Earlier this week, I received an email from Yelp.com (pictured below). If you’re not familiar with the site, it is a great resource to share and look at reviews for local businesses, and they are also getting into the local deals business, so don’t be surprised to see special offers from sports teams through their service. This particular email was focused on promoting local sports bars where you can go watch your favorite teams play.

When I saw the email, I immediately noticed it because the subject line was “Get Yer New York Sports Here!” – for those of you outside the NY metro area that don’t recognize it, that’s the slogan for SportsNet NY (SNY). You can watch one of their newest commercials, and you’ll hear the phrase at the very end. They use it at the end of almost every TV and radio spot they create.

So, what do you think of Yelp’s decision to send an email marketing message that prominently features the slogan of a local sports media outlet? I tried to see if the phrase was trademarked, and my cursory searches did not reveal any results. If the phrase is not trademarked, then it’s probably a great tactic. Of course, if it is trademarked and I just couldn’t find it, using the phrace might not even be legal. Should SNY be angry at Yelp? On one hand, Yelp is benefiting from SNY’s work, but on the other hand, it might help SNY my reminding the reader to watch their programming.

I’m pretty torn on this approach, so I’d love to know what you all think.

On my drive home last night, I was thinking about the differences between the visibility and marketability of NBA vs. NHL players.  At first, I thought there were enough similarities between them that NHL players should get more name recognition about casual fans than they currently do, especially compared to the recognition that NBA players have.  Let’s take a look at some of those similarities, then I’d like to highlight one particular item that I think the NHL’s media partners can help with.

Similarities:

• Time of year – both start in the fall and finish in late spring
• Season length – both have around 80 games per season with similar playoff structures
• Venue – both have similar capacities and most arenas are designed to host both sports
• Markets – the NHL has more Canadian presence, but most major U.S. markets are represented
• Players in action – both sports are 5 on 5 (plus goalies for hockey), which should be an advantage compared to baseball (9 on 9) and football (11 on 11)
• Uniforms – both feature the players’ last names and numbers prominently across the back
• Action – both games feature a constant flow of action for about the same length of time

Differences:

• TV Coverage – while the NHL’s coverage is increasing, the NBA has more network and cable coverage
• Grassroots – there are many more basketball courts across the country than hockey rinks, leading to more familiarity and interest
• Scoring – there’s a big difference between a 3-2 final score and a 104-96 final score
• Roster size – hockey rosters are about double the size of basketball

If I keep drilling into more details, I can list out more similarities and differences, but there’s one more difference that I want to focus us…line changes. Unlike basketball, where you have a lot of continuity with the players on the court, hockey has a constant stream of player changes that makes it very difficult for a casual fan to know who exactly is on the ice at any given time. Combine that with the lack of scoring (in basketball, every basket provides a chance to share the name of the player that scored), and the amount of exposure that the players gets throughout the course of a game is limited.

With this in mind, I have a simple suggestion for the NHL’s media partners that can help… an “on-the-ice” bar at the bottom of the screen that lets the viewers know what players are currently on the ice.  I know the idea of putting more things on the screen takes away the amount of space available for the game, but with the popularity of widescreen televisions, I feel that two thin bars at the bottom of the screen could easily be added in the same place you’d see a score ticker.  Seeing the names of the players involved in the action and updating them with each line change could have a huge impact in building awareness for these athletes, which will benefit both the players and the league.

Today’s post is from guest blogger Travis Yost, an Arizona State University graduate with his B.S. in Business Management. In the past, Travis has covered the World Series of Poker for BLUFF Magazine and acted as a contributor to the likes of Deadspin, KuklasKorner, and MSN FoxSports. Currently, he covers the Ottawa Senators for HockeyBuzz.com.

Just last week, NBC was able to extent its partnership with the Olympic Games through the year 2020, forking over a hefty $4.4B sum in exchange for broadcasting exclusivity.

Exact terms of the contract are not yet known, but one certainty is that the Olympics will remain on NBC for the next four games, starting with the 2014 Winter Games in Sochi, and ending with the 2020 Summer Games in a locale still to be determined.

Obviously, NBC’s been pretty forthright and open about making the Olympics their proverbial bread and butter, but it does beg the question of whether or not spending such massive amounts of money for a competition that’s waned in popularity over the past couple of decades is truly a smart business decision.

