Bryant-UA Situation Showcases Athlete Endorsement Pitfalls

Dez Bryant is a physical specimen.

He has the prototypical rippling muscles, long gait and huge hands of a modern-day NFL receiver. He also looks great on the cover of a merchandise catalog, as he did when he graced the cover of Eastbay's in April (right).

Unfortunately, physcial tools are just one requirement of a successful brand endorser.

Like many of us, I was scratching my head when I heard that Under Armour had determined that Bryant was going to be a centerpiece of their NFL player endorsement portfolio in 2010.

After all, Bryant only played in three games for Okahoma State in 2010 after being ruled ineligible by the NCAA for lying to investigators about his involvement and contact with Deion Sanders. There were other questions as well, which ultimately contibuted to Bryant slipping to 24th in the draft.

The news (as reported by CNBC's Darren Rovell today) that Bryant is no longer an Under Armour endorser, before he ever played in a NFL game, did not come as a shock to many of us in the industry.

Unless UA was simply looking at Bryant as a short term plug-in to help activate their sponsorship of the NFL's combine in March, the decision didn't make much sense at the time. Why make a long term commitment to a player who wasn't even able to complete his junior season on the field?

Now it looks even worse.

UA's heartburn over the Bryant break-up showcases that even in this day and age of increased scrutiny over marketing investments by public companies, many athlete endorsement decisions (particularly for brands endemic to sport such as UA) are not undertaken with a great deal of thought and foresight.

If that was not the case, it's unlikely that UA would have concluded that Dez Bryant was an ideal choice to be the face of UA football.

What the U.S. Can Learn from the World Cup

Besides the proper way to play the game of football, there are a few things that we Americans can learn from the FIFA World Cup, the most-watched sporting event on Earth and arguably the world's most exciting multi-day sporting event.

Daily Excitement - During the Group Stage and the Round of 16, FIFA schedules games each and every day, providing a daily dose of excitement that is unparalleled in sport. With games scheduled each day, the FIFA World Cup stays on the front (or back) pages of sports pages around the world, even here in the U.S. The constant story lines help keep the tournament compelling and in the news for an entire month continuously.

The only parralel we have here in the States is the opening two weekends of the NCAA Tournament, and is one of the reasons why the popularity of March Madness has grown exponentially over the past two decades.

Anyone who has intensely followed the NBA and NHL playoffs in particular knows how interminable the delays can get between series and even between games. There were four off-days between the end of the Western Conference Finals and the NBA Finals this year, even though both Conference Finals went to six games. Same story in the NHL, with four off-days between the Conference Finals and the Stanley Cup Finals.

This year Orlando had five off-days after sweeping Atlanta in the Eastern Conference semifinals, while the Lakers had six off-days after dispatching Utah.

If the world’s most-watched sporting event can figure out a way to schedule games each and every day, can’t we?

The Player Escort Program - OK, it is a bit unrealistic to suggest that NFL players storm out of the locker room at the Super Bowl holding the hands of children. However, is there a better way to demonstrate that the game (and all games for that matter) is in the end simply that, and that we should never forget the child in all of us, even when we are competing for our sport's the biggest prize?

Goal Celebrations - Despite a running clock, FIFA allows its players to orchestrate and even choreograph elaborate celebrations involving teammates. A worldwide FIFA sponsor, Coca-Cola, even based their entire campaign leveraging this year’s World Cup around the tradition of World Cup goal celebrations. Though the NFL and NCAA has eased its restrictions on celebrations a touch, both still discourage (and oftentimes penalize) even the most spontaneous of scoring celebrations.

Of course, there may be a few things that we Americans could help introduce to FIFA that could improve their event, but those will be saved for another day.

Instant replay anyone?

Exclusivity's Slow Death

We’ve been saying for some time now that with the possible exception of a scant few categories, product category exclusivity is for all intensive purposes on life support.

Sure, brands still do shell out for this intangible benefit, ostensibly for the ability to lock out any competitors from leveraging the same intellectual property at the same time.

