"9/11 golf course promotion backfires"

From ESPN.com

Analysis by Trent Cundiff in SRM 435 (section 1)

I reviewed an article done by ESPN.com and Darren Rovell based on the Tumbledown Trails Golf Course’s 9/11 Golf Promotion fail. This golf course located near Madison, Wisconsin tried a very risky marketing promotion that ended up miserably. They offered a special for 18 holes of golf just for $9.11 on September 11, 2013. They believed that they would be honoring the people that were lost on that day but it turned into a major problem once their ad hit social media. The public was disgusted with the golf course trying to take advantage of a tragic day by spinning it off into a marketing promotion. Instead of the management for Tumbledown Trails realizing that a big mistake had been made by them intentionally or unintentionally, they posted on their Facebook that they have done it before and it is only meant for honoring the day. They even went on to say that they were “hurt” by the comments left from the public. This caused more backlashes from the public, including death threats left on the golf course’s voicemail. After the second wave of terrible responses, the management decided to donate the day’s earning to the 9/11 Memorial.

When studying this story the major thought that kept coming to my head was, “How many people did this go through to get approved?” I know a golf course management team is not close to numbers compared to an NBA marketing team but I believe red flags should have been thrown up from the start. They made one of the biggest tragedies in our American history into almost like a car dealership trying to have “An Independence Sale”. The actual idea going from the planning stage to the action stage makes me very confused to how it went through those channels without someone stopping it. Even more confusing to me was how when the promotion became negative, the golf course handled their crisis management very poorly. If you are going to take that big of a risk about doing a promotion based off 9/11, the golf course should have at least had a plan if things went “bad”. Instead of mending the public’s feelings, they became defensive that people had a negative outlook on the promotion. The first thing management should have done is tried to figure how to make this right to the public because their reputation is on the line. They may have been one of the more popular golf courses in their area and now they made national news for having one of “worst advertisements in human history”. I understand management believed they were doing a good thing and they could possibly get more attraction to the course. They saw it as a win-win from doing the promotion. However you have to scale the risk-reward ratio more than they did to see it might not be a win-win. 

The relevance of this story to sports marketing students is that sometimes you and your team or peers might think an idea is good for a marketing promotion but you have look at the glass half-full. If this group would have just weighed out the backlashes it could create, maybe they would have not decided on this promotion. I also believe research should have been done before you try this idea. When I researched 9/11 promotions, other companies had tried similar promotions in other industries and negative thoughts were produced from their promotions. Either way, lessons should be learned from a major mistake done by Tumbledown Trials, which is that don’t do promotions on national tragedies or possible “sour situations”.

---

Analysis by Ryan Kilmon in SRM 435 (section 1)

Tumbledown Trails Golf Course royally messed up with this advertising campaign. They ran n advertisement promoting discounted golf on 9/11 that went sour fast. I personally feel that they represented a day of tragedy unfairly and with little remorse. Sure, intentions may have not been negative intentionally, but the way they went about this was totally ignorant. The terrorist attacks on the US will forever be a tragedy to this country and this golf course simply neglected that by promoting and taking action with this marketing plan. From the get go they should have marketed differently.

Proceeds for the day should have been donated upfront before any threats started that the golf course soon received once the advertisement hit social media. Instead, I viewed this act by Tumbledown Trails as brutally selfish. I feel that they used the remembrance of 9/11 as a way to try to make money for the course rather than actually marketing and promoting a day to remember the victims that fell in the attacks. They could have promoted discounted golf in a way that would still draw a crowd, but instead they chose to use an actual price of $9.11 which I feel was unnecessary and crossed the line.

This marketing plan was clearly not thought all the way through before it was launched. National attention was made out of this occurrence and the name and image of the course also became tarnished, especially when the course tried to get defensive to the criticism being thrown at them. Marketing and promoting on a day with such emphasis to this country has advantages and disadvantages. Clearly the way this advertisement was pitched was wrong and should have never been followed through with.

This article relates very strongly to this course. I feel that this is an excellent learning tool to learn what not to do when promoting or marketing for an organization. All stakeholders must be considered within a marketing plan and I feel that Tumbledown Trails Golf Course neglected to take this into consideration. People all over the country reacted to this and I certainly hope this establishment will do a more intensive brainstorming before they launch any more marketing advertisements.

