They Lost a Match, Not Endorsements

When women play sports for a large public to see, we automatically go into these deep trenches to either celebrate or condemn the players and the game they are taking part in. we go into this soliloquies about the importance of their feats or the insignificance of them. There are even these illogical connections to what’s going on with their male counterparts (take this absurdity for example).

Via Yahoo! Sports

Beyond the expected commentary, there was probably nothing that stuck out to mind regarding the end of the 2011 Women’s World Cup quite like the words dotted on the web pages of Advertising Age.

Yesterday, Rich Thomaselli wrote about how apparently the United States Women’s National Team lost about $10 million in endorsements for their loss to Japan on Sunday. He said that sports marketing experts believed that the faces of the team – forward Abby Wambach and goalie Hope Solo – lost up to $4 million per year because of the loss. Though no companies were mentioned save for that of an analyst he quoted, you’re lead to believe that food and beverage companies, automakers and even apparel retailers had been drafting contracts as the match was taking place.

Because that’s IMMEDIATELY what came to mind when Solo couldn’t handle the winning penalty kick. Sure.

Sports marketing – endorsements, sponsorships, etc. – is a fascinating discipline and if successful, it can be an exciting marketing platform for businesses. It’s beneficial beyond words for the endorsing sports figures, even in a more aware and discerning consumer culture we live in today. Unfortunately, people get so caught up in the discipline and the hype around it that they tend to forget that every play on the field – er, pitch, rather – is not connected to what goes on off of it.

It is without question than few even know that Women’s Professional Soccer (WPS) exists; a league that was built after the fiscally-unsound WUSA folded in 2003. So the idea that this game; this tournament, could increase the league’s visibility is on the money. That it helped shine a light on women’s soccer as a whole isn’t too farfetched either as there were plenty of young girls who found players to emulate when they grab their first pairs of soccer cleats.

However, to think about how they left money on the table seems wrong because… well, who knew there was money on the table?

See, the issue isn’t with the author at all, although he may actually be right, based on his years of experience writing on the advertising and media world and understanding how it operates far better than yours truly. The problem is that articles of this nature tend to give you this impression that some company was scheduling meetings with Megan Rapinoe’s agent as she made play after play in this tournament. It makes you believe that when the Americans decided to play the equivalent of ‘prevent defense’ at the end of regulation, that they equally preventing goals and the loss of personal service contracts.

Most people didn’t even know there was a Women’s World Cup until national pride (or xenophobia) shook life into a buzz-less summer season in sports. So despite providing more eyeballs than several major sportingevents – including this weekend’s British Open and last week’s MLB All-Star Game – these women cost themselves $10 million dollars they probably didn’t know even existed? That they weren’t even thinking about?

It seems as if this is how sports work in this era. A young, maturing athlete or team finds success quickly; receiving all sorts of adulation and media attention because of such impressive play, a unique back story and a flair for the dramatic. Immediately, casual onlookers make observations and feed the hype machine, even though they may not commit to the product (athlete or team) long-term. Finding that a large audience as amassed itself in a relatively quick time, marketers look for something to latch onto in hopes that there are potential new consumers to reach and new manners to communicate to their loyal ones.

In victory, they can ramp up speculative numbers in anticipation of millions wanting to buy Wheaties boxes and sports drinks. In defeat, they can talk about these future stars coming up short and missing out instead of being realistic about jumping the gun on their potential campaign.

The truth is that in the throes of competition, athletes are not generally hearing cash registers in their heads. They’re thinking about that cliché we get tired of hearing; making a play. It’s not to say that that they don’t think about it and they’d be foolish not to, if they possess such elite skills to succeed in the public view. Yet, to think that those penalty kicks or the bad defense took away from potential marketing purses is a bit unfair when those women lost something that may mean a bit more; a chance to call themselves champions.

Say What?!?!: Tremendous composure and persistence by the Japanese women. They won. Period.

Scribe's Baseball Week: The Souring Marketing Mix

If you’re not a marketing communications professional or an unabashed Jeter Girl, you may have missed Nielsen’s recent news about its ten most marketable baseball players. Unsurprisingly, a few Yankees populate the list – Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera and Alex Rodriguez – as well as some of the sport’s best players such as St. Louis’ Albert Pujols, Joe Mauer of Minnesota and Seattle’s Ichiro. You can check out the entire list and the methodology behind compiling the list here.