But in this age of a convergence between sponsorship rights, media rights, digital rights and talent rights, can exclusivity still realistically be achieved? Is it worth the investment?

Now comes word that the latest products from the most cutthroat of competitors, auto manufacturers, are now sharing the very same grounds at many of International Speedway Corporation’s tracks.

It’s not surprising that the auto category, given its struggles of late, would be one of the first to embrace this sort of arrangement at heretofore exclusive events.

The question is whether this is part of a larger trend towards an absence of exclusivity across many of the same product categories that for years fought so mightily to ensure their competitors were nowhere near their sponsored events and venues.

We would suggest that it is, and would not be surprised if the trend continues in other highly competitive categories that have traditionally embraced exclusive partnerships.

In this fractured environment, our feeling is that exclusivity is not worth the price premium being charged unless your brand is in a category that benefits considerably from an exclusive business relationship with the property, such as soft drink category partnerships that deliver exclusive pouring rights at venues and events.

Check out Media Post’s Karl Greenberg’s take on ISC’s new approach in the article below:

ISC Ends Exclusivity at NASCAR Races

Jensen Discusses Woods Comeback

I appeared on FOX Chicago's "Good Day Chicago" today to discuss Tiger Woods' comeback to golf.

The Unintended Consequences of the Golf Industry's Downturn

In The New York Times, Jonathan Mahler recently provided a comprehensive overview of the Tiger Woods saga and its effect on the golf industry, entitled “The Tiger Bubble.”

Mahler theorizes that, like the internet bubble or the housing bubble, the golf industry had become susceptible to a fall based on a variety of economic, social and societal issues.

Whether you agree with Mahler’s premise or not, one thing’s for certain: The recession has impacted the sport of golf and specifically the PGA TOUR harder than other sports.

For example, two of golf’s biggest supporters were automobile manufacturers General Motors and Chrysler. At one time Chrysler sponsored four different PGA TOUR stops, including the Bob Hope Chrysler Classic, the Chrysler Championship, the Chrysler Classic of Greensboro and the Chrysler Classic of Tucson. Buick owned title sponsorships of the Buick Open, the Buick Invitational, the Buick Classic and the Buick Championship.

Both went bankrupt, and GM has reportedly reduced its sponsorship spending by 60 percent.

General Motors’ outgoing Vice Chairman Bob Lutz even kicked the golf industry and Woods when they were down, stating that he didn’t think that the brand’s relationship with Woods sold any cars.

“I don't think so,” said Lutz. “He wasn’t a spokesman. You would just see him in the ads. Maybe we didn’t have him say the right things at the time, either,’ which, he added, would have been “our fault.”

Never mind that Buick was satisfied enough with their partnership with Woods that they maintained it for eight years.

Then there are financial services companies such as Wachovia (now owned and in the process of being re-branded by Wells Fargo) that went so far as to take their name off of their namesake tournament. The Wachovia Championship, once honored as the best tournament stop on the PGA TOUR by golfers, is now known as the Quail Hollow Championship, though Wachovia is still paying for the title sponsorship.

While manufacturers scaled back, banks unbranded, members of Congress railed against the largess of brands sponsoring golf tournaments and the Woods saga unfurled, what has been lost in the shuffle are some of the real losers in the pullback in sponsorship spending in the golf industry.

When events such as Buick Open in Michigan or the U.S. Bank Championship in Milwaukee fail, it is the local vendors, suppliers, food service professionals and other hourly workers who lose out on a much-needed source of income during trying times.

Local charities and non-profit organizations also suffer.

In his article, Mahler touches on a little-known fact about the PGA TOUR, that it is a non-profit organization.

In contrast to other sports leagues such as the National Football league (which brought in more than $8 billion in revenue last year) and Major League Baseball (around $6 billion in revenue annually), all of the PGA TOUR’s profits go to charity, which totaled around $108 million last year.

Each of the PGA TOUR’s events support various charities, causes and non-profit foundations, many of them in the tournament’s local market.

It is a virtual certainty that the monies distributed from the PGA TOUR to various charities will be less in 2010, due to the reduction in corporate support for PGA TOUR events.