When Dick Ebersol decided to step down as Chairman of NBC Universal Sports & Olympics, many expected the business plan for the network to change. As a sports entity, NBC’s primarily targeted two fronts – the National Hockey League and the Olympics – in an attempt to stay ahead of the curve and build on the potential for growth in unsaturated markets.

For that reason alone, it wasn’t entirely surprising to hear that NBC and Comcast managed to strike a deal with the National Hockey League a month ago. NBC’s been fairly adamant that the National Hockey League, by and large, will continue to grow over the next decade.

The success the league’s had since the devastating lockout in 2004-2005 is quantifiable, so when NBC handed the NHL $2B for exclusivity and broadcasting rights over the next ten years, many praised the network for it’s focus on building in both the short and long-term. With the deal, NBC and the soon-to-be renamed Versus will offer a much more enviable product line, one that’s going to deliver the game of hockey on a daily(as opposed to weekly) basis.

Dick Ebersol – now Mark Lazarus – and NBC’s other business venture in the Olympic Games has been far more treacherous. When reports surfaced back in 2010 that NBC Universal would lose almost $200M on the Vancouver Games alone and continue their hemorrhaging in the 2012 London Games, many expected the network to shy away from a massive overpayment at the very least, and in all probability, back out of a bidding war with other network conglomerates.

That wasn’t the case.

The $4.4B bid NBC put forward crushed the opposition. For a benchmark, ESPN had offered just $1.4B for the 2014 and 2016 games, putting an average at $700M per. NBC’s deal is 1.5 times that. Said ESPN in a public statement:  ”To go any further would not have made good business sense for us,” ESPN said in a statement. “We put our best foot forward with a compelling offer that included the enthusiastic participation of all of The Walt Disney Co.’s considerable assets.”

For whatever reason(s), it’s pretty apparent that NBC thinks the American public will begin to buy figurative stock of the Olympic Games and tune in with regularity, but considering recent trends, I’m not sure the general public is as confident.

Again, the deal makes fiscal sense if the Peacock Network can change how they deliver their product and make it once again appeal to men and women of all ages. NBC took a royal beating from media types for their ‘tape delay’ broadcasts of the 2010 Olympic Games, but that now seems like a thing of the past. In this day and age, there’s really no excuse for tape delay in the first place, especially when you consider how readily available information is through the internet. After the merger with Comcast,  NBC is changing its tune and remains confident that they’ll be able to broadcast all events live, meaning an almost certain ratings jump across the board.

One problem, though – the United States is approximately 14 hours behind Russia(host of the 2014 Summer Games), meaning that the appeal of ‘live events’ rapidly diminishes. Aside from a very select few sports – basketball, soccer, and hockey come to mind – there aren’t a whole lot of events that will have Americans staying up during all hours of the night.

Another problem includes general availability when it comes to broadcasting. As per USA Today, NBC is strongly considering using internet web streams as one of their primary ways of delivering live content. Again, there seems to be a certain disconnect between NBC’s aspirations and the reality amongst the general public. For many, if it’s not on television, it’s not worth tuning into, period. And, that’s without even mentioning the fact that many still do not have consistent high-speed internet access to follow the Olympic Games online.

There’s no question that NBC and the Olympic Games remain optimistic about creating and sustaining a profitable relationship, but the reality is this deal – coined ‘egregiously large’ by some – is of the high-risk, high-reward nature. You have to admire NBC’s courage and faith in their forecasting, but another contract that sees the hemorrhaging of funds for years to come could mean the downfall of one of America’s largest commercial broadcasting television network.

Earlier today, I saw an interesting post on AllFacebook.com that discusses Major League Baseball’s decision to end their free livestreams on Facebook. You can read their take on the decision here.

In case you didn’t know, MLB was providing a live game feed to select spring training games that could be watched directly via the MLB Facebook page. I thought this was a pretty big step for the league, which generally maintains very tight control over all of their digital content, which under most circumstances has to be viewed via MLB.com. From MLB’s perspective, this service could have several benefits:

• It would be an opportunity to promote their MLB.tv product, which I think is the industry standard for a web-based, live streaming service
• It would be a great social media engagement tool to get better value from their Facebook page
• It would generate increased interest in spring training games, which generally have very low viewership

According to Bob Bowman from MLB Advanced Media (MLBAM), the service was successful in generating interest in baseball, but it was not a great conversion tool for generating MLB.tv subscribers.

