Measuring Up

All the news that isn't fit to be relevant

Check out this photo. You see it, and, of course, you're led to believe that because these two Phillies are high fiving, their team won the World Series game on Saturday night. Right?

Not so. That high five took place in the early innings when the Phillies advanced to take a 2-0 lead. In the end, the Yanks caught up and won the game. Too bad the New York Times sports writer and photographer had probably already gone to bed, though. If someone had stayed to report the full game, we might be viewing a different photo.

This is just bad journalism. I rarely ever say or write this about The New York Times. But, it's Sports section has always been a cut below standard. Although there is some small print below the photo which tells the reader to go to NYTimes.com for the latest news. No reader wants to be unintentionally misled about the game results (a pretty important game) with the largest photo on the front page.

For years, The Times advertised that it had the best sports section around. What a crock that is. Yes, the articles are well written and the section does provide the reader with lots of important statistics and data. But, one area it always failed miserably in is providing the most recent, relevant news, like other rival papers do. And, I for one, have always had a problem with that.

In this case, it would have simply been better to not put any World Series photo front and center on the cover page. At least it wouldn't be wrong.

I never understood why this paper can't find a way to report any game played late at night in the next morning's paper. I guess with shrinking staffs and resources, this reality will never change. That's life. I just hope The Times understands when news isn't reported the next morning, it isn't really news at all.

His Airness still has timeless appeal

This weekend, Michael Jordan entered the basketball Hall of Fame. Many feel that he is the best player to ever lace up a pair of basketball sneakers. With six championships, 10 NBA scoring titles, five league MVPs and two Olympic gold medals on his mantel, it’s hard to argue that he doesn’t deserve this honor. But, that’s something for fans to subjectively debate in years to come.

What can’t be argued though is how amazingly long His Airness’ marketing endorsement star has continued to brightly shine. Especially considering the fact that the man has been retired from the game he helped to make so popular for more than six years. That’s almost an eternity when it comes to the marketing staying power of this magnitude for celebrity endorsements.

For those old enough to remember, think back to March, 1985, when a sneaker company named Nike made the single smartest investment in its history by creating the Air Jordan basketball shoe. Remember those creatively artistic Spike Lee commercials? (“It’s got to be the shoe.”) Jordan’s universal appeal generated billions of $$$ in sales and fawned an entirely new industry of brands and products with his name and likeness on them, including sponsors such as Gatorade, Ball Park Franks, Ray-O-Vac, Wheaties, McDonald's, Upper Deck cards, as well as entire Nike Air Jordan apparel lines. Nike continued to ride the Jordan bandwagon for 12 more years when it finally launched the actual Jordan Brand to huge fanfare and success.

It’s easy to understand why he was so successful back then. Everyone wanted to “Be like Mike,” (as the 1990s Gatorade commercials so aptly showcased.)

Think about it. He was the first commercial superstar in a rising sport who represented everything our culture pushes us to be: Good looking, a supreme athlete, cool as ice, competitive beyond belief, charismatic and articulate, smart and funny, and most importantly- a winner (winning more games for more than a decade than anyone else.)

Today, Jordan is a mere memory for most. It’s sad to think that his greatness was entirely missed by today’s new generation of basketball and sports loving kids and teenagers. But, that makes no difference. He remains a marketing icon who still regularly appears on TV ads for such sponsors as Hanes underwear and Gatorade. And, Nike, PepsiCo and Upper Deck have all introduced products in recent months to commemorate Jordan’s NBA career in time for last weekend’s Hall of Fame ceremony. In fact, according to Nike, the Jordan Brand is now a $1 billion brand and still growing successfully.

Many of the most charismatic and successful retired sports celebrities continued to make money through endorsements, licensing and sponsorships long after their playing careers were over. There’s nothing novel about this fact. What’s extraordinary in the case of Michael Jordan is just how strong his magnetism still is, even as he settles well into middle age. Clearly, that famous Jordan smile certainly isn’t lost on companies looking to woo consumers.