While it remains to be seen whether Woods’ return to golf this week will help reverse some of these trends, it is important to not lose sight of some of the unintended consequences of the industry's downturn, especially during what are already challenging times.

Below is a link to Mahler’s article:
 
The Tiger Bubble

White Sox Employee Resigns Over Twitter Flap

By far the most interesting story of the week for me came out of Chicago, where a White Sox employee (who just happens to be the manager's son) resigned over posts made via his Twitter account.

It seems Oney Guillen, Ozzie's son, was upset over the team's decision to forbid his dad from launching his own website, and he voiced his displeasure via his Twitter account (@OneyRoberto, 533 followers and counting).

The issue had been brewing for months. According to various media reports, during the off-season a consultant convinced Ozzie Guillen that he could make money via social media, such as selling advertising on his own website. He set up a Twitter account (@OzzieGuillen, 43,011 followers and counting), and had planned to launch his own site.

These developments were a surprise to the White Sox. The Sox allowed him to keep his Twitter account, as long as it focused on non-baseball matters. The planned website was to be focused on the White Sox and baseball-related news. The Sox told Guillen he could not launch the site.

Oney Guillen fired back via Twitter, and according to the Chicago Tribune sent the following post, which has since been taken down: "The Guillen family just got screwed over or (bleeped)...but don't worry we have our own way of handling this."

He also said: "I hope the dorks aren't running the organization or else were (bleeped). 3 geeks who never played baseball a day in there life telling expe ..."

Oney Guillen played two seasons in the Minors after being drafted by the Sox in the 36th round of the 2007 draft.

Oney Guillen had also made several other off-color comments on the site, including several replies to Chicago Sun-Times beat writer Joe Cowley (@cst_sox, 3,057 followers).

The Sox reportedly asked Oney Guillen to stop tweeting, and he offered to resign instead.

Then, about 15 hours ago, Ozzie Guillen posted the following on his Twitter site: "Me tocaron donde mas me duele y tengo que estar listo para lo que venga como siempre lo e hecho." According to the Tribune, the post loosely translates to: "They hit me where it hurts most and I have to be ready for whatever is coming just like I've always done."

The funny part to me about this whole story is that if there was ever a segment of the population who you never expected to embrace social media and emerging technology it's baseball managers (with the exception of a few outliers like the Rays' Joe Maddon, aka @RaysJoeMaddon).

Could you ever imagine Bobby Cox checking the weather on his iPhone? Jim Leyland posting a tweet while on a road trip? Charlie Manuel updating his Facebook status?

But I digress.

One would think that teams in the big four leagues would have already established social media policies for their employees, particularly given the episode in Philadelphia in March of 2009, when a part-time stadium operations employee was fired for voicing his displeasure with the Eagles via Facebook when veteran safety Brian Dawkins signed with the Broncos.

It will be interesting to see if this latest episode forces more local sports teams to develop uniform policies to regulate their employees' web postings, and make it clear what is and is not allowed.

Here are a couple of links to articles about the controversy:

Ozzie Guillen In Flap Over Son

Tensions Between Ozzie, Williams Gets Personal

Subaru’s Sponsorship Strategy Rewards Loyal Customers

As illustrated in an article in today's Detroit Free Press, Subaru has utilized a very simple and intuitive sponsorship strategy to help increase brand loyalty, customer retention and repeat purchases from its extremely loyal customers.

In its existing sponsorship portfolio Subaru has a number of diverse partnerships, from the ASPCA to the American Canoe Association to the Gary Fisher Mountain Bike Team to the Geological Society Of America. The partnerships span sports, cause, arts and culture.

The one common thread: All of the partnerships revolve around organizations and issues that Subaru owners care about.

It’s obvious that Subaru’s owners have told them that they care about issues such as the environment, being involved in the community and the ethical treatment of animals, and their interests include gardening and horticulture, the outdoors and sports like snowboarding, skiing and mountain biking.

Subaru has listened.

The strategy is a bit different than most brands, who usually focus on marketing initiatives (sponsorship included) that attempt to attract new customers and encourage sampling of their brand by non-owners.

