In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 641
Online now 719 Record: 6210 (3/13/2012)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
It's a topic that has been widely debated and has people whom are passionate about both sides of the argument.
When comparing to UL- UK spends 1% of their overall marketing dollars on football. UL spends 20% of their pot on football.
By the way, Eric Crawford has really been doing some nice work since departing the LCJ.
After writing about the UK-U of L billboard wars, Eric started wondering how much the schools spent on athletic marketing. The answer . . .
Simple answer: No.
With the public perception UK football currently has, it is extremely important to over-market the football program, our athletes, recent successes, and current NFL players. An abundance of marketing concerning what is right with the program would go a long way to dispelling the myth that everything is wrong.
I agree Law. UK has a perfect opportunity to promote the football program with the way Cobb has made a splash in the NFL.
IF the info is accurate AND complete, there's no two ways around it: UK isn't spending enough.
Sounds like a good question for Mitch.
Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/JDrumUK
I wonder if the if the 2 guys operating fire extinguishers to create smoke for the players to run out of the tunnel through is included in this report?
Although gameday experience gripes are legit, clearly that's not a marketing line item. How do other teams create smoke for their tunnels? I was under the impression that everyone used fire extinguishers of some sort.
"Are you serious, Clarke?"
That's really a concern?
It was a joke.
However, UK is the only school I've even seen that has a couple of middle aged guys with fire extinguishers out there to attempt to create smoke at the tunnel. Every other school that does something like that has big fog machines. Of course it's not a big deal or concern, it's simply another example of how bush league UK makes the "Game Day Experience" compared to other schools. You should listen to Tee Martin talk about how embarrassing it was to him. He worked his butt off to "TRY" to get UK to improve it.
Emotes are your friends. Use 'em.
He should have been embarassed by the fact his WR's couldn't catch the ball last year.
Doesn't anyone think it makes more sense from a marketing perspective to market a winning product? I think a better graph would demonstrate the amount of money spent in 2010 (Cobb's junior year), or 2007 in comparison to last year, where we were pretty bad on the field.
I'll bet that as the team does better, marketing costs go up....and vice versa.
The other information I'd like to know.....what are the expenditures made within the "marketing budget"? Are there things that we all think UK should spend money on within the marketing budget, but in fact UK may pull the money from another budget (like recruiting budget).
I just really don't think there's enough information from the bar graph to really make any judgments here.
This post was edited by Chiuk 21 months ago
No matter how you slice it, this information, if correct, is ridiculous.
A marketing budget of $2.3MM, approximately 1.5% of which is spent on the Athletic Department's largest revenue stream? This is incomprehensible, no matter last year's results.
And on that issue, it's arguable that when you have a poor season, disgruntled fans, and rising apathy (if not hostility) towards the program that your marketing efforts need to be increased, not decreased. A marketing push to ensure that all of the positives surrounding the program do not get lost in the negative noise isn't just smart marketing, it's almost a requirement of marketing.
I'll give you a good example. When Toyota had the disastrous recalls due to accelerator problems, for the next few months after the debacle, airwaves (and television sets) were inundated with Toyota ads pushing the positives of the company. That is marketing.
Use the same principles and apply them to UK's football program. How much of the current negativity has snowballed due to the lack of positive marketing for the football program? In an offseason after a very disappointing 2011 campaign, a flurry of positive marketing for what's gone right in the program (recent NFL draftees, tacklers leading the conference, all-purpose yards records broken, 8 players from 2011 signed with NFL squads, etc) at least presents the positives for consideration rather than the deafening silence filled by those taking shots at the program at every opportunity.
Maybe the numbers are wrong. But if they are not, whoever makes the marketing decisions for UK Athletics needs to have his marketing degree yanked.
In reply to my own post, here is the UK Athletics Marketing department contact information:
Peevy, DeWayne Executive Associate Athletics Director/External Operations (859) 257-8398 firstname.lastname@example.org
Schlafer, Jason Associate Athletics Director of Marketing/Licensing (859) 257-1830 email@example.com
Schwake, Nathan Director of Marketing (859) 257-5526 firstname.lastname@example.org
Ayer, Alyx Assistant Director of Marketing (859) 257-8022 email@example.com
Bridges, Spencer Marketing Assistant
UK football is not a corporation. Toyota is and is more concerned with profits and safeguarding its public perception. (so they can keep selling more cars).
I mean, are you trying to say that if UK spent more last year on marketing, that more ppl would fill seats....and we somehow would win more games as a result?