Some may argue that players like Bill Russell, Magic Johnson, Wilt Chamberlain or even Kobe Bryant should be considered greater than Jordan. (I happen to disagree.) But, it’s hard to believe that any other basketball player will ever have the timeless marketing appeal of this living legend.

Marketing Contributes to Growth of Brand Trial- But to Excess and Abuse?

Today, Michael Dresner, president of our licensing division, has written the following special guest post.

A March 2009 study in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine revealed that “among those who don’t drink alcohol, ownership of alcohol-branded merchandise predicts both the initiation of alcohol use and binge drinking.” Key licensed products of focus– and subsequent controversy– are baseball caps and clothing.

The chicken/egg debate– whether marketing influences behavior, or merely reflects it– has raged since advertisers started purchasing media space. Let’s not kid ourselves– if marketers didn’t think their efforts would generate awareness and trial, they wouldn’t waste their time on ads, sweepstakes, websites or licensed merchandise.

So, I find merit to the argument that alcohol-branded merchandise leads to product trial. That said, I just don’t believe in the validity of research linking licensed wearables to binge drinking. Our agency has seen enough market research protocols in which clients manipulate the variables and questionnaire to get the answers they want to hear. Hence, my theory:  the Archives wanted to promote the link between t-shirts, hats and binge drinking within academic and business media vehicles.  Otherwise they would not have sent out the press release. 

Efforts to curb binge drinking should be honored. My question is– why is licensed merchandise an area of such vital focus? Full disclosure– my experience with adolescent psychology and substance abuse is low. But doesn’t common sense indicate that binge drinking– a disease– is a byproduct of peer pressure, education, home life, genetics, and mental health?  If that is true, shouldn’t the Archives be spending more time on those issues? 

Licensing plays a role in product trial. No question. But trial and excess are two different subject matters. Licensed product plays an insignificant, and arguably non-existent, role in excess and abuse. Will the absence of such licensed product take away the other factors leading to binge drinking? No way.

If I sound like an advocate of licensing– it’s because I am. People who love the Corona brand should have the opportunity to enjoy its t-shirts, hats, bathing suits, and beach towels. Corona should not have to cease its merchandising strategy because people find an unrelated way to sadly abuse alcohol. I am also an advocate of objective market research, particularly efforts without underlying motive that pinpoint genuine causal factors of damaging health problems. 

I hope the Archives wish to reduce binge drinking.  To solve the problem, I also hope they focus on what really causes the affliction in the first place, rather than wasting resources displacing responsibility on inanimate objects that nobody is under any obligation to buy.

This is not the year to advertise on the Super Bowl

A few days back, The New York Times advertising column featured Denny’s and some of the other companies who’ve chosen to advertise in this year’s Super Bowl. Every year, marketing and business pundits debate whether this one-time venue’s premium advertising slot is worth the cost. The golden question is: Does it provide a real return on the huge cost associated with it?

Almost always, I take the pessimist’s view point of this debate. Unless the advertiser’s sole goal is to immediately drive one time traffic to a web site, or one time limited sales of a product, I just don’t see the bang for the buck (and even then the benefit won’t be higher than the cost). Most marketers leverage the Super Bowl both for ongoing brand building and the hope that it will create a spike that will lead to a continual rise in product sales. There may be some instances where the latter has happened, but I’d like someone to prove it to me.

This year, the advertising “opportunity” seems almost ludicrous. In the toughest of times, NBC has actually raised the rate of a 30-second spot from $2.7 million to $3 million (gee, what a deal.) One agency executive believes there is real value to be had here and asks the rhetorical question, “Where else can I hit 97 million people?”

That may be true (although I question whether a Cardinal/Steelers game will have that type of viewer turnout,) but I believe there are three important reasons why the Super Bowl makes even less sense now than in years past:

1.) The PR hit – Almost every company is cutting costs and laying off its employees. We’re talking about millions of people out of work. It would be an understatement to say that the general mood in America is somber (at best.) How will these advertisers be viewed by their employees, investors and other key constituents when they are seen as frivolously spending $3 million in 30 seconds, while so much turmoil is taking place in the background?