But Subaru has built such a loyal customer base, and those customers have traditionally played such a large role in year-over-year sales, that they have placed their focus from a sponsorship perspective on rewarding and retaining existing customers rather than attracting new ones.

Below is a link to the article:

The Secrets to Subaru's Success; Loyal Fans Boost Market Share

Nielsen Reports Winter Olympics Viewership Skewed Female

Check out an interesting report from our friends at Nielsen comparing the viewer demographics for the Super Bowl to the recently completed Winter Olympics.

The report concludes that an estimated 56% of Olympic viewers were female, while 44% were male. Super Bowl viewership was almost the exact opposite, with its audience composed of 54% males and 46% females.

Ratings among female Olympics viewers were nine percent higher than the national average, while ratings among male Olympics viewers were nine percent lower. Female ratings were 11% lower than the Super Bowl’s national average, while male ratings were 11% higher.

What the article fails to mention, a fact that Nielsen published last month, is that the Super Bowl attracted an estimated 48.5 million female viewers, up 4.3 million from last year’s contest.

NBC averaged 21.32 million viewers for its prime-time programming between Feb. 22 and the final day of the Olympics, meaning an average of nearly 12 million female viewers watched the Olympics each night.

Furthermore, over the last five years the total number of females watching the Super Bowl has climbed 17%.

The link to the report is below:

How Different Genders, Ages, Races and Regions Watch the Olympics

Does the U.S. Need the Olympics?

Today, the United States Olympic Team will earn its 37th medal of the 2010 Winter Olympics.

Not only does this eclipse the U.S. record of 34, achieved at Salt Lake in 2002, it will mark the first time the U.S. will lead the medal count in a Winter Games since 1932 and break the single-country record of 36 set by Germany in 2002.

The U.S.’s record medal haul comes 22 years after the U.S. Olympic Team earned just six medals at the last Olympics staged in Canada, the 1988 Winter Games in Calgary.

A remarkable achievement, especially considering it took place on foreign soil (albeit in a city a mere 40 minutes from the U.S. border).

The question I’ve been pondering is this: Given the U.S. team's remarkable achievements in this and other recent Olympic Games, does the U.S. really need to host future Olympic Games?

Can the Olympic movement thrive in the U.S., and the U.S. Olympic Team continue to achieve greatness, in Games hosted on foreign soil?

The U.S. has led the overall medal count in the last three Summer Games (all contested on foreign soil), and finished first and second in the last two Winter Games in Vancouver and Torino, respectively.

As the voting for the 2016 Olympics demonstrated, the U.S. needs to mend a tremendous number of fences and probably give up their right to a significant amount of revenue in order to have a chance at hosting future Games. Many feel the U.S. will not be given a fair shake in future bids from I.O.C. members until they agree to reduce the percentage of IOC television and sponsorship revenue the USOC receives.

The USOC has already announced it will not make a bid for the 2020 Summer Games. Even if in coming years the USOC decides to acquiesce to the IOC’s wishes for a more equitable split of revenue, it will still be at least 20 years, and perhaps much longer, between Olympic Games being hosted on U.S. soil.

Might it be better for the USOC to continue to fight to maximize the amount of revenue it receives from the IOC, plow it back into support for aspiring athletes and new training centers, and leave the hosting of future Games to other countries?

Critics will argue that the hosting of the Salt Lake games was a necessary precursor to the U.S.’s performance in Vancouver, and that the new training facilities there made it possible for the U.S. to achieve the success it has eight years later.

After all, the Salt Lake games created just the second sliding center in the U.S. (after Lake Placid, which hosted the 1932 and 1980 Games). The facility provided Olympians like bobsled driver Steve Holcomb, who lives and trains in Park City, a place to train for the Games.

What happened in Vancouver? The U.S. four-man bobsled team, led by Holcomb, took the gold for the first time since 1948.

The U.S. Ski and Snowboard team also thrived in Vancouver, with many attributing at least a small portion of their success to the $22.5 million Center for Excellence in Park City. The Center was funded with private donations from the USSA's Legacy Campaign.

