Yesterday saw the launch of the newest sports league … the WPS or Women’s Professional Soccer. As someone who has played soccer in leagues since I was seven, and coached AYSO girls aged 11- 14 for several years, it’s an exciting time filled with hope and promise. However, as a marketer I’m skeptical in the extreme about the success of the league and wonder about its true potential.
The WPS has several things going for it. First, it has the failed WUSA as a model for what not to do and clearly they have learned. Instead of going big they’ve stayed with smaller venues that don’t cost as much to run, they’ve lowered general salaries and their ticket pricing is low. (An especially appealing feature in these tough economic times.) Secondly, they’ve got the best women soccer players in the world all playing in the league so there is no shortage of talent or argument that better soccer can be found in another league. And thirdly, they’ve actually got a prominent sports channel (Fox Soccer Channel and Fox Sports Net) broadcasting the games so they’re accessible to the masses.
From a marketing perspective, they’re also doing some interesting stuff, the main being to broaden their target from simply “tween” girls to a larger female (and male) base. To this end, league players are, in their local areas, hosting viewing parties at local pubs allowing them to interact with the fan base and create some excitement in places other than the field. They’re using Twitter and YouTube and other social media sites to create buzz and some intimacy with fans. They’re trying to create personal connections to the players and the teams and the league vs. simply putting it out there and expecting that the combo of women and soccer to be enough to draw women and girls that play soccer.
So that’s the good news. Now for the bad.
At my soccer game yesterday I mentioned multiple times that the new league started today and only once did anyone even react. These are girls/women who grew up playing; played in high school and college, play in a women’s league now and most of whom play in a co-ed league during the week. These are committed soccer players who love the game and yet they’re completely apathetic to the league. They fit the new target demo … they’re definitely the type to go to the local pubs and hang with friends and I know they use Twitter and Facebook. So why the disinterest?
Unfortunately, I think it’s precisely because they grew up with soccer being there. Unlike me and my generation who had to hold bake sales in the student union to pay for the van to go to away games in college, these girls grew up with scholarships and uniforms and trainers on the sidelines. Women’s soccer isn’t a big deal it’s just a fact so there’s no compelling need to support the league (or for that matter the men’s). They’ve got new careers and shifting life priorities going on so finding the time or the will to support a soccer league just isn’t a priority. And what the means for the league is their back to the same audience the WUSA had – tween girls and their moms, a recipe that didn’t work last time.
Will this league survive? I’m not sure. I’d like to be optimistic but my head says it’s very unlikely. I do think they’ve made smart moves and if it ever is going to happen, this is probably it. Keep working the girls and their moms and do what you can to gain followers in college so they’ve established a viewing habit for their post-school years.
I wish them luck and I am committed to doing my part in viewship to keep it alive. And if watching entertaining soccer has anything to do with the leagues success, then the inaugural game between the LA Sol and Washington DC Freedom bodes well.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
Hope
This isn’t my usual blog post dedicated to all things advertising and marketing. Well, maybe it is but not in any traditional sense of it. Today, I’m thinking about the current dichotomy between optimism and pessimism/hope and fear.
What got me thinking about this was juxtaposition yesterday of news stories about the pessimism regarding the economy and the optimism of the Obama presidency. The two seem so opposing yet they seem to be surviving at the same time and I have to wonder why.
Less than two months ago the US and, really, the whole world stood still for a couple of hours and took in the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States. Anyone watching, and even those that tried to actively avoid watching, couldn’t help but be struck by the shear numbers of people paying attention and the overwhelming sense of hope and happiness this event engendered. The reasons for the happiness varied for sure: change from the previous administration, change in political parties, a major race hurtle jumped to name just a few. But regardless of the reason, the underlying reason seemed universal: hope that things would be better.
Now contrast that with the talk of the economy. Or perhaps it’s the economy through the lens of politics. The talking heads on yesterday’s news programs discussed and disagreed about the amount of debt run up, nationalizing vs. not the banks, earmarks and the divide in Congress. However, one thing they all agreed on was that at the very core of the problem and the key to correcting it is confidence. Corporate confidence. Consumer confidence. People need to believe that we will get through this and eventually (not necessarily tomorrow) it will be alright.
