Time to recap the Super Bowl with a special Sports Business Winners and Losers breakdown. I’ll also try to capture most of the questions I posed in my “Pre-Super Bowl Thoughts” post from Friday:

Winner – Drew Brees – An easy selection for the player that should make the greatest marketing leap because of the Super Bowl. He already got to give the trademark “I’m going to Disney World” line, and there should be many endorsements to follow (hopefully something a little more glamorous than Pampers).

Loser – Peyton Manning – Not that I expect his endorsements to drop off, but as one of the most marketable players in the league before the game, I don’t expect Peyton Manning ads to get a lot of extra airtime this week.

Winner and Loser – Twitter and #SB44 – The Super Bowl completely dominated the Twitter-scape last night, showing its power to unite sports fans into one giant conversation. However, right after the play of the game (Porter’s INT return), Twitter crashed, probably due to everyone wanting to comment on that play. That was bad timing for Twitter.

Winner – Bridgestone – Of all the big time presenting sponsorships that connect to the NFL, Bridgestone really seems to capitalize on their halftime deal. The Who also came through with a solid performance (although not on the level of Bruce Springsteen’s from last year, in my opinion).

Loser – GMC – For a company that was supposedly the presenting sponsor of the biggest sporting event of the year, I still had no idea that they were involved except for the mentions on the NFL website.

Winners – CBS and the NFL – The game had a 46.4 rating and a 68 share, up 10% over last year’s game and the highest ratings since Super Bowl XXI in 1987 (USA Today). In total, this represents almost 100 million viewers.

Winner and Loser – Bourbon Street – The drinks were flowing and the celebrations ran through the night, leading to a good time…for most. However, one individual ruined the night by firing shots from his gun that injured three others. This is not the type of celebrating that New Orleans needs.

Winner – Las Vegas – Based on how the line move throughout the two weeks, it seemed like most of the Las Vegas betting action was on Indianapolis. With the Saints’ win, the casinos may have taken in quite a score.

Advertising Winners:  (Note: this is purely my opinion – I’m sure others will disagree, and that’s fine. Leave your opinions in the comments!)

• Google – A simple, effective and heart-warming ad that should have lasting brand value.
• Doritos – Pretty funny across all their ads, and they did a great job building interest leading up to the game since the commercials are all based on fan ideas that were submitted and voted on through their website.
• Denny’s – Their two ads will have more impact on a company’s bottom line than any other from this year.
• Boost Mobile – A little anti-climactic after the recent build-up, but still a fun parody and something that should drive a steady stream of visitors to their site that they can convert to sales.
• Budweiser – Pretty much the same staple of humorous ads like any year. I enjoyed the Voice Box ad the most, but the human bridge and house made of bud light cans were also strong entrants.
• CBS – Normally I’m not impressed by a station advertising its own shows, but I thought their ads stood out this year and they made the most out of their spots.

Advertising Losers:

• All movie trailers – I still do not understand how this is a profitable marketing approach, unless you are debuting a new trailer and want to make a splash (at least this was the case for Prince of Persia). I doubt that a 0:15 second spot for Wolfman will have any noticeable effect since this ad has been in heavy circulation for weeks now.
• Teleflora – Is it me, or did they run a nearly identical ad in a recent Super Bowl as well? Although, considering how close the Super Bowl is to Valentine’s Day this year, maybe it was a smart move.
• truTV – I just think that this ad was a little creepy, and even if they are launching a new football show, I think its a stretch to say that they’ve added 6 more weeks of football. After all, we have the NFL Network for 52 weeks.
• GoDaddy – These ads were controversial at the time, but now the schtick is getting a little old. Of course, I say that and I’m sure they get more hits to GoDaddy.com this week than any other time of year.
• Dr. Pepper – For all intent purposes, this is the same ad they’ve run with Kiss as part of their “Trust me, I’m a doctor” series of ads. I know they wanted to take advantage of Pepsi’s decision to not advertise this year, but was this the best they could do?
• E*TRADE – I might be in the minority here, but just like my complaint about the GoDaddy ads, I think this joke has run its course – using a new baby doesn’t change anything.