As usual, this stuff is more intriguing to professionals in the field than fans. After all, all you care about is performance. In fact, the endorsements may be a reason why a player is more reviled than respected by some fans (apparently, a lot of football fans ‘hate’ Peyton Manning). However, a major reason why this is such a big deal is that since the Home Run record chase of 1998 between Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa, the advertising community has struggled immensely trying to find one or two baseball players they can build a campaign around.

Sure, Derek Jeter has become the go-to-guy for the sport. His success on and off the diamond have provided him opportunities abound, especially in this so-called post-steroids era where big home run hitters no longer become automatic pitchmen. [Note: Jeter's off the diamond life is acknowledged because, for better or worse, some people do admire the playboy aura].

Yet, there’s something to be said that this 2009 analysis from the revered Maury Brown from The Biz of Baseball still resonates, even after what was a fantastic 2010 season. Brown brought up matters that are intrinsic to how the game it played, yet other factors such as the waning interest from the black community and waiting for a Michael Jordan-like or even a Charles Barkley-like figure haven’t changed.

The marketing issues are probably more damning for the sport and advertisers because they’re still pushing their endorsement might into Latino communities. Although there has been success with these communities – save for soccer/football, no sport in North America has a greater population of Latin players – there may still be language barriers that make it challenging for Latin players to ‘crossover’ to the mainstream or for non-Spanish speakers to have a presence in Spanish enclaves. And let’s not forget the annual conversation about the ethnic gains and declines in the game.

This all prompts some questions. Feel free to consider as many as you wish.

1. What can be done about it from MLB’s standpoint? From the advertising community?
2. Does it even matter that a baseball player – or any athlete, rather – endorses a product? If so, why?
3. Does a player need to be Jeter or Pujols or Mauer to get your attention?
4. Theoretical one here: while ‘crossover’ is typically about entering to mainstream, is it possible for a non-Latino player to endorse in the opposite direction?

Ponder away and ask yourselves: did Jeter replace the wrong athlete in the Gillette ads two years ago or what?!?!





Say What?!?!: And let it be known that this old Dick's Sporting Goods ad with Ryan Howard and B.J. Upton has the best ending in sports endorsement history.

Time to Change the Narrative for the NBA

To borrow a phrase from the outstanding writer, Michael Tillery, change the narrative.

I say this because from the moment the season ended for LeBron James last spring – another early exit for his now-former Cleveland Cavaliers – the narrative has been words that are usually reserved for the most despicable beings of sports and society at-large.

Anger from many fans and media remains; anger that would even make the most bitter of New York Yankees or Philadelphia Phillies fans blush. They’ll tell you that he showed his true cowardice colors, destroyed his brand and tarnished his legacy by chasing championships and bikinis instead of holding court as the alpha dog of America’s most notorious sports-suffering city. Some will continue to deny the racial tone in some of this rage, yet what it comes down to is that people resent when a player wants to write his legacy without their permission.

On the other side, there are people who saw the breaking of proverbial shackles. I discovered the words ‘slavery’ bandied about by plenty, regardless of skin tone, age or gender. I also found less damning words about his arrival in Miami; ranging from the tired hip-hop clichés such as they hatin’ to the equally-worn boardroom vernacular of brand leverage. They look at James as a symbol of employee liberation from wealthy owners such as Gilbert who had no problem creating faux-throwbacks with his name on it to sell merchandise.

This Bill Rhoden book was mentioned often after The Decision - image courtesy of Random House

At this point, people are entrenched in these two camps. Like the political garbage being hurled in our direction these days, we’re now being required to have an opinion on LeBron that has nothing to do with his game play and everything to do with The Decision. Why is that?

When it comes to the National Basketball Association, no matter how passionate and knowledgeable fans want the globe to talk about the scintillating game play year in and year out, the rest of the world ends up writing the league’s narrative.

True hoops heads know that there are 450 players on 30 rosters at a time, even if only one-half of that gets regular playing time. Casual fans only know of about 10; those ten being whichever players the television tells them to remember. Non-fans are only aware of those whose names are mentioned on national news programs in the same breaths as this fool, this clown and this idiot.

As much as the NBA continually shapes its image to bring in an audience that may never ever care for it – mostly ϋber-passionate college basketball fans who make their preference known – we fans play just as much of a role in how the league is branded.

Maybe that’s the problem. We’re all so concerned about perception of our favorite sports that we talk about them as brands to consumers, not just a canvas of tremendous athleticism to delight fans. It’s all show business at its core, but for many, a couple of missed baskets in a row become some sort of indictment of a player’s mentality. How often do you hear these days, “if so-and-so wasn’t so concerned with being in all these commercials and parties, he’d have a better jumper” or the like?