2.) The price actually went up – Give me a break. I just don’t know how any organization can justify raising prices now. Most have actually created cost concessions with the addition of greater benefits in their products/services. I’d probably walk away or terminate the relationship with any partner/vendor that had the audacity to actually raise prices instead.

3.) Use the money more strategically – Consumers are buying less and they are more selective about what they buy. Think about how far $3 million could stretch through a more strategic marketing program that is directly aligned with point of sales or thought leadership to make prospects/customers trust the company’s products/services more. I’d say that most advertisers would actually do better by spending the whole enchilada on events at their restaurants or at retail designed to create more direct publicity and interest in retail sales than through an ad that will be over in the blink of an eye. Just so it doesn’t seem like I’m only pushing public relations approaches, I think direct marketing (email, leveraging the Web), digital campaigns) could provide longer, more sustainable ROI as well.

Consumers may enjoy watching some of these lighter commercials. Does some brief laughter support the millions being spent? No.

New Yorkers hate "me, myself and I"

Stephon Marbury, the New York Knicks crest fallen star, has shown once again that he is one of the most selfish athletes to ever don a New York sports uniform. Unfortunately for this egomaniacal enigmatic point guard, he's also simply incapable of rebuilding his toxic image, even when the opportunity to shine is smacking him right in the face.

For those who aren't Knicks' fans, Marbury's latest (and most likely last) fall from grace is an important lesson in the importance of being professional and "doing the right thing," even under the most adverse conditions, when emotion and pride are compelling one to do just the opposite.

Here are the facts of this story:

* The Knicks hired a new general manager and coach this year
* The coach (Mike D'Antoni) quickly decided that Stephon Marbury wasn’t in his short or long term plans and ceremoniously benched him (and didn’t even ask him to dress on some days)
* This isn't a surprise because Marbury has a long standing reputation for being selfish and is a career loser with every one of his NBA teams (including one that D'Antoni coached)
* Marbury watched and waited. To his credit, he didn’t complain publicly and "dealt" with the situation. All the while, the Knicks aren't discussing whether they plan to buy Marbury out of his whopping $21 million salary, cut him, or something in between. The Knicks were beginning to look bad, at this point.
* Then the Knicks decided to trade their top guard (Jamaal Crawford) and two other key players. After this move, D'Antoni approached Marbury, telling him that he now needs him to play 25-30 minutes in the next game because they only have eight players eligible on the bench.
* Marbury refused to play.
* The Knicks suspended Marbury for one game because of this. This equals approximately $400,000 in lost compensation for Marbury.

Now, what do you think Mr. Marbury did wrong?

Stephon Marbury is an employee of the New York Knicks (which is owned by Cablevision). He was asked to pull through for his team and go to work on a day when the organization had too few teammates to get the job done. If Mr. Marbury was able to move beyond the resentment and animosity he undoubtedly feels towards his employer, the man could have quite possibly started a brave new road to repair his contaminated image. And, if the embattled point guard actually helped his team to win, well... then this talented player might just have been seen by some as a hero, sacrificing his own ego for the greater good of the team. Imagine that. Maybe, he could even have had a future in New York City.  

But, of course, that was just a dream. Marbury let us all down... again. The irony here is that by making the obviously selfish choice not to play, Marbury really only hurt himself this time. You see, thousands of fans who continue to fight to keep their jobs in this disastrous economy cannot accept the fact that this spoiled, over paid employee simply won't do the professional thing and go to work when called upon (even under the worst of circumstances). They can't understand it, because many of them have to do this very thing each and every day. And, it's safe to say that 99 percent of those who are just "surviving" these times don't make even 5 percent of Marbury's salary.

The other irony is that Marbury will be looking for a new team shortly. It might be a day, a week or maybe he'll be forced to wait until the end of the season, but this once highly touted guard now has to convince some other sucker (uh... that is general manager) that he has the "goods" to lead a professional basketball team. That would mean that Stephon would need to accomplish what we all know now is impossible. He’d need to actually put his own team ahead of me, myself and I.