Super Bowl Sunday is just two days away, so I want to get some of your thoughts before the big game. Here are 10 questions to think about. Leave your answers in the comments below before the game starts, and then we’ll do a recap on Monday!

1. What company do you expect to produce the best commercial? How about the worst? The most controversial (besides Tebow’s)?
2. Will Tim Tebow’s commercial be aired?
3. How will the actual halftime performance by the Who impact the value that Bridgestone gets out of their sponsorship?
4. Which presenting sponsor from the past two weeks got the greatest impact from their deal (McDonald’s for the Pro Bowl, Bridgestone for the halftime show, or GMC Sierra for the Super Bowl)?
5. What player has the most to gain in terms of marketability and potential endorsement deals?
6. Will the NFL’s #SB44 hash tag be the top trending topic on Twitter on Sunday?
7. How will the ratings compare to last year? Could we have a record viewership?
8. Which team winning would lead to the most merchandise sales?
9. How successful of a year has this been for the NFL as a whole?
10. Finally, who do you think will win the game?

Enjoy the game!

Yesterday I found out that Under Armour was renewing their deal with the NFL to be the presenting sponsor of the 2010 NFL Scouting Combine. This is one partnership that really offers an excellent and natural fit between the property and the sponsor.

From the very beginning, Under Armour has built their brand around the idea of high-quality apparel for peak athletic performance. This concept has been consistent throughout all of their various marketing platforms. In fact, Under Armour has rarely endorsed specific athletes, instead opting to focus on the imagery of intense workouts and competition. What event offers more coverage of talented athlete workouts than the NFL Scouting Combine? Their brand and apparel will be featured on every potential draft pick that participates in combine drills, and with the increased coverage of the event on NFL Network and NFL.com, the exposure level and overall media value should be even greater than last year (they already have a significant presence on the NFL’s combine website).

A nice addition to this partnership is an increased level of activation leading up to the combine itself. Rather than being content with just media coverage, Under Armour is running a “Countdown to Combine” grassroots campaign in the Miami area. They’re kicking off this campaign by creating a “combine-like” event for local high school and youth football players right after Super Bowl weekend. Local events like this will continue right up to the combine itself at the end of February.

It’s good to see a deal like this between UA and the NFL. With such a strong fit between sponsor and property, both sides should see more benefit. If the deal was with a food chain, financial firm or some other disconnected industry segment, it would be more challenging to build a successful campaign around the event. That’s not to say those deals wouldn’t have been effective, but they would definitely require some creative approaches and extra effort to generate the same type of impact.

As time goes on, there is more and more content buried deep in the archives of this blog, so every now and then, I like to reach into “the vault” and revisit an old post. This article was originally published on February 11, 2009, right after last year’s NFL Pro Bowl took place. I discussed the pros and cons of moving the 2010 NFL Pro Bowl to the week before the Super Bowl, which is this Sunday.

——————–

Did you catch the big football game on Sunday?  There were some amazing plays and even a great 4th quarter comeback.  In case you’re confused, I’m referring to the NFL Pro Bowl, which due to the timing of the event and the lack of participation by many players, is generally the least-relevant all-star game of the four major U.S. leagues (yes, I’d even put the NHL All-Star Game ahead of it).  Because of the the NFL’s schedule structure and the risk of injury, the league cannot have a mid-season exhibition like the other sports.  However, the NFL did decide to make some changes for next year, moving the game up to the off-week before the Super Bowl and playing the game at the same location as the Super Bowl.

I’ve heard many mixed opinions about this change.  The biggest downside is that any Pro Bowl players from two Super Bowl teams (and theoretically there should be several) would not be able to participate.  But considering how many players voluntarily decide not to play in this game anyway, I don’t see this as a big loss.  Its clearly a negative for Aloha Stadium in Hawaii, but the contract with the NFL had expired, and the league is still going to give them a chance to get the game back in the future. (Editor’s Note: The game will be back in Hawaii in 2011 and 2012, but it may occur the week before or after the Super Bowl, still to be determined.) Finally, the players (and the wealthier fans) tend to enjoy a trip to Hawaii.  While next year’s Super Bowl is in Miami, future games will not be in such a tropical location, which could actually hurt game attendance by players and fans.