So if the solution is to build and instill confidence, then why is everyone in the media (and a good many in government/politics) continuing to belt out nothing but the negative? How does someone like Rush Limbaugh get away with saying that he hopes the President fails (i.e. he hope the economy and thereby all the citizens fail) without everyone getting angry?! In all the conversations I’ve listened to, I’ve only heard one person (Erin Burnett of CNBC) actively try to inject a few positive signs. It makes me question whether these people really want to repair the economy or if these people are so cocooned that they don’t understand that what’s happening isn’t political theory it’s people’s lives.
The election of Obama and the worldwide reaction to it shows that people still have hope. And it’s that hope we have to tap into if we’re going to solve the problems we’re facing in the world. Don’t get me wrong, we can’t ignore the problems we must discuss them if we’re going to find solutions. However, we also have to hold on to hope and actively pursue it. We have to change the definition of hope from a passive to an active verb – hope is actionable not just wishful. And we have to enforce that hope to others (or maybe sell is the nicer way to say it) so we can push the politicians and media to work for solutions verses trying to gain from promoting the problems.
I believe it’s possible … at least I hope it is.
What got me thinking about this was juxtaposition yesterday of news stories about the pessimism regarding the economy and the optimism of the Obama presidency. The two seem so opposing yet they seem to be surviving at the same time and I have to wonder why.
Less than two months ago the US and, really, the whole world stood still for a couple of hours and took in the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States. Anyone watching, and even those that tried to actively avoid watching, couldn’t help but be struck by the shear numbers of people paying attention and the overwhelming sense of hope and happiness this event engendered. The reasons for the happiness varied for sure: change from the previous administration, change in political parties, a major race hurtle jumped to name just a few. But regardless of the reason, the underlying reason seemed universal: hope that things would be better.
Now contrast that with the talk of the economy. Or perhaps it’s the economy through the lens of politics. The talking heads on yesterday’s news programs discussed and disagreed about the amount of debt run up, nationalizing vs. not the banks, earmarks and the divide in Congress. However, one thing they all agreed on was that at the very core of the problem and the key to correcting it is confidence. Corporate confidence. Consumer confidence. People need to believe that we will get through this and eventually (not necessarily tomorrow) it will be alright.
So if the solution is to build and instill confidence, then why is everyone in the media (and a good many in government/politics) continuing to belt out nothing but the negative? How does someone like Rush Limbaugh get away with saying that he hopes the President fails (i.e. he hope the economy and thereby all the citizens fail) without everyone getting angry?! In all the conversations I’ve listened to, I’ve only heard one person (Erin Burnett of CNBC) actively try to inject a few positive signs. It makes me question whether these people really want to repair the economy or if these people are so cocooned that they don’t understand that what’s happening isn’t political theory it’s people’s lives.
The election of Obama and the worldwide reaction to it shows that people still have hope. And it’s that hope we have to tap into if we’re going to solve the problems we’re facing in the world. Don’t get me wrong, we can’t ignore the problems we must discuss them if we’re going to find solutions. However, we also have to hold on to hope and actively pursue it. We have to change the definition of hope from a passive to an active verb – hope is actionable not just wishful. And we have to enforce that hope to others (or maybe sell is the nicer way to say it) so we can push the politicians and media to work for solutions verses trying to gain from promoting the problems.
I believe it’s possible … at least I hope it is.
Branding – a misunderstood verb
Branding. It’s a term we’ve all heard – or at least any of us that work in advertising, marketing or senior management. In business, branding is a good thing and having a strong brand image is what we to aspire to and try to maintain. Conversely, when something tarnishes our brand image it’s all hands on deck to try to repair the damage.
But what does branding really mean and what value does it add? I’ve sat in countless meetings where people talk about “branding campaigns” when what they really mean is advertising campaigns. I’ve been a part of multiple brand development work sessions where the participants feign involvement while all the while muttering under their breath about losing valuable time to such frivolous pursuits. And I’ve heard multiple executives talk about the power of their brand while failing to put in the effort to support it.