Look, if you like ‘drama’ and ‘controversy’ and ‘big names’, usually, I’d say park yourself in front of a TV and watch some of these primetime shows. Yet, since the new slate of television fare hasn’t been exactly enticing the masses, you might feel all the more compelled to watch these games.

Why is Al Jefferson smiling? He's going to be in the playoffs! - Image courtesy of Deseret News 

For all the anger about The Superfriends forming in Miami (and let us not forget those trade winds around Chris Paul or Carmelo Anthony), the offseason gave us all a tremendous opportunity to see how old faces will shape up in new places while looking to see how the old guard continues to prove its staying power.

The New York Knicks will be relevant again thanks to Amar’e Stoudamire and Raymond Felton.

Al Jefferson is going to run with a perennial playoff team in Utah.

Chicago and Milwaukee are going to give us a 1990s-redux in the Central Division (yes, sans MJ, but still).

Oklahoma City has become the media darlings of the league, but unlike those in other sports, there’s no obvious reason to dislike the Thunder… unless you’re from the Seattle area.

From Queensbridge Houses to the STAPLES Center, you can’t help but to wonder what is Ron Artest going to do for an encore.

Boston’s going to try to chin-check the entire league.

Dwight Howard might show more than one offensive move.

Steve Nash is still Steve Nash.

There’s a lot to look forward to beyond the traveling drama that is LeBron. There’s a lot of basketball to watch that will hopefully give those outside of NBA nation something else to talk about. Something else besides the train wreck that will be his first game in Cleveland or the initial showdown with the champion Los Angeles Lakers and Kobe Bryant. Something else besides the latest Nike advertisement.

Sure, he should just shut up and play. Yet, we need to just shut up, watch and maybe… just maybe… change the narrative.

Slow Down on Marketing Mark Sanchez

Courtesy of Jessica Bader at The Perpetual Post, this article from The Atlantic hit the inbox yesterday.

Though it’s a quick article, here’s the synopsis:

Tony Lee likens New York Jets rookie quarterback Mark Sanchez to President Barack Obama. Yes, you read that correctly. Actually, he brings up the revelation in the recently-released “Game Change” how despite publicly showing support for now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, fellow Democrats in Senators Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer were secretly rooting for Obama during the 2008 Presidential primaries. He ponders if NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell may be secretly cheering for Sanchez and the Jets over the establishment that is the Peyton Manning-led Indianapolis Colts.

When Sanchez was drafted last April, quite a few business experts lined up at the door to espouse on how he can become a major boon to the NFL’s efforts in marketing the game to Latino communities across the country. Lee is just the latest person to add to this overall perspective.

Further, Lee said:

His marketing potential and reach dwarfs Manning's. And while commentators such as Rush Limbaugh have gotten in trouble for saying what I am about to suggest, that the NFL wants--needs--Sanchez to succeed even more because he's a Mexican-American who embraces his heritage. The NFL has had trouble attracting fans from America's fastest growing minority group, so NFL executives were probably joyous beyond belief at the future when the Jets drafted Sanchez. Surely, the Jets have often won in spite of Sanchez's rookie mistakes.

Now, as you expect to see from articles on the Internet, commenters ripped Lee’s assessment apart, so read them at your peril. Yet, in a less haughty rage, here’s are three issues with the article;

Potential versus reach: At this time, I give you that Sanchez's marketing potential dwarfs Peyton's, but disagree with the idea that the reach does. Potential is something unrealized and yet to be proven. If Sanchez has all this potential, then where's the reach when he just arrived on the scene and done little so far to suggest that he has earned the reach of Peyton other than being of part of a desired ethnic market?

Not only is Peyton the most omnipresent American sports figure as pitchman during the season, but his greatest impact has come in the offseason (that Sony has him alongside Justin Timberlake is a little strange. Might as well pair a player with Janet Jackson, right?) There isn’t another NFL player that appears in the number of national advertisements that he does nor has the league or Madison Avenue exactly picked out another one just yet.

Putting the cart before the horse, again: Too many stars have burnt out before they truly shined. Why we collectively continue to repeat this doomed history is simple; we spend more time immediately reacting to snapshots of people’s careers and lives than analyzing the body of work as time progresses.

In the duration of his career, not just a few games, Sanchez has to not only win, but play his butt off while doing so. He can't be marketable (at least outside of the NYC/NJ metro area) if he doesn't throw for 250, 300+ yards a game on a consistent basis.