On the positive side, making the game an official part of Super Bowl Week will create more public interest and media exposure, which in turn will boost the ratings.  The Super Bowl is such an exciting climax to the season, that anything occurring after it does not get any attention.  This change also creates another exciting event for people in town that week, which is more important now considering the number of events that did not happen this year because of the down economy.  Finally, the Pro Bowl will be able to connect with the NFL Experience, which is one of the biggest attractions of Super Bowl week.  One of the reasons that the NBA All-Star Game is such a successful event is the All-Star Jam Session that takes place leading up to the game.  The Pro Bowl does not have that same type of fanfare in Hawaii, but in conjunction with the Super Bowl, there will be plenty of hoopla to help create a more exciting environment.

I think this decision will prove to be a good one by the NFL, and even if its not, I give them a lot of credit for acknowledging the current problems and trying something different.

——————–

So last year, I thought this was a good idea for the NFL, but now that we’ve reached the week of the actual game, it seems like there has been some more backlash than I expected about an increased number of players opting not to play. Clearly this includes all members of the Colts and Saints, but there also seems to be more injury-related dropouts than normal.  Maybe the two week difference in game date is enough to influence these player decisions as well. I’m sure we’ll have a more final verdict on this decision after Sunday’s television ratings come out, but in the meantime, what do you think of the timing of this year’s Pro Bowl?

In case you didn’t see the announcement, the football stadium that the Miami Dolphins play in is now called Joe Robbie Stadium, Pro Player Park, Pro Player Stadium, Dolphins Stadium, Land Shark Stadium, Dolphin Stadium, Sun Life Stadium! (Miami Herald, 1/18)  The previous naming rights deal with Land Shark Lager was a short-term deal (less than a year in total) and expired a couple of weeks ago, which almost left the facility without a top-level deal in place before this year’s Pro Bowl and Super Bowl.

The timing of the deal ends up being unfortunate for Land Shark Lager, since they just miss out on being tied to the biggest U.S. sporting event of the year (although I’m sure they had plenty of opportunity to renew the deal, but decided it wasn’t worth the cost). On the positive side, Sun Life has definitely increased their marketing spend over the past few months, and now topping it all off with “hosting” the Super Bowl is quite an accomplishment. There is also an interesting parallel with their recent television campaign where they want to change Florida’s nickname to the “Sun Life State.” In a way, they’re actually doing that!

The Dolphins should also get some credit for being able to turn around a full, five-year deal in such a small time. However, the contract is only worth $7.5 million for an average of $1.5 million per year, which is well below the revenue generated by most other NFL naming rights contracts. UPDATE: I’ve seen conflicting information on the annual cost of the deal. The Miami Herald article now says the deal is worth $7.5M per year (it’s possible I misread this the first time), while the New York Times is reporting an annual net fee of $4M per year.

I have a few questions on this topic:

• Has the frequent turnover in their stadium name had a permanent impact in the value that the stadium name offers to a potential partner? Along the same lines, can the naming rights partner generate as much brand equity being the 7th name on the building?
• Could they have generated more revenue by going with an even shorter-term deal for the upcoming Pro Bowl/Super Bowl events, and then exploring a longer-term agreement with a different partner?
• Does the fact that the Pro Bowl now has its own title sponsor (McDonald’s) diminish the value associated with the name of the facility where the event is occurring? Did that have an effect on the total dollar value of the contract?
• There seems to be a trade-off between pursuing long-term naming rights deals vs. exploring shorter-term deals. Which method do we think will be the trend moving forward. I would still think long-term deals are better for both parties in terms of potential value generated, but there is a definite loss of flexibility.

What are your thoughts on the situation? Do you like the partnership for the Dolphins and Sun Life? Who got the better end of the deal?

It’s one of the most frustrating things about sports… highly-paid players who don’t get the job done. Who hasn’t thought after a loss ‘I think our team could have played harder’ or ‘if only that player hadn’t given up in the 4th quarter.’ Well, a group of fans in England are going to be reimbursed after having that experience.