So, MLB has since stopped the live streaming service, which to me seems a bit short-sighted.  If the program was having a positive impact on promoting and generating interest in baseball, then instead of ending the program, maybe fine-tune it. As Jackie Cohen from AllFacebook.com pointed out, maybe the main reason for the low conversion numbers was because the only games being shown were spring training. It would have been very interesting to see if the conversion data jumped based off a opening week trial run (I believe the NHL offered their GameCenter Live product for free during the first week of the regular season to generate new subscribers). Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing this now.

In his statement, Bob Bowman mentioned that most people ended up clicking over to the MLB website to watch the games, rather than use the embedded player on Facebook, and this contributed to the decision to remove the live stream. However, I think this behavior can be more attributed to the short trial window. If a company is going to provide a brand new way to consume content, they need to provide enough time for the corresponding consumer behavior to change. And in this case, since MLB doesn’t have the same numbers of Facebook users as the other four major U.S. leagues and most MLB fans have been trained that content is only available on MLB.com, I think a longer trial period would definitely be needed and could generate much better results.

I hope to see MLB try this again during the season, maybe during another 1-2 week trial period, or better yet, all throughout the year via a free “Game of the Week.” At least then, I think they’d have a better idea of what impact this can have, and meanwhile, they’ll continue to get a benefit through increasing exposure for their product.

UPDATE: I was contacted by someone at MLB Advanced Media who informed me that there is still a free “Game of the Day” available via Facebook, but instead of using Facebook’s embedded video player, it takes the user to the high-definition MLB.tv video player. See the image on the right for an example from a recent post.

I love that they have decided to still offer a bit of free content to their Facebook fans, but I wonder how requiring the user to leave their Facebook page will impact viewership. If the video was embedded right there specifically for fans of their official page, their level of fan engagement on Facebook would jump, but would they maybe miss out on some new MLB.tv subscribers.

On Saturday night, we were treated to two excellent Final Four games. The first game, Butler vs. VCU, featured underdog vs. underdog, two team that all college basketball fans could get behind. The second game, UConn vs. Kentucky, was on the other end of the spectrum, featuring two perennial juggernauts, even if each of them was “only” a 3 or 4 seed. Both games featured tremendous athletes, talented coaches and great storylines.

According to this morning’s Sports Business Daily, Saturday’s pair of games was the highest rated Final Four since 2005. If you look at each game separately, the Butler/VCU game, which ran from 6-8:30PM, had an 8.3 rating with 14.2 million viewers, while the Kentucky/UConn game, which ran from 8:45-11:15PM, had a 9.5 rating with 16.7 million viewers. So, this leads me to ask, why did the 2nd game do so much better? There are several factors that impact ratings, so let’s see if we can figure this out.

1. Time of Day: On a Saturday night, the best ratings usually take place between 8 and 9PM. The two games straddled this time period, so this shouldn’t have affected things much.
2. Media Market Size: In general, networks love it when teams from large markets play for a title because the size of that market can dramatically impact ratings. In this case, all four schools are from relatively small markets, so none of these market would affect this.
3. Fan Base: Here’s our first difference. UConn and Kentucky have a much longer basketball history than Butler or VCU, so the size of their relative fan bases would tilt ratings towards the 2nd game.
4. Public Interest: This is another category that can go either way. The public tends to watch teams they are more familiar with, but at the same time, March Madness is driven by underdogs and Cinderella stories.
5. Lead-In Programming: This is the underrated factor in my opinion. A strong lead-in program will lead to carryover viewing, and in this case, with Butler/VCU generating so much interest, some of that had to positively impact the 2nd game’s ratings.

With all of those factors in mind, I wonder how the ratings might have been different if the games had been in the other order. Would UConn and Kentucky fans been more or less likely to stay tuned in for the Butler/VCU game? Which game truly had more public interest?

Finally, with UConn and Butler advancing to the championship game, will this match-up generate record ratings for CBS? Would Kentucky or VCU have been better? We’ll see tonight!