However, U.S. speedskater Shani Davis and a number of teammates train at Milwaukee’s Pettit National Ice Center, which among many other things features a 400-meter Olympic oval.

When did Milwaukee host the Olympics?

The point is if these facilities really do put U.S. Olympians on medal stands, then should it be necessary for the U.S. to host the Olympics to build them?

Others will also cite the fact that it is much easier for the USOC to keep and attract sponsors when they know future Games will occur in U.S. cities.

This fact is undeniable. Sponsoring the U.S. Olympic Team is less attractive when the Games are not hosted here, for a multitude of reasons.

However, the singular goal of the USOC is to help American athletes achieve their dreams and reach the medal stand, and revenue received from sponsorships of the USOC sponsorships should be utilized to provide direct support to U.S. Olympians.

Despite my occupation, I would contend that the USOC leadership should be judged not on the amount of revenue they derive from sponsorship, but whether the revenue they do produce translates into achievement for U.S. Olympians.

Furthermore, everyone wants to be associated with a winner, and U.S.-based corporations are no different. The lure of partnerships with the USOC and U.S. National Governing Bodies is based largely on the ability to leverage the inspiring ideals of the Olympic movement to make a meaningful connection between consumers and your brand.

I contend that regardless of where the Games are staged, if the U.S. Olympic team continues to excel, sponsors will want to be associated with the team and its inspiring athletes.

The Chicago Tribune’s Philip Hersh, an Olympic authority in his own right, reported in today’s Tribune that many feel this year’s achievements are less a result of hosting the 2002 Games and more attributable to a commission chaired by then USOC board member George Steinbrenner that “changed the USOC’s previously vague mission into one that made medals the bottom line.”

The commission produced a plan that provided more support to aspiring athletes in the form of more money, health insurance, part-time jobs and tuition grants.

Given the success of the program, the evolution of the USOC’s mission and the U.S. Olympic Team’s success in competition in the past several Olympic Games, we may find ourselves in the middle of a renaissance for the USOC and U.S. Olympic Team.

The 20-year period between 2003 and 2022 may end up going down as the most successful in the history of the U.S. Olympic team, both commercially and athletically.

All without hosting a single Olympic Games on United States soil.

Sources:
“The U.S. ‘A’ Game,” Chicago Tribune, Philip Hersh, February 28, 2010
“USSA Center for Excellence opens in Park City for U.S. Ski Team,” Skiing Examiner, Eric Wagnon, May 28, 2009

Photo credit: USA Bobsled and Skeleton Federation

Jensen Comments on Tiger's Apology

I was interviewed by ABC 7 Chicago, Chicago's highest rated local newscast, about Tiger Woods' apology and its impact on his marketability moving forward. Above are stories from both the 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. newscasts that included my interviews.

Profiling the Female Super Bowl and Olympics Fan

On Friday evening, NBC will broadcast the Opening Ceremonies of the 2010 Olympic Winter Games.

Together with Sunday's Super Bowl it marks the second high profile sports telecast in a span of a week. In addition to their proximity on the calendar, these two events also share the distinction of having two of the largest female fan bases in the U.S.

According to Simmons Consumer Research, 48.6 million women 18+ are fans of the Winter Olympics, while 35.3 million women are fans of the NFL (the only sport to boast more female fans is the Summer Olympics with 51.9 million). Nearly half of the Winter Olympics total fan base (49.4 %) in the U.S. is female, compared with 37.9 % of NFL fans.

Nielsen reported that last year's Super Bowl telecast averaged 38.3 million female viewers, the most for any TV program since 38.6 million women watched the 1994 Winter Olympics figure skating competition, and the third-largest female viewership since Nielsen starting tracking female viewership in 1991. Nielsen estimates that Sunday’s broadcast of Super Bowl XLIV boasted an average audience of 106.5 million U.S. viewers, meaning the broadcast likely attracted an average audience of more than 40 million female viewers.

In contrast, last year's Academy Awards averaged a total of 36.3 million viewers, an estimated 22 million of those being women.

