The hardest part in Sports PR is to maintain a good reputation for the sports team-- in order to gain more fans and get more people to the games. For a PR person this doesn't only mean to look promote things on the field, like the games and awards the team has won, but to also promote activities off the field, like community service players have done, etc.
So when things like what happened with the Oregon Ducks according to Greg Covelle's blog. It is hard to create a good image for the athletic program, with so much negative press.
"The Oregon Ducks have been out of the papers and headlines recently which has brought nothing but glee to everyone working over at the school. The school over the past two years has had athletic director changes, heisman canidates suspended for the majority of seasons, and all star quaterbacks forced to transfer after getting involved with crime off the field. Just as the school begins to really make some noise on the field, it starts making a lot more noise off of the field."
This is true crisis management for a PR team. How do you change the image of the Oregon Ducks? Now that their activities off the field have a huge impact on their image as athletes. This relates to my second blog post when I talked about how people are more concerned with the personal lives of athletes rather than their performance on the field. Athletes, even at the college level, are looked at like celebrities.
This also brings me to Laura's blog dealing with the ethics in celebrity privacy. I agree that there is, it seems, no privacy at all. The same can be said about the privacy of athletes, especially those in college. They are just students, do they have the right to privacy or has their status as a college athlete the same as a celebrity, so they have no choice because they are in the public eye? Should PR professionals deal with an athlete in a image crisis the same way you would a celebrity.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
NFL Research results in the start of Monday Night Football
One of the biggest football games played so far was this past Monday between the Superbowl Champs the New Orleans Saints and the San Francisco 49ers. This game alone average 15.1 million viewers.
This many people watching a game on television on a Monday night?
Apparently the start of Monday Night Football began as a research project.
The sport grew around the media outlets. The big name channels such as NBC, CBS and ABC, determined how many games could be watched, so from the start the success of the national football was dependent on television viewers.
During the 1960s, then NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle wanted to know how to get more people to watch football. He wanted to have more days of football to increase there very low ratings they had.Through research he eliminated almost every weekday, except Monday.
Rozelle decided to experiment with the concept of playing on Monday night, scheduling the Green Bay Packers and Detroit Lions for a game on September 28, 1964. While the game was not televised, it drew a sellout crowd of 59,203 to Tiger Stadium, the largest crowd ever to watch a professional football game in Detroit up to that point. He believed that if this many people would show up to the game, imagine how many people would watch it on television. Networks were hesitant at first to compete with soap operas and other entertainment shows.
This correlation would be proven true, when he finally convinced television networks to air the first Monday Night Football game in 1970. Due to his research and experiment results, Monday Night Football is now one of the most watch sporting programs.
Quote from an article about the History of Monday Night Football:
"The idea of football in primetime certainly worked. Demographics show that nearly 40 percent of Monday Night Football viewers are women, breaking the long-held belief that sports could not compete successfully in primetime against entertainment. The series' success was immediate. The schedule of 13 Monday night games shocked the critics, who predicted the series would achieve no better than a 24 percent share of the audience, by drawing 31 percent of America's viewers. The current schedule has grown to 20 Mondays (17 regular season, 3 preseason), all in primetime."
This many people watching a game on television on a Monday night?
Apparently the start of Monday Night Football began as a research project.
The sport grew around the media outlets. The big name channels such as NBC, CBS and ABC, determined how many games could be watched, so from the start the success of the national football was dependent on television viewers.
During the 1960s, then NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle wanted to know how to get more people to watch football. He wanted to have more days of football to increase there very low ratings they had.Through research he eliminated almost every weekday, except Monday.
Rozelle decided to experiment with the concept of playing on Monday night, scheduling the Green Bay Packers and Detroit Lions for a game on September 28, 1964. While the game was not televised, it drew a sellout crowd of 59,203 to Tiger Stadium, the largest crowd ever to watch a professional football game in Detroit up to that point. He believed that if this many people would show up to the game, imagine how many people would watch it on television. Networks were hesitant at first to compete with soap operas and other entertainment shows.
This correlation would be proven true, when he finally convinced television networks to air the first Monday Night Football game in 1970. Due to his research and experiment results, Monday Night Football is now one of the most watch sporting programs.
Quote from an article about the History of Monday Night Football:
"The idea of football in primetime certainly worked. Demographics show that nearly 40 percent of Monday Night Football viewers are women, breaking the long-held belief that sports could not compete successfully in primetime against entertainment. The series' success was immediate. The schedule of 13 Monday night games shocked the critics, who predicted the series would achieve no better than a 24 percent share of the audience, by drawing 31 percent of America's viewers. The current schedule has grown to 20 Mondays (17 regular season, 3 preseason), all in primetime."