There was an excellent panel this afternoon on the topic of media rights, television vs. web, with insights provided by three very qualified participants:

• Eric Le Lay, President Eurosport (France)
• David Sternberg, CEO of Universal Sports (USA)
• Michel Masquelier, President IMG Media (Belgium)

On the expanded viewing options for sports fans:

• Eric:  There is more and more competition and options for sports television, now including 3D technology. Probably in the next five years, more people will have chance to watch live events via the Internet, as more people get access to better connections.
• David:  The availability of content on different platforms will continue to increase with new devices and more connections. These different platforms are and should be all complimentary.
• Michel:  There are so many new outlets and new technologies that allow for exposure of more sports. The current model has been based on subscription revenue. But there is so much free content available, will this model still apply in the future?

On media consumption, especially from a younger audience:

• Michel:  It is important to appreciate that the consumer is asking for more choice. Youth are spending more time with social media and gaming, so how do sponsors activate around that outside of just broadcast media value? It’s not just tv vs. web – the internet can enhance the tv experience.
• David:  There is more simultaneous, additive media consumption taking place, especially among youth. They are digital natives.
• Eric:  There is a need to be on all devices. Media companies need to work with sports organizations on how to engage a young audience on multiple channels.

On the topic of Internet TV:

• Eric:  For it to succeed, they need to bring added value to the experience over television. They do have the added value of choice. They also haven’t started down the road of buying content yet.

On social media’s impact:

• David:  The more people talking about your content via other channels – facebook, twitter, texting –  the better. It has shown to have a positive impact of ratings and media value.

On the topic of piracy:

• Michel:  There are lots of small offenders and a need to monitor diligently. The broadcast community as a whole should work together. It’s a situation today because of the expansion of technology and opens the gate to piracy, but I don’t feel it is out of control.
• David:  We should respond to the interests that are driving piracy, which is the need for people to be in control of what they watch, when they watch and on what devices. We can learn from the mistakes that the music industry made in how they dealt with piracy years ago.

I personally think David’s last comment was one of the most important insights I have heard so far. Ultimately, the best way to solve almost any problem, whether the issue is piracy, ratings or ticket sales, is to start with the customer and identify what they are asking for. Trying to attack the short-term piracy issue and prosecuting those sharing content illegally does not work to solve the bigger question of how media companies can provide content in the ways that their customers are asking for it. The organizations that focus their efforts on that solution will succeed in the end and make piracy irrelevant.

We’re halfway through the first full day of the conference and there have been lot of great comments from the panelists. Here are some general remarks from some our today’s speakers (these aren’t specific quotes, but I tried to attribute the best I could). You can also see my photo recap of the event in the Global Sports Forum Barcelona photo album on our Facebook page. Finally, check back later for videos from each session – I’m working on uploading them all ASAP!

Opening Remarks from Sergey Bubka:

• Sport and the Olympic spirit has an incredible ability to impact society and reach a global audience.
• We can use sport to help overcome the obesity problem that has spread to the east.
• When we consider “what’s next” for sport, we must always think first about our youth.
• The expansive reach of Facebook and socail media is now an important tool to promote sport and communicate with fans around the world.

Women Who Make a Difference in Sport:

On the current state of women’s sports:

• Donna De Verona: On how far women’s sports has come: We have the expansion of womens swimming race options, growth of women’s soccer, the Women’s world cup, netball, a female minister of sports, women who sailed around the world, women competing more than ever. We’re up to 43 percent of all Olympic athletes and we have women serving on the IOC.
• Chantal Jouanno: There’s still aa big difference in the percent of women vs. men that competes in athletic competitions, ten percent of women to 25 percent for men. Cultural reasons and young women having children definitely impact this number.
• Mia Hamm: There are still a lot of “firsts” when referring to women and sports, including a panel like this. I want to see women’s sports just be another part of the conference.  I’m hopeful for the opportunities for my girls have as they get older.
• Samantha Davies: I’m making the most of being a leader for women in sports. For me, in a sport where women compete on same field as men, we gets a lot of media coverage. Two women competed out of 30 racers in last competition and we finished fourth and sixth.
• Katerina Witt: Figure skating is a historically female sport. Only recently have I seen on the business and television side, and in viewing other female sports how much the discrepancy exists in terms of male vs. female involvement.

On the topic of a recent ESPN nude photo layout:

• Katerina Witt: In the end, its about tv ratings. We need to get people to watch. It is possible for something provocative to be done well and tastefully, and in a way that can promote the athletes and the sport.
• Samantha Davies: Men’s rugby teams have done similar things. It creates buzz and interest. It creates and communicates an image, and builds a following.