"Drake named Raptors' ambassador"

From ESPN.com

Analysis by Dru Henderson in SRM 435 (section 1)

In this article ESPN covers the groundbreaking news that the Toronto Raptors hired the well-known rapper Drake as an ambassador for the team. A celebrity in the NBA is no new trend. Jay-Z was a minority owner in the Nets (he recently sold his stock to Jason Kidd), Will and Jada Pinkett Smith are minority owners of the Sixers, and its no shock to catch Jack Nicholson and Spike Lee front row of a Lakers-Knicks game. However, this is the first time a celebrity has been such a vital part of an organization.

So what can Drake, who has no professional experience in the sport industry, bring to the Raptors? A lot actually. The rapper is one of the premier artists in the music industry today. He has a huge following, which is shown by his 13,000,000+ Twitter followers. He can attract an audience that otherwise would not attend a Raptors game. Fans of the musician may not be basketball fans, but if Drake endorses the team its safe to say they will follow close behind. As a native of Toronto, Drake’s fame has made him an icon in the territory. If he attends games regularly he can pull the hometown crowd out to the game by just his presence. He more than likely won’t be the only celebrity in the crowd. Fame has made the rapper an acquaintance of several A-List celebrities. This season you may flip the channel to TNT and catch Drake and Lil Wayne front row of a Raptors game. Celebrity appearances do wonders for the marketing department of an organization as fans get the chance to see celebrities in the same crowd as themselves.

The Raptors have struggled in recent years resulting in relatively poor fan attendance. In 2012 they ranked 17th in the league with an average attendance of 16,835. Through two games this season the organization has attracted an average of 19,312 fans, which is seventh best in the NBA. Has Drake’s presence already made an impact? It’s a little early to know that, but it will be interesting to follow throughout the season. 

Drake’s role won’t be solely focused on fan attendance. The recent trend in the NBA is super stars joining forces during free agency. Drake has become close with several NBA stars including LeBron James. He holds the potential to open up opportunities for stars to team up in Toronto through his networking skills, and his ability to attract the athletes simply by his celebrity status.

Overall I think this was a brilliant move by the Toronto Raptors. Unless Drake has a social mishap that would represent the organization in a less than desirable way I don’t see where this situation could end badly for the Raptors. 

---

Analysis by Aaron Jason in SRM 435 (section 1)

The article summarizes the initiation of Drake as the new global ambassador of the Toronto Raptors of the NBA. Drake, a rapper from Toronto, has been a long time sports fan and specifically a supporter of the Raptors. On top of the amount of brand recognition Drake will bring to the franchise with just his name, he brings much more to the table than that alone.

Drake possesses a sort of intellect that many rappers do not seem to possess; he shows true, relatable emotion in his songs and strikes true in the heart of many people through his role on Degrassi as an ex-basketball player with a debilitating gunshot injury. His intelligence will be on full display as an ambassador. He is not focused on creating personal name recognition, he more cares about the revival of a franchise who so desperately needs it. He has shown he understands the fundamentals of a successful ambassador. He connects well with people through his messages on a deeper level than most artists. Not only does he have many music fans, he has many fans of him as a person. From a marketing standpoint, this will be absolutely essential to his success. Fans of his music, fans of the Raptors, and people who simply support him as an individual will all unite into a new demographic of fanhood, similar to what Jay-Z constructed in Brooklyn with the Nets. Beyond the fan connection, Drake’s name will bring more non-basketball fans into attendance of what is going on with the Raptors. Whether people follow him on Twitter or read about him in the news, they will now have a steady stream of information relating to the Raptors show up on their feeds or web searches. Drake also brings a hip factor into the equation. While it is not good to completely stray from the traditional values of an NBA franchise, a little infusion of youth and excitement will only increase sales and awareness of the organization.

Another interesting factor in this equation is his upbringing in Toronto. It is more than ideal that a global representative of a team should be from that area. If anyone knows what the city yearns for most from a fan standpoint, it would be Drake who was submerged in the culture of Toronto and specifically the Raptors. His connection on a cultural level will do wonders for his ability to connect with the outside world and promote his product, the Toronto Raptors. Overall, it seems highly inevitable that Drake will bring large brand recognition and excitement with the Raptors as a new partner of his. Even if the team does not immediately win, the culture and understanding of the city Drake possesses will help him connect to a fan base better than many professional ambassadors could attempt to do. Between high class celebrities, the enticement of star free agents, and the money revenue generated from his name, Drake is bringing a potential storm of success through the city of Toronto and he has the real possibility to turn this project into a serious success not only in the town but across the game of basketball in and beyond our country.