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Researching Ethics- Athletes losing their right to privacy
There have been ethical issues dealing with sports athletes for sometime. Ever since investigative journalism evolved, they have been in the spotlight more and more. When researching athletes for a report, ad or press release, should we research their sports performance or their private lives?
Since athletes have become more like celebrities, people are more concerned with what happens off the field than how well they're performing at their particular sport. For example, Tiger Woods has been all the news this past year. Not for winning a golf tournament, but for matters involving his personal life. There was once a time when athletes had two separate lives. Sports agents and publicists would only focus on researching the game stats and how well the athlete did in the game, now as PR people we must research what things are being said involving his or her life off the field. There are areas in Sports PR that are becoming more and more like Entertainment PR. Even sports networks, like ESPN, have reported on athletes' personal lives.
In just the last few years, really, this has changed dramatically.
There are more stories of all manner of high-profile athletes involved in affairs, rape allegations, steroids scandals, and speeding tickets.
Do we have the right to research these athletes' personal lives and make things public? What if these stories are inaccurate and thus damage the name and credibility of the athlete? Should we focus more on researching their performance on the field?
Another example can be what if a PR person wants to do focus groups or interviews using athletes and finds out something during their research that can harm the players reputation. Do you as a PR person still use them in your research report? According to PR research ethics they have a right to privacy, but does this change since their lives are so public?
Since athletes have become more like celebrities, people are more concerned with what happens off the field than how well they're performing at their particular sport. For example, Tiger Woods has been all the news this past year. Not for winning a golf tournament, but for matters involving his personal life. There was once a time when athletes had two separate lives. Sports agents and publicists would only focus on researching the game stats and how well the athlete did in the game, now as PR people we must research what things are being said involving his or her life off the field. There are areas in Sports PR that are becoming more and more like Entertainment PR. Even sports networks, like ESPN, have reported on athletes' personal lives.
In just the last few years, really, this has changed dramatically.
There are more stories of all manner of high-profile athletes involved in affairs, rape allegations, steroids scandals, and speeding tickets.
Do we have the right to research these athletes' personal lives and make things public? What if these stories are inaccurate and thus damage the name and credibility of the athlete? Should we focus more on researching their performance on the field?
Another example can be what if a PR person wants to do focus groups or interviews using athletes and finds out something during their research that can harm the players reputation. Do you as a PR person still use them in your research report? According to PR research ethics they have a right to privacy, but does this change since their lives are so public?
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Businesses research Sports Fans
Most sporting events today are more than just a game that is being played. Behind the scenes there are groups of PR/ Marketing researching the team they are working for, the fan interaction, and the game sponsors. Research is important in order to find out the expectations of fans and to heighten their satisfaction with a certain team or event. Not only does the team want to satisfy the fans but now the advertisers also want to satisfy sports fans.
Businesses and companies play in big role in sporting events. Companies research what teams or sporting events they should sponsor. For example, in an effort to promote their healthier food choices, McDonald’s is now a sponsor of both the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup. Some companies such as Dunkin Donuts sponsor Major League baseball teams, because although they are known for their coffee and doughnuts, their new campaign includes Iced Coffee and Iced Coolatas, and iced drinks are big in the summer. However it doesn’t have to be a huge sporting event like the World Cup. If there is a new local business, they might want to sponsor a local team to reach within their own community.
Companies are now realizing the impact sports has on American culture.
This year alone, the Super bowl drew in over 106 million viewers. The Super Bowl is among the most watched sporting event in the world. Reaching that many people, it is no wonder that the PR and Ad industry buzz near the end of the football season.
Even Americans who don’t follow football watch the Super Bowl, waiting for the new creative ads, businesses put out.
For :30 seconds alone an ad during the game can cost around $2.5 million. The price seems outrageous but some say it’s worth it. Such a big investment like this requires a ton of research. Companies have to do extensive research to find out whether they would be losing or making money in buying this expensive ad space.
Is it worth is? Think of it this way, not only do you reach 106 million viewers, there is also the word of mouth that comes with it. The day after the Super Bowl, the most talk about subject is not who won or lost the game, it is the commercials that stand out.
Fan Characterstics and Sporting Event Attendance
Super Bowl Ads Sales as Economic Indicator
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)