Why do womens sports get less media coverage:

• Chantal Jouanno: Current male sports already dominate a large percentage of existing coverage, leaving less hours for womens sports coverage.
• Donna De Varona: The men at television networks are making the decisions. Even the Women’s World Cup was a hard sell at first, but it was a huge success. We need leadership in place to push for it.

The Yahoo! Experience

• Yahoo is number one for sports content online in the world. A completely advertiser supported model but they want their ad content to be an additive experience for the user.

Four components to digital content:

1. Maximize your content:  Leveraging your content across multiple digital channels along with offline integrations and events for buzz and traditional media exposure.
2. Personalize your content:  Making that content relevant for each person. People wants a custom experience but the don’t want to take the time to edit things themselves, so do it for them. They also want to connect with fans with similar interests via social media, which makes the content personal. Finally, local is very personal, whether its little league or niche sports (the long tail of sports content).
3. Build your brand:  How does the digital canvas tell a story in a way that makes an impact for a brand. Incorporate the brand into the online experience for the user.
4. Be Everywhere:  The mobile internet has grown and is now a real channel to consume sports content. This means custom applications to deliver content via these mobile options.

Adidas and the UEFA: For this panel, I sent several Twitter updates, as did the other attendees (search for #GSFB). Here were some observations:

• For adidas, the Champions League ball is the iconic element. And the partnership with UEFA is a big platform for them. #GSFB
• Adidas introduces ball, footwear & apparel every year tied to the Champions League platform. Opening dedicated retail store this year. #gsfb
• UEFA: Decisions on format changes are purely based on the game. They discuss with partners, but decisions aren’t designed for them. #GSFB
• adidas admits that they’d love to see adidas on an FC Barcelona jersey. Not too shocking I’d imagine. #GSFB
• I really get a feel from current panel that adidas+UEFA really is a true partnership. Deep investment and strong value to both sides. #GSFB
• From @krisgotsch: UEFA at #GSFB; ‘What Adidas call customers, we call fans’
• From @martina_lacey: It would be hard for Adidas to walk away from UEFA & see someone else w/ their hands on their balls #GSFB

Today’s conference recap post is courtesy of guest blogger Dave Cutler.

This past weekend I attended the 5th Annual MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference (#SSAC to the Twitterverse). Dubbed “Dorkapalooza” by ESPN.com writer Bill Simmons, the conference is perhaps the largest single gathering of statheads, sabermetricians and other likeminded folks fascinated by statistical analysis in sports. It has also become a premier networking opportunity for students with an eye towards a career in sports as well as those already established within the industry.

Unfortunately, with four overlapping sessions running simultaneously during each time block, it is impossible not to miss a significant portion of the conference. The following is a recap of a few of the most compelling takeaways and themes from those panels which I attended:

SOCIAL: Social is not often a word associated with a collection of self-proclaimed stat geeks, but it should come as no surprise that social media was a recurring theme throughout the conference.

• Sarah Robb O’Hagan, CMO at Gatorade, talked about the company’s “Mission Control,” their social media command center dedicated to tracking all discussion of their brand occurring on social media sites. She made a point of noting that Gatorade makes a distinction between the values of different tweets, assigning greater importance to one that is read by teenage athletes, for instance.
• Bob Bowman, President and CEO of MLB Advanced Media, warned of the perils of businesses not using social media to engage with their customers, saying that “no matter what your business is, if you’re not following Twitter, you’re missing what your customers are saying.”
• Celtics Co-Owner Steve Pagliuca said that while he and other team personnel discuss the potential risks for players engaging with the public through social media (i.e. harming endorsement potential) the team doesn’t take any measures to regulate their messaging. He also stated that he believed Celtics players are fundamentally good people and just needed to avoid making damaging early mistakes with social media.
• There seemed to be a consensus across all panels that fan input is more impactful than ever, especially with the advent of Twitter as a real-time reaction tool.

Authenticity was a prevailing theme in the discussion of social media. Multiple speakers mentioned the fans’ ability to detect the difference between a Facebook page or Twitter account managed by an athlete’s marketing representative versus one in which the player provides personal thoughts.