Last weekend, Wigan Athletic suffered a horrifying 9 – 1 loss at the hands of Tottenham Hotspur. Hundreds of Wigan fans had made the trip to see their team play, only to watch them concede eight second-half goals. In an almost unprecedented move, the Wigan players have offered to reimburse any Wigan fans who purchased a ticket at the stadium that day.

With player salaries in the English Premier League being well above those in Major League Soccer, no one should worry about the Wigan players going hungry. The gesture, however, is one to take note of. These are professional players who realize that they did not do their job, and that their ‘bad day at the office’ cost hard-working people money that in this recession, isn’t easily parted with. It is refreshing to see a group of professional athlete take their responsibility seriously.

Their captain Mario Melchiot was quoted as saying “We feel that as a group of players we badly let down our supporters yesterday (Sunday), and this is a gesture we have to make and pay them back for their tremendous loyalty.” Now, no one gets to choose whether they see Kobe’s 81-point game or Kevin Garnett’s 14-point one (I personally attended the latter), but the recognition by these players that the fans loyalty should not be taken lightly is a lesson that should be learned by all sports business professionals, especially in this economic climate.

We saw a whiff of this last month when wide receiver Chad Ochocinco of the Cincinnati Bengals teamed up with Motorola to purchase the remaining 1,200 tickets to his teams’ home game against the Houston Texans. If those tickets hadn’t been sold, the game would have been blacked out in the Cincinnati area  and many die-hard Bengals fans wouldn’t have been able to see their team play. In these especially hard times, it seems especially important to find a way to make sure fans stay connected to their favorite teams, even if they can’t afford to go to the games. Black-outs are just about the exact opposite of that philosophy, as it removes an important touch-point between fans and their team.

So, what can teams do? Well, here’s an example of what NOT to do. Don’t sue your season ticket holders who have legitimate hardships. The Washington Redskins opened up a huge flap by suing season ticket holders who asked to get out of their contracts. Instead of working out a payment plan, offering to try to re-sell the tickets, or just excusing the fans from their contracts, the Redskins filed lawsuits. Lifelong fans not only lost their coveted tickets, but lost faith in their team.

In these tough times, teams need to continually be on the lookout as to how they can provide better service to their fans. Refunding them after a particularly brutal loss might not be the way to go, but there are certainly opportunities for teams to make their fans feel appreciated. Preventing black-outs, making affordable tickets available, and offering free access to select team events are just a few ways to keep fans connected and ultimately generate greater lifetime value and fan loyalty.

One of the things I love most about sports is how athletes, teams and leagues can use the power of their fan affinity for a good cause. This weekend, the NFL did a tremendous job with their “A Crucial Catch” campaign.

If you watched even two minutes of football this weekend, you saw pink everywhere on the screen: jersey patches, helmet stickers, cleats, towels, gloves, wristbands, cheerleader uniforms and more (check out this photo gallery for some great pictures). The announcers constantly mentioned the league’s pink initiative and the link to www.nfl.com/pink was shown regularly throughout every game. In fact, right now the entire NFL.com website has a pink background. I like this integrated, multi-channel approach to maximize the impact of this campaign.

The pure value of the media exposure generated by this campaign has to be tremendous, in the hundreds of thousands if not more. All of this exposure goes a long way towards generating breast cancer awareness and encouraging annual screenings.

Major League Baseball also deserves a lot of credit for their own breast cancer awareness programs, which is highlighted every year by the use of pink bats by many high-profile players on Mothers Day. I would love to see similar league-wide campaigns from the NBA and NHL this year.

Update: If you are interested in supporting the NFL’s breast cancer awareness program, you can contribute by bidding on any of the authentic pink items from Sunday’s games that are being auctioned here. All profits will go to benefit the American Cancer Society.

An interesting story has developed over the past two days. It seems that at yesterday’s Sports Sponsorship Symposium in New York, Mike Principe, the director for BEST (the agency that represents Michael Vick), announced that Vick had a deal in place with Nike. This was big news, since Nike was fairly vocal in their decision to drop Vick when the dogfighting charges were filed in 2006.

I wasn’t at the event when this announcement happened, but I have to believe the response was quite mixed. There would be a tremendous amount of risk for Nike to sign Michael Vick so early in his return to the NFL. At the same time, it seems like the response in Philadelphia for Vick has been mostly supportive and without backlash against the Eagles’ existing sponsors.