To me, brand is that split second feeling you get when someone says the name of a product (or service or person). It’s why people would pay billions to buy Nike or Coke when the actual physical assets of the company are far less. And it’s why people pay $100+ for shoes that cost maybe five dollars to produce.
But for a brand to be a valued brand, it must live its image through and through. You can’t say you’re a quality brand and then make cheap products and expect people to like or trust you. You can’t claim to be customer-centric and then make it impossible for customers to reach you when problems occur. Brand isn’t an advertising campaign and it doesn’t happen overnight. Brand is who you are as a company – from the way you answer the phones to the way you treat employees to the products and services you provide your customers. Brand is the bond you build with customers over time.
A few examples of what I consider to be good brands are REI and Starbucks. I say REI because I believe they live what they sell and everything they do is consistent with supporting a community of people committed to enjoying and maintaining the great outdoors. From being a cooperative that actually gives back money to members to hosting classes on bike maintenance and rock climbing to organizing clean-up days for local parks and beaches, they live their brand and have created a loyal customer based. And Starbucks … well, they may be struggling a little with the economy but for the most part they’ve never wavered from their mission to provide a quality product in an upscale, warm environment. From the food they serve to the music they play to the merchandise they sell, it’s all consistently quality and a comfortable experience to those who go. And they’ve managed to create a community feel despite their ubiquitous locations.
When building a brand, it’s the ideal to start at start-up so it can act as a tool to inform the way the company is built out, who to hire and how business will be done. But in truth, it’s never too late if you’re committed to doing the work to develop your brand and implement it across the board. Just be aware that branding isn’t for the faint of heart. It takes work, a commitment to introspection about what you’re doing as a company and what you want to stand for, and a determination to implement the policies and personnel that will bring your brand to life.
I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on brands that either
But what does branding really mean and what value does it add? I’ve sat in countless meetings where people talk about “branding campaigns” when what they really mean is advertising campaigns. I’ve been a part of multiple brand development work sessions where the participants feign involvement while all the while muttering under their breath about losing valuable time to such frivolous pursuits. And I’ve heard multiple executives talk about the power of their brand while failing to put in the effort to support it.
To me, brand is that split second feeling you get when someone says the name of a product (or service or person). It’s why people would pay billions to buy Nike or Coke when the actual physical assets of the company are far less. And it’s why people pay $100+ for shoes that cost maybe five dollars to produce.
But for a brand to be a valued brand, it must live its image through and through. You can’t say you’re a quality brand and then make cheap products and expect people to like or trust you. You can’t claim to be customer-centric and then make it impossible for customers to reach you when problems occur. Brand isn’t an advertising campaign and it doesn’t happen overnight. Brand is who you are as a company – from the way you answer the phones to the way you treat employees to the products and services you provide your customers. Brand is the bond you build with customers over time.
A few examples of what I consider to be good brands are REI and Starbucks. I say REI because I believe they live what they sell and everything they do is consistent with supporting a community of people committed to enjoying and maintaining the great outdoors. From being a cooperative that actually gives back money to members to hosting classes on bike maintenance and rock climbing to organizing clean-up days for local parks and beaches, they live their brand and have created a loyal customer based. And Starbucks … well, they may be struggling a little with the economy but for the most part they’ve never wavered from their mission to provide a quality product in an upscale, warm environment. From the food they serve to the music they play to the merchandise they sell, it’s all consistently quality and a comfortable experience to those who go. And they’ve managed to create a community feel despite their ubiquitous locations.
When building a brand, it’s the ideal to start at start-up so it can act as a tool to inform the way the company is built out, who to hire and how business will be done. But in truth, it’s never too late if you’re committed to doing the work to develop your brand and implement it across the board. Just be aware that branding isn’t for the faint of heart. It takes work, a commitment to introspection about what you’re doing as a company and what you want to stand for, and a determination to implement the policies and personnel that will bring your brand to life.
I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on brands that either
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)