Research from Simmons also indicates that a large percentage of these two groups of female sports fans (a total of 25.2 million women or 22.1 % of all U.S. women 18+) consider themselves fans of both the NFL and Winter Olympics.

So, who is this female sports fan who we presume will watch both of this week’s broadcasts?

Well, she's more likely to be between the ages of 35-44 (20.1 %, index of 110), white (83.1 %, 107) and a parent (58.3 %, index of 108).

This female fan is also highly educated (she is 43 % more likely than a member of the general public to be a college graduate and 28 % more likely to have attended graduate school), more likely to be married (55.46 %) and more likely to have a household income over $100,000 (33.7 %, an index of 125).

In terms of brand preference, this fan prefers Diet Coke to Diet Pepsi, is more likely to carry a Motorola than a Samsung phone, more likely to use Verizon or AT&T than Sprint and prefers Coors Light to Bud Light.

So what else should marketers know about how to engage this group of more than 25 million women?

Here are a few tips:

This female fan likes commercials that make her laugh (80.0 % agree with statement, 120 index), always looks for special offers (72.9 %, 124 index), doesn't mind brand name products in her favorite TV shows (60.7 %, 120 index) and often notices ads on billboards (62.1 %, 129 index).

She is also more likely than a member of the general public to be drawn to stores she doesn't shop by coupons (134 index), buy magazines (132), read a newspaper most days (123) and rely on the internet for information (123).

Will marketers heed these suggestions to engage the female sports fan? Tune in Friday to find out.

Research Sources: Experian Simmons NCS/NHCS Summer 2009 Study and The Nielsen Company

Five Ways to Drive Sponsorship Value in Today's Economy

In this ongoing environment of economic uncertainty, many companies are reviewing their sponsorship investments as part of an overall audit of marketing spending. However, the current business landscape also presents a new opportunity to work with partners to evaluate key sponsorship provisions, fine tune existing portfolios and ensure that any new sponsorship investments work hard to meet business objectives.

Here’s a look at five areas where brands can really move the needle for maximizing value in their partnership agreements:

1. Leverage the flexibility the market has afforded

Gone are the days when properties can insist on multi-year commitments in order to attract sponsors into the fold. The recent announcement that Papa John's has signed a short-term partnership with the National Football League to serve as the "Official Pizza Sponsor" of Super Bowl XLIV is yet another example of sponsors having the flexibility to leverage national properties during shorter promotional windows. Over the past two years the NFL has inked similar partnerships with KFC, IHOP and McDonald's, who will be the Presenting Sponsor of this year's Pro Bowl, demonstrating that even heavyweights like the NFL are more willing than ever to be flexible. While you’re at it, negotiate in the flexibility to modify contractual elements that may not be working as hard as you expected.

2. Reconsider exclusivity

Ask yourself if paying for exclusivity is really necessary. While exclusivity does have a critical value in some product categories where it's an important element for selling in programs to retailers or other channel partners, many brands continue paying a premium for exclusivity when that status has declining value in a cluttered sponsorship world. Make sure you are clear about the role of exclusivity in making your sponsorships perform.

3. Require activation rights and property assistance

Fans need reasons to spend their limited disposable income on your product or service, and one of the best ways to explain those reasons is through a meaningful one-on-one interaction. Work with properties to repurpose passive sponsorship elements (e.g. program ads or concourse signage) into ways that your brand can have a real, person-to-person conversation with fans about your product or offering.

4. Beware of “escalators”

Many properties have historically made annual price “escalators” a standard element in sponsorship agreements. These automatic increases assume sponsorship value goes up each year regardless of any other factors (attendance, your sales, the economy, etc). Brands should be wary of such clauses, especially if these increases aren't tied to specific performance metrics being met by the property. Similarly, the old policy of charging additional fees for post-season rights should also be resisted.

5. Demand accountability

Remember, the balance of power is now with the brands, so demand that properties be accountable for both program execution and property performance along key metrics such as attendance, brand interactions, TV ratings and web traffic.