Fast-forward to today, and we have an official response from Nike (as reported by Darren Rovell of CNBC here): “Nike does not have a contractual relationship with Michael Vick. We have agreed to supply product to Michael Vick as we do a number of athletes who are not under contract with Nike.”

This probably makes a lot more sense from Nike. Every athlete needs equipment, and I see nothing wrong with Nike providing their products to a former client that is making a comeback. The relationship is very minimal, without Vick representing Nike in any formal or public manner (and yes, even if he’s wearing Nike products, that’s not indicative of representing Nike – he could have bought Nike product on his own to wear).

So why did Principe make such a public statement yesterday about this relationship? I wish I knew the exact wording, which would help determine if he over-exaggerated the agreement or if the audience jumped to their own conclusion. Either way, the story is now damaging to all parties involved: Nike for the “potential relationship,” Vick for the deal that wasn’t, and Principe for possibly misrepresenting his client.

By now, everyone knows about how the Dallas Cowboys sold about 30,000 “Party Pass” tickets for their new stadium home opener against the Giants this past Sunday night.  Combining the party pass tickets with the rest of the seats sold for that game led to an all-time NFL regular season attendance record of just over 105,000.

However, you’ve probably also seen some of the fallout from this strategy, which got some extra exposure via Deadspin yesterday.  To quickly summarize, the standing-room party pass tickets (sold for $29 each) were very popular but did not guarantee access inside the stadium, something that was not very clear at the time of purchase. A large majority of these fans were forced to stay outside the stadium and watch the game on large screens from the plaza area.

In addition, those customers that did get into the stadium found the standing rooms areas to be overcrowded and filled with pushy fans trying to shove their way to a good view. Finally, the overcrowding also made the experience around the stadium less pleasant for the regular ticket buying customers, many of which paid a high price for their seats.  Take a look at this video to get some idea of the crowding:

Since then, the Cowboys have announce that they may limit the number of party pass tickets sold, probably to about 10,000 per game, in an attempt to avoid this situation at their future games. However, I want to look at this a little differently. Clearly there was a nice demand for these tickets, even if that demand drops after opening night, and the Cowboys want to find a way to monetize this demand.  Also, having almost 1/3 of your game-day inventory at a single price point is probably not the best way to reach customers with varying price sensitivities.  So why don’t they create two versions of this ticket?  One version would be for $25-35 and guarantees actual access to the standing room concourses inside the stadium.  There would be a capacity limit on these tickets that makes sense based on the physical space being used, which will ensure a better experience for “seated” ticket buyers.  The other version would be for $10-15 and provides access to the outside plazas that show the game on the big screens and offer other on-site entertainment. The Cowboys have such a large, passionate fan base that there may be a market for these “tickets” even without being in the stadium.  What do you think?

With last night’s start of the 2009 NFL season, a noticed a few new sports-related commercials for the first time. So instead of the typical Friday news links, I wanted to share a couple of these ads and learn what you thought of them.

1.  Sears – “Brett Favre Cold Feet” – By far, the funniest commercial of the night (watch it for yourself). Seats gets a lot of credit for capitalizing on the Favre retirement/unretirement story, which dominated the NFL preseason. However, in a weird way, the commercial goes against the rest of their Blue Crew ads, where they’re trying to show how easy it is to purchase an expensive item at Sears. A little bit of a disconnect on the message here.

2.  Head & Shoulders – “Troy Polamalu Interview” – Another strong humor-driven commercial. Considering how Polamalu is know for his long hair (along with his football talent), I’m surprised it took so long for an ad to be built around his hair. Head & Shoulders is a great fit for this type of ad.

3. Budweiser – “Tailgate Approved” – This is another ad in Budweiser’s “Tailgate Approved” campaign. The pitchman approach is a funny, but a little over the top (nothing new for Budweiser about that). The problem to me is that there is little attention focused on the Fan Cans in this ad, which is the basis of their tailgate-focused campaign.

So what did you think of these ads in terms of their effectiveness and connection back to their brand and product?