What if UL spends on items ABCD and E within its marketing budget expenditures, but UK only spends on AB and C within its marketing budget....and items D and E from another budget....therefore causing a difference?
1) I don't think you can play those kinds of financial "shell games" with the NCAA. Well, not for very long anyway.
2) Does anyone even REMOTELY familiar with UK FBall need to ask, "Is UK spending enough on FBall marketing". I don't need a bar chart or a comparison to UofLoL to see how ludicrous that question even is.
You are being deliberately obtuse.
Clearly UK football is not a corporation. It does, however, have something analogous to a customer base. A base of those who are fans of the program. A "fanbase" if you will.
Toyota is concerned with profits and safeguarding its public perception to sell more cars. UK Athletics is concerned with (among other things) profits and safeguarding its public perception to sell more tickets.
When Toyota saw its public perception take a negative hit, it marketed the still-existing positives so as to offset those negatives.
That same application should have been used by UK Athletics for UK football, which also had its public perception take a negative hit, but failed to market the still-existing positives.
Spending 1.5% of your marketing budget on your largest revenue stream is never acceptable. It is less acceptable when your largest revenue stream is suffering from an extremely negative public image. Your statement that marketing should only be applied to products with a positive public perception is ludicrous and cannot be defended by willfully misinterpreting what I said.
Its not a shell game. Im laying out a hypo of possible expenditures under a particular budget. I dont think the NCAA controls schools to the point where they (NCAA) tell schools which budget/fund to use to pay for XY or Z.
Its a "what-if" game. Im just saying there could be a lot more to that bar graph than meets the eye and before we get all huffy puffy about it (not you) I think more info is needed to make a judgment.
Therein lies the rub... The CEO of a corporation has an obligation to the stake/shareholders of fiduciary responsibility.
Mitch is judge, jury and executioner on many of such matters.
If UK football were a corporation, and earnings potential were not invested diligently, realized, or exploited - that CEO would be eviscerated...publicly.
Obtuse? No. I'm just not jumping to conclusions with that simple bar graph. There is so much complaining around the program about not spending enough money on X Y or Z.....but at the end of the day, is spending that money going to lead to victories on the field? That's an honest question. The answer is NO.
Also - the thing about your UK Football Toyota marketing analogy.......you are saying UK should spend more money to get people in the seats, but it's the same people who refuse to go to a game b/c they A) don't like Joker as our head coach; B) want to see a winning product on the field. Those people aren't coming.....no matter the amount UK spends on football marketing - until we start winning. Period. Thus, no amount of marketing spending is going to change the product on the field....and at the end of the day - the product on the field is what puts people in the stands. (See LSU game, or UF game in 2007).
You also realize that, while UK is losing revenue on people NOT going to the games in the first place that under your idea UK would be spending/losing even more revenue on trying to get those same people back in the seats. In short, a waste of money.....
BTW - my statement about spending more on marketing when the perception is good was made in reference to and applies ONLY to college sports teams.....NOT corporations (I agree with you about corporations and marketing). That, my friend, is a willful misconstruing of words if I've ever seen such a thing....
Like I've said - I'd love to see the 2007 marketing budget for football, and even 2010s. I could be wrong (and would willingly eat crow), but I'll bet we spent more during those football seasons than last year.
Maybe. A CEO who has many diferent departments doing very well, with one department as the gold standard, and various others getting close to the gold standard I think it would be hard to justify a "public evisceration" of the CEO. Perhaps the department heads roll first?
That's why I mentioned earlier that we don't know for sure if this is complete and accurate info. Eric just went by that one NCAA site, which, in fairness, may not account for all football marketing. Mitch needs to chime in. On the surface, it DOES look bad.
Sony should stop marketing Playstation and Television division and pump up the Betamax campaign.
Whatever is done for football is NEVER enough.
And that was the point I've been trying to make. I do agree that UK needs to chime in. And at the end of th day, I could be wrong and maybe the folks upset about this at this point end up being justified for their concern, but it's good to sit back and see what's really behind the discrepency.
I don't know how you're coming to these conclusions from my posts, but the take home from them is that expending 1.5% of your $2.3MM marketing budget on your largest revenue stream generator is dilatory.
I didn't say what the outcome would be, or that the intent should be anything other than offsetting the negative perception (or increasing the positive perception), either of fans or the public in general.
Your argument starts with a false premise. The only thing we can agree on is that these numbers may not be right, but other than that, it is indefensible because it begins with a conclusion that I never made.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports