Online Now 1024

The House of Blue

The home for all discussion on UK athletics

Online now 694
Record: 6210 (3/13/2012)

Reply

Does UK spend enough on Football marketing??

  • Lol - i like the Sony analogy. That's good.

  • I'm coming to these conclusions b/c I think I can safely assume you think UK should have spent more on marketing last year. If I'm wrong with that assumption, then yes, I misread your position on this.

    I guess I should have asked why you think UK should have spent more....but I thought it was obvious in some of your posts that you have this idea that more spending on marketing would lead to more people coming to the stands.....I guess, at least last year, I just don't see how more spending on marketing was going to change the mood or perception of the program b/c of what was actually happening on the field. It's throwing good money after bad, no? It's hard to sell and market a 2011 turd......think about it.

    Disclaimer: I am as diehard and hardcore a UK football fan as you'll find - so I don't want any "he's a basketball guy" or "go to rupps rafters" comments. lol. I'm just being realistic about marketing spending within the context of the 2011 season.....assuming these numbers are correct.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Chiuk 21 months ago

  • Sadly, i bet UK women's volleyball nets deficit cash vs the Betamax which time forgot.

  • As it has been said, IF the information is accurate then that is very disappointing. I know that our marketing department does not do a lot of work in regards to football, but in comparison to Louisville, that is embarrassing.

    It's good to continue to pressure Mitch about these types of things. It shows that the fans care.

    @JEdwar247

  • It depends what they actually include in the report. Just throwing #'s out there serves no purpose unless you know what is included. For expample does uofl include the junbotron operator's salary in the marketing budget? Do they include the production of game day videos?

    It's all about context. We have none in this report.

  • Yeah, I'm sure the report is way off and UK is absolutely aggressively spending towards marketing the football program. Why would any every think otherwise?

  • He makes a valid point actually. Jeff, Chiuk and I said the same thing. UK does not spend a lot of money on football marketing, but there are no figures beyond the final figure to show where the numbers come from.

    This post was edited by Josh Edwards 21 months ago

    @JEdwar247

  • Its also the point Ive been trying to make.

  • This is exactly right. There is no context here. Heck, the jumbo-trons that were installed last year with the ribbon boards could be considered a marketing expense.

    To me, what was posted is meaningless with no indication of what is included.

  • From the blog article, these are the numbers UK Athletics reported to the NCAA for football marketing expenses.

    From the NCAA website: "Costs associated with fund raising, marketing and promotion for media guides, brochures, recruiting publications and such other expenditures."

    Not smoke machines, ribbon boards, jumbotrons, or scoreboard operators. Not random conclusory numbers with no context.

    UK Athletics reported to the governing body of college athletics that it spent approximately 1.5% of it's marketing budget on fund raising, marketing, promoting, and other marketing-related expenditures for the football program, assuming the numbers are correct. If these numbers are wrong, and lots of money has been spent marketing the football program, it is not money well spent, because I've seen absolutely no evidence of it whatsoever.

  • Okay. For fun, let's just assume that UL's and UK's marketing expenditures are exactly the same and UL outspent UK last year. I still stand by my statements that it would have been a waste of money to "market" the product on the field in 2011 in attempts at bringing fans to the games. After the UF and USC debacles, most fans gave up last year.

    Let's face it, in 2011 no amout of money spent on "marketing" the team, after those two mentioned games, would have lead to more people in the stands. As I've mentioned - most people had their minds made up and had given up on the team.....it was the mood of the fanbase for most of the year last year.

    I'd love to know our expenditures for 2007, 2010 and I'd also love to know what some of the other schools in the SEC spend on "marketing".

    I'll also predict that if we have a decent season this year (6 wins or more and a bowl game - which would qualify as decent since we are so young) that our expenditures would be more for this season, and would likely be even more next year b/c there should be a lot of buzz going around the team next year (especially if they make it to a bowl this year with a lot of young guns).

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Chiuk 21 months ago

  • When a team, product, or whatever else, is your main source of revenue, you market the hell out of it, regardless of any perceived shortcomings it may have. That's marketing 101. You may very well be right that it would not have added fans to the seats, but that doesn't mean it's not money well spent. Anyone involved in business will tell you the same.

    Also, regardless of whether these numbers are accurate or not, anyone who follows the football team and has a brain knows we don't market it to the extent we should. What positives would result from a sound marketing approach is unknown because we've never seen it put into action, but it is folly to suggest we are spending enough, considering the football program is the main revenue stream for the entire athletics department. We didn't need Crawford's report to verify as much... but it is good to see actual numbers. Perhaps they aren't as specific as some would like, but they paint a broad stroke picture of something we already knew.

  • If you can't market the present, market the future. No excuse for a lack of marketing.

    @JEdwar247

  • We discussed this earlier in the thread. My position, and I could be wrong, is that you can't apply Marketing 101 concepts to a turd of a college football team in 2011 (I'm hoping we win 6+ this year, and think it can be done.....). A college football program does not equal a corporation. I also don't think corporations just market the heck out of a product that's no longer productive/profitable (where the market has replaced it with something better, for example).

    Ultimately, spending more in 2011 on a "marketing budget" A) It won't put people in the stands; B) It won't lead to a "better product". Thus, why spend that money? Why throw good money after bad? Honest question. Also, please, someone tell me what the benefits would have been for spending more on "marketing" than the amount we spent in 2011.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Chiuk 21 months ago

  • It's not like the expenditures were a goose-egg. So there was some amount of "marketing" last year. The issue is that it evidently wasn't enough.

    Question, what exactly do you market for the future? I mean, the fans have made clear that Joker is on the hot-seat - that he has to win at least 6 to take him off, etc (more wins are required by some of our more stringent fans).....that there's no real hope for success......and season ticket sales are way down. What future does this program have?

  • Did you see the part that said "and other expenditures"?

    In terms of you not seeing it. I Live in Hopkinsville and have seen billboards in WKY. I've also heard about the Gameday ready tour... I don't think Charlie strong has gone out in the state? I've also heard about the women's clinic...

    To say you have heard absolutely nothing is interesting. Either you pay no attention or you are being dis-ingenuous.

    This post was edited by hoptownukfan 21 months ago

  • Why would smoke machines/ribbon boards/jumbotrons be marketing expenses. Those types of things are only seen by those who have had to purchase a ticket to be in the stadium - the kind of thing marketing expense are supposed to cause to happen, not after the fact.

  • I guess to fully answer... my position is that you apply marketing 101 concepts every time you market something. That's why they have the moniker "marketing 101." There are different marketing strategies, to be sure, but none of them involve not marketing your highest producing product. I'm not busting your balls, and you may just be playing devil's advocate, but I think your position is pretty silly.

    Let's say Coca-Cola screws up their machinery and Coke is making people sick for a year (or some other analogy that would lead to them having a "turd" of a year). Do you think they stop marketing Coke in favor of their other products? Of course not. Now, they may choose to emphasize other products more than before, they may choose to market for the future, or market their past successes. There are any number of strategies they could apply; but again, none of them would involve not marketing their main product, and I can guarantee you that the bulk of their marketing expenditures would still be used in promoting Coke.

    I disagree that it won't put people in the stands and that it won't lead to a better product (indirectly of course), because it shows a commitment to creating a culture of excitement around the football team, which we haven't even had when we actually were exciting to watch. I think creating that culture will bring in more fans, create new ones, get recruits excited to play here, and in general create a sort of domino effect. Marketing alone won't do this of course, but it is most certainly a piece of the puzzle. I do however agree that after the Pitt, UL, USC, and UF games, fans in the seats were gonna be hard to come by. But, as the analogy above applied to this fact set shows, that's far from valid reasoning for not promoting the product. That's just my opinion though, and you are just as entitled to yours.

  • But UK didn't stop marketing....they just didn't spend an amount to satisfy some fans (which I assume includes you). I'm just saying that it makes zero sense to spend more than you should - at some point you aren't getting any return for each extra dollar spent on marketing. And again, using a corporation's bad PR = more spending on marketing to cure the PR deficiency and comparing to a college football program experiencing a bad season that may turn around next season is comparing apples to oranges.....there's zero similarity. (For example, in your analogy, Coke engaged in PR/spin control which costs money, likely from their marketing budget. Mitch engaged in spin control last year via the radio before games and in interviews with local media - which doesn't cost anything).

    Further - I guarantee you that if we spent $500,000 on marketing expenditures for football last year more people would not have come to CWS to watch us lose. People come out to the games to see a winning product.....that's the bottom line. Want proof? Look at our stadium in 2007. Packed every game. That's b/c we were good. Heck look to any sporting team in America - college or professional....losing teams generally do not enjoy sold out facilities.

    Last year. Not good. Empty seats.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Chiuk 21 months ago

  • The players. Max Smith. Josh Clemons. Bud Dupree.The great thing about football is that football is football. There are few greater loves for a man in the United States. If I'm not busy and am bored, I would go to a DIII game. It does not matter. You promote the experience, the comradery, everything. You introduce the National Champion Basketball Cats. You. Find. Ways. To. Get. People. To. The. Game.