Sanchez, if you haven’t heard, had a pretty rocky rookie campaign, something that other than those seasons for Pittsburgh’s Ben Roethlisberger, Atlanta’s Matt Ryan and Baltimore’s Joe Flacco, is expected. Now, if he builds upon this by reversing that touchdown-to-interception ratio and making strides year after year, then Sanchez can capture some of this potential both on and off the field.

Yes, the Jets have to win. Nothing sells like a winner, right? Yet, these Jets are looked upon as one of those run-heavy, QB-don’t-screw-up, tough defensive teams that have won Super Bowls in the past. The 1985 Chicago Bears, 2000 Baltimore Ravens, 2003 Tampa Bay Buccaneers and to an extent, the 2006 Pittsburgh Steelers and 2007 New York Giants fit those moulds (the latter teams had better aerial attacks, but they were better rushing offenses).

To appeal to a broader market, there has to be something exceptional for a marginal quarterback to become a sponsor’s dream. For starters, Sanchez can't be Rex Grossman (that's mandatory). Secondly, Pittsburgh’s Roethlisberger and the Giants’ Eli Manning are certainly two of the top ten QBs in the league, yet they have the advantages of being on two of the more popular teams in the league and for Eli, being Peyton’s brother helps.

If all Sanchez has to offer is his heritage, then, as Jessica Bader reminded her fellow Perpetual Post colleagues, why did the world forget that he wasn’t the only quarterback of Mexican decent playing last week? Leading to point #3;

Wait, the NFL doesn’t appeal to everybody?: Actually, the answer is a resounding no, but that’s stating the obvious. Yet, while Sanchez plays in a larger metropolitan area, it’s Tony Romo who plays for the league’s most beloved and reviled team. Yes, there’s a Mexican-American who plays the so-called most prestigious position in the National Football League; quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys.

Apparently, the league has used Romo in promotional efforts towards Hispanic markets. However, though, we walked though this path before, the only other reason why Romo is known nationwide is because of the tabloid coverage of his relationships with Jessica Simpson and Carrie Underwood.

That doesn’t sound like marketability at all.

Considering that only the federal government seems to have more of a presence in American media than the NFL, the fact that they need such a promotional push to the Hispanic community is admittedly surprising.

So I ask anyone who comes across Scribe to provide some insight because making assumptions about this topic would be foolish. In terms of that community, would it be logical to think that the league’s greatest pull is at least in the West Coast? Maybe broadcasting on unique Spanish-language channels would have helped the cause as opposed to hitting the SAP button? What’s your take?

Say What?!?!: NFL fans, enjoy today to the fullest extent. These are the games that are for us before the non-fans show up to ruin the Super Bowl.

Photo credits to the Newark Star-Ledger, Obsessed with Sports and ESPN.

Around

It's deadline night for the Beacon (yes, these Giants pieces should be done hours after the game), which essentially means something small, but significant will follow these words.

There's a good chance you heard about today's big news stories; insider trading charges brought against Dallas Mavericks owner and (can we say former at this point?) bidder for the Chicago Cubs Mark Cuban, Albert Pujols nabbing his second National League MVP, the passing of coaching legend Pete Newell and FOX Sports' waving of the white flag in the battle to carry the BCS beyond 2010.

However, here are a few more that you may have missed thanks to a) work, b) not caring about the location the story originates from and/or c) getting a migrane trying to understand the ending of last night's Chargers - Steelers game, prompting you to nearly overdose on Aleve/Tylenol/Advil/Jack Daniels.

• From the NY Daily News (thanks to SPJ for the reference since I haven't gone near this paper in quite a while), Jim Rich is wondering why Governor David Patterson isn't asking the Yankees to cut back on spending during the construction of their new house. Likely this is fuel for those who dislike the team or at least dislike the public expenditure considering the state's impending budget cuts. Have fun with that.
  
  
• From the Los Angeles Times, Jerry Crowe discusses how the actual Heisman Trophy won by former USC running back Charles White is being put up for auction... and it was news to him. White sold his possession in 2000 to settle tax debts, but will be hawked for the second time since then.
  
  
• From BrandWeek, Anthony Crupi discusses how televised sports are not as recession-proof as they used to be for advertisers. It's an interesting thought and something that you may have been considering at some point since the economy started tanking about a year ago.
  
  
• For all of your puckheads (fulltime or parttime), Puck Daddy wants you to weigh in on the former Tampa Bay Lightning head coach Barry Melrose's interview on Hockey Night in Canada, given a day after his comments on ESPN Radio that essentially pointed at the players and rookie management for his dismissal. For those who normally have little interest in the NHL, consider his response and how it would - if it would - play out in other sports, team or individual.
  
  
• Finally, sweet memories.