFL came up with their numbers. I think the local stores and vendors would see an increase in sales and revenue because of the attendees the Super Bowl attracts. Many people spend the whole week, within the city, leading up to the game and from this they will be spending money on food, shopping, hotels, and even transportation with cabs and buses.
The article is relevant to SRM 435 because it show the 4P’s of marketing. Product is the Super Bowl, place is of course New York City, promotion is everywhere from TV, to social media, and price is the cost for tickets, hotels, food, and souvenirs. Also the article shows consumer behavior when it comes to dealing with the Super Bowl. It shows how the NFL feels the Super Bowl will draw in the crowds and that how host cities try to outbid each other, just for the economic opportunity that the big game can bring to an area. Finally, the article is relevant to the course in that the Super Bowl can be a money making revenue for the host city. To determine if a sports promotion is successful is determined by the revenue that it generates.
---
Review by John Boitnott in SRM 435 (section 1)
In the article Analysts: Windfalls for Super Bowl Host Overthrown, the question of how much revenue host cities of the Super Bowl actually make is brought up. The article starts by giving the NFL’s claim of how much of a boost the Super Bowl brings to a city’s economy, and then shows that the NFL would want to say that because cities spend hundreds of millions to lure the big game to them. The article goes on to explain how the league won’t reveal how they came up with the figure of how much it benefits the local economies, and uses research and quotes from professional economists to show that the average economic impact is actually around $30 million to $120 million as opposed to the $600 million figure that the NFL states.
From a sport marketing, promotions, and sales standpoint this article can surprise someone when they read that most of the money from branded items goes right back out of town. Except for the small proportion that is paid to the vendors, much of the money leaves the city once the Super Bowl leaves. The state of New York alone spent $5 million on advertising events, and when looking at how much money leaves their economy it can be called into question as to how much the costs were really worth and if the amount of revenue earned after that was actually worth the investment. If future host cities and cities vying for a bid take advice from the economists who contributed to this article, it could have a significant impact on how everything is approached. Marketing and sales strategies and schemes could be changed to make sure the revenue earned from the game stays in the area, and if enough cities collaborate together the prices of Super Bowl bids could drop unless the NFL can somehow guarantee that the city will keep a certain percentage of profits that are able to be measured.
This article is relevant to the course because it a lot of directly discusses sport marketing and sales. Tickets, food, lodging, travel, advertising, along with apparel and merchandise are all things that were used to calculate the amount of money the Super Bowl brought to the city. By carefully dissecting all of these, economists were able to get a number quite different and seemingly more credible than the NFL’s. Especially after the league would not show how they came up with their $600 million figure, this article shows that much of the money that is generated as a result of sports marketing and sales is far from the NFL’s claim.