    Also, the experience needs to get better.

    @JEdwar247

  • I think UK already does that though. That said, as I've mentioned, it makes more sense to market the heck out of the 3 guys you mentioned prior to 2013 season if they have awesome 2012 seasons (as well as the team overall). So far, these guys haven't really produced a whole lot to justify spending a lot more on marketing.

    And don't take that the wrong way. I'm a huge huge fan of all three of these guys. All 3 are sophs, have a big future ahead of them, and I can't wait til they're seniors......but right now they are unproven for the most part. I guess we'll all just have to agree to disagree on this one.

    Finally, to your "the experience needs to get better". Sorry, there is no better cure for that than winning football games. Examples: UL, LSU and UF games at home in 2007. In my life I have never had a better gameday experience than those 3 games. Why? Not b/c of some gimmicks or promoted and staged atmosphere created by the administration, but b/c of fans being genuinely excited for the game. The buzz in the air......that atmosphere was there courtesy of Andre Woodson, Raphael Little, Tamme, Johnson, Woodyard, Jarmon, et al and the product on the field.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Chiuk 21 months ago

  • I think that's the only fair way to do it.

    signature image

    E-mail: JDRUM@247SPORTS.COM Follow me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/JDrumUK

  • The problem, Chuik, is that you are having a different conversation than I and some other posters are.

    Winning would certainly be better than marketing. Marketing is not and will never be a replacement for winning football games. Marketing may not guarantee season ticket sales. Marketing is not the cure-all solution for UK football. No-one has made any of these claims. You keep repeating them as if someone has, but it's just a distraction.

    Gameday expenditures are a different line item, and a different topic of conversation. Gameday experience needs to improve, period. Not because it is a replacement for winning games, but because it makes the gameday experience better for the fans, players and recruits. You've been to a handful of games at Commonwealth where the gameday experience was good. Other programs have great gameday experiences every single time they open the stadium because steps have been taken to ensure a top-notch game day experience.

    It doesn't matter how much was spent in marketing in 2007, or 2010 because the conversation we are having concerns football marketing expenditures as a percentage of total marketing expenditures in 2011. Read that sentence carefully, because that is the topic of discussion. If your opinion on the subject is that 1.5% of total marketing expenditures is just dandy, say so. Stop trying to insert irrelevant points to distract from the point at hand:

    Is 1.5% of total marketing expenditures enough marketing for your highest revenue generator, when said generator is currently suffering from the most negative reputation among all substantial revenue streams?

    It doesn't matter what UL spent, what WVU spent, what Alabama spent, or what UK spent in 2010, 2007, or 1951. What matters is what was spent in 2011 on UK football marketing, as a percentage of total marketing.

  • No JDHLaw - we ARE having the same conversation. My comments in regards to "gameday" expenditures was in direct response to a comment made by another poster - (sorry I didn't quote his post, but I responded directly below that post).....off topic maybe, but again it was a reply to something stated by another poster (WildcatDawg says he hopes the "experience gets better" talking about the gameday experience - so I chimed in my 2 cents there.....and I fully acknowledge that was off the main topic of the debate here).

    And sorry, it does matter what was spent in 2007 and 2010. If in fact we spent more those years, it would A) support my theory - the more success on the field equals more money spent in marketing the program. I could be wrong in that theory - but you can't tell me spending in the past doesnt matter; B) it would at least demonstrate that there may in fact be some rhyme or reason behind the total spending in this budget. And probably most importantly C) it would show some of those folks who always complain UK doesn't spend enough on football, that UK is willing to spend more on football (when it's warranted). Ultimately, I'm sure this is a flexible budget....that's why it's important to see other years' spending.

    As for the 1.5% of the total "budget"....again - what do you think is a good percentage? Should Mitch spend 10%....or 20%? And what do you think spending that much more on marketing the football team last year would have accomplished? Don't answer with more people in the seats....

    Even if you spent money on promoting a free ticket giveaway....... gimmicks like that dont work (see UL promotions under Kragethorpe....they still had a ton of empty seats even when the were basically giving tickets away to the public).

    And since we are now discussing what UK spent as a percentage of the overall budget, I'll change my tune. I'd like to know what the percentage of the overall marketing budget was used for football 2007 and 2010....I'll bet it was more than 1.5% of the overall budget.

    This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by Chiuk 21 months ago