• Both O’Hagan and Lawrence Norman, Vice President of Global Basketball for Adidas, cited Dwight Howard as a great partner/endorser because of his willingness to actively engage with the fans through social media.
• Nick Grudin, Manager of Strategic Partnership Development at Facebook, gave a lunchtime talk entitled, “Social Sports: Facebook, and the Fan-Centric Experience.” He singled out Rajon Rondo of the Boston Celtics as someone who successfully parlayed genuine fan interaction such as Facebook chats into a disproportionate following. Rondo’s 2 million fans on Facebook ranks an impressive 3rd among NBA players behind only Kobe Bryant (6.8 million) and LeBron James (5.3 million).

CUBAN MISSILES: Dallas Mavericks Owner Mark Cuban, whose “Talk Nerdy to Me” T-shirt was a hit with the attendees, launched countless off-the-cuff barbs in the direction of fellow panelists that left the audience laughing. He displayed the quick-thinking business savvy behind his success, interjecting significant insight into the discussions and demonstrating impressive foresight.

• Dallas Cowboys COO Stephen Jones speculated that the enormous HD video boards in the team’s stadium could soon become outdated, rendering them useless and requiring the team to replace them at an enormous expense. Cuban immediately chimed in that some enterprising individual would have the ingenuity to re-purpose the screens, using them as the main attraction at a drive-in movie theater.
• Always with an eye towards the future, Cuban scoffed at the continuous mention of social media in discussing innovations that will impact the fan experience in 10 years, making the following two statements: “Twitter is a great broadcast opportunity, but that’s living life in the past lane” and “If 500 million people are on Facebook, how can it be new and exciting?”
• Cuban, seemingly serious, responded to conjecture that he would be providing lively commentary during the panel on Referee Analytics by informing the audience that he had received an e-mail from the NBA league office reminding him that the conference was a public forum and he would be held accountable for any statements made in regards to NBA officiating.

THE FUTURE OF THE GAME DAY EXPERIENCE: HDTV VS. LIVE EVENTS: The closing panel was chock full of informative discussion and interesting insights. There was significant focus on the issue of making technological innovations to improve the in-game experience for fans in attendance. The panelists lamented the limitations created by insufficient Wi-Fi bandwidth.

• New England Patriots COO, Jonathan Kraft, shared that the Patriots provided devices and an application to a segment of the fans in attendance as a trial-run with the goal of making it available to the entire stadium in the future. The app offered a stream of the TV feed as well as the option of four other angles from cameras placed throughout the stadium along with real-time fantasy updates. Kraft envisions this app eventually allowing the fan to stream the Red Zone channel and perhaps select an audio feed from a number of mic’d-up players, but cautioned that this would not be feasible without significantly improving the Wi-Fi capabilities of the stadium.

The speakers were in agreement that they needed to put an emphasis on addressing and improving all aspects of attending the game in order to provide fans with the best possible game day experience.

• Cuban noted the importance of working with the local transportation authority to ensure that travel to and from the arena is as easy possible. Kraft agreed and said that in addition to working with public officials to improve transportation options such as a commuter rail to the stadium, the team had spent $70 Million improving the existing road infrastructure around the stadium.

ODDS & ENDS: Other notable tidbits include…

• During Grudin’s Facebook presentation, one stat illustrated a surprising disparity between Major League Baseball and the other three major sports leagues. MLB ranked a distant 4th in “Likes” with a mere 280,000 trailing well behind the NBA (7.6 million), NFL (2.6 Million), and NHL (2.4 million). This stood out on the heels of the announcement that MLB.com At Bat 2010 for iPhone and iPod touch was named the highest grossing application on iTunes.
• While there is an enormous amount of secrecy amongst ownership and management within a given sport, a few panelists mentioned the conference as an opportunity to learn from their counterparts in other sports and share best practices. Stephen Jones also confessed to learning a great deal from what Cuban and the Mavericks do at American Airlines and replicating some of it in Cowboys Stadium.
• Eric Mangini handled what could have been an uncomfortable and contentious moment with grace and good humor. ESPN The Magazine Editor Gary Belsky, responding to a panelist’s mention of nearly being fired by saying that having been fired wouldn’t disqualify him from appearing on the panel before turning to Eric Mangini, realizing his faux pas and saying, “Oops…sorry” as the audience laughed.

WIT & WISDOM: In addition to sharing tremendously valuable insight and lessons, panelists used the informal and lighthearted nature of the sessions as an opportunity to showcase their comedic talents. Many proved to be incredibly witty and it was evident that a number of the speakers had an established rapport with each other, leading to some very entertaining, albeit good natured ribbing. For a look at 5 of the most entertaining and informative personalities from the conference, you can read my guest blog post here.