"Tribe seeks to force NFL Redskins name change"

From CNN.com

Analysis by Kyle Linn in SRM 435 (section 2)

This article is pertaining to the fact that a group of Native Americans, the Oneida Nation, is uncomfortable with the Washington Redskins using “Redskins” as their mascot. Both sides bring up valid points as to why they deem it offensive and why it is a cultured history of the Redskins franchise. Supporters of the name change feel that now is the time to change the name because this year marks the 81st year of the franchise since their move from Boston in 1932. Others like Dan Snyder for instance said that, “he will NEVER change his team’s name, even if they lose an ongoing federal trademark lawsuit that would stop the NFL team from exclusively profiting from the Redskins name” (Todd, Steinhauser 2013). 

The article states that two-thirds of Redskins fans in the D.C. area do not want the team to change their name. Although, eight out of ten said that they felt a name change would not matter to them. I value the two-thirds of Redskins fans who do not want the name change. My next question is then if the team name is changed, can you not as a fan wear clothing or other things to the stadium that say “Redskins” on it? I looked up the Oneida Native American Nation, and while the Oneida Native Americans make up about 45,000 of the population, there are only about 1000+ in the actual group from New York that is upset with the name. I greatly appreciate the fact that there is a group offended here, but the name is being used in greatness and jubilee as fans chant, “Hail to the Redskins!” at football games. This in terms of sales and merchandises makes up only a fraction of the entire Washington Redskins nation.

Promotionally is where I feel this is a big area of concern. Supporters of the name change could possibly boycott or continue to slander the Washington Redskin organization for its use of a “racial slur” to some. You could have protests in front of the stadium during game days and it makes for negative attention from the organizations point of view, especially in terms of sponsorships. Then, you have fans who have been fans all their lives and now suddenly, they have to call their team something different because we all now have to be politically correct in our society which hinders free speech and expression, in my opinion. Being a fan, I have never considered the name offensive and many of the Oneida Native Americans do not have a problem with Washington’s mascot. If you do change the name, you then have made a small group of people happy and now your fans can possibly become unhappy, possibly boycott games, and/or protest the name change, all of which again bring about negative publicity to the franchise. Why has it taken 80 years for there to be buzz about the name change now?Dan Snyder has an important decision to make. Either way, he is going to come out winning and losing. This pertains to our class and major because you have an ethical dilemma, a promotional/publicity crisis, and a managerial decision to make. If I were Snyder, I would not change the name (and no not because I am a fan). I think if you look at it from a promotional point of view, you don’t have to stop production and design of now and future Redskins merchandise and memorabilia, ask fans to not wear clothing that says “Redskins” on it, etc. Ethically it should be changed, without question. However, you are always going to have supporters and people who disagree and in this situation with a multi-billion dollar organization on the line, I would not risk upsetting the fan base that is the “lifeblood” of the Washington Redskins versus a group that in terms of geography makes up a small portion of the population. I do stand behind Mr. Snyder and his decision to not (at this point) change the name. 

---

Analysis by Steve Mashinski in SRM 435 (section 2)

"I want to say this to Redskins fans. No one blames you for having used a name that was always used as this team. They will only blame you if you continue to use it and if you use it will impunity," I think this was the perfect quote to be placed into the end of this article. It basically says you are either going to have to change your team name or you will have an ongoing battle with the ones you are offending and the media. One of the major problems is some of these Redskins fans have been supporting this organization for potentially 80 years, but the group it is offending is making it known that there is not another option other than to stop using a racial slur to gain revenue for an organization. From a promotions and marketing stand point if the Redskins happened to change their name it would open doors to ultimately give them a fresh start. The Redskins haven’t had a promising season for a while now so maybe a new look will give them that extra push to excite people and make them want to go out and buy the new gear or come to games to be a part of history. The organization would be looked at positively in the media’s eyes for respecting a group of individuals therefore could gain more supporters. Unfortunately, on the other side of the table you will have the long standing supporters of the redskins that will boycott the new name. This will lead to protests to get the Redskins name back and fans that are unwilling to support the new organization. This side of the tables major argument is that they are not putting the name redskins down in any way they are honoring the name and don’t support them for any other reason besides the fact that they are a good football team This topic directly relates to what we have covered in class especially the effect of ticket sales from this major decision. Personally I believe ticket sales will go down because a team being around for 80 years brings in tons of loyal supports and for most of them Washington Redskins football is all they know.