Dave Cutler is an experienced sports marketer who has held positions with the New Jersey Nets, NBA, and Sports Illustrated. He was previously featured on this site as the Free Agent of the Week. You can follow him on Twitter, connect with him on LinkedIn, read his blog, or reach him via email at CutlerDave@gmail.com.

Thanks to the Sports Business Daily’s Closing Bell for sharing this new video from the New York Knicks, featuring viral video sensation Keenan Cahill. You should also check out the behind-the-scenes “making of” video. This is a clever move from the Knicks to partner up with Keenan, who’s lip-sync videos on YouTube have been viewed millions of times. Enjoy!

By now, everyone has seen most of the ads from Sunday’s game, either during the broadcast or online (if you haven’t, the best place to go is the AdBlitz page on YouTube – go there now!). Everyone has their own opinions as to which were the best and the worst, so I feel its only logical that I contribute some of my thoughts on the subject.

To me, for a Super Bowl Ad to be a real winner, it needs to:

1. Connect with the consumer in an entertaining or impactful manner
2. Resonate in a way that positively connects to the brand
3. Create a lasting impression that leads to additional brand value over time

It seems like many ads are so focused on #1, that #2 and #3 are overlooked.  Based on these three ideas along with my general thoughts, I’m categorizing many of the ads into one of four buckets: Winners, Losers, Mixed Bag and “Old Faithfuls”:

Winners:

• Audi: A long spot, which can be dangerous, but I felt it was entertaining and held my attention as I wanted to see what they were building up to. The final message of choosing “new luxury” definitely resonates with Audi’s marketing strategy, which is the biggest reason I felt that this was a winner.
• Best Buy: Had a fun mix of celebrities combined with an easy to understand message (technology getting outdated so fast). This fits perfectly with the launch of their “buy-back” program and the ad was unique and funny enough to be memorable.
• Sealy: This was the most “risque” ad of the night, which ends up making it one of the most memorable. A different approach for a large-scale mattress advertisement, but one that I think ends up resonating at least on some level with the viewers.
• HomeAway.com: Just funny enough with the “test baby” and very connected to the message is very clear. It is a bold move for a company that doesn’t typically spend on television to have a Super Bowl ad, but it can be a great way to make a quick impact. I believe this is the 2nd time HomeAway.com has done this, and I think it works for them.
• CareerBuilder and Teleflora: I’m grouping these together because both were simple, funny, had a clear brand connection, and used humor to resonate with the viewer. Sometimes a simple, straightforward approach is best.

Losers:

• Stella Artois: Long ad, very slow-developing and I didn’t feel like it did anything to be memorable or distinguish Stella Artois. It’s always nice to have a celebrity involved, but I don’t see how that added much value in this case. In addition, consumers tend to expect humor from their Super Bowl beer commercials. While Stella clearly has a different value proposition than Budweiser, I don’t think this was the right channel for them.
• Groupon: The entire Tibet-themed build-up seemed too disconnected, almost to the point of being uncomfortable. Then to tie it back to discounted Tibetan food just felt wrong. For a new entrant like Groupon that has what for most consumers is still a new business model, I thought they could have used the time to sell their concept better.
• Chatter.com (SalesForce): In general, it’s a bit surprising to see a B2B ad in the Super Bowl mix (let alone two from the same company), but I don’t think most folks understood what the point of these ads even was. Sometimes that can be good, if there’s enough reason to go online and learn more, but in this case, I don’t feel there was enough to make people do that.

Mixed Bag:

• Motorola: Their 60 second spot had great visuals and an effective, easy-to-follow plot line that featured a tablet device. My problem is that it too so long to learn that it was a Motorola Xoom tablet that I wouldn’t be surprised if most people thought the device being shown was a iPad. Does the “surprise” that it’s not an iPad leave more or less of an impact? I’m not sure, but I’m leaning towards no.
• Volkswagen: I know that the common perception is that VW’s “Darth Vader” might have been the most positively-received ad of the night, but I don’t see the connection to the brand. You can install a remote starter to any car (side note: wouldn’t be surprised if this ad generates a spike in sales for remote starters), and the ad itself felt different than most other VW campaigns, so I’m unsure if there will be a lasting impact.
• Bridgestone: This is another ad that people found to be quite funny, since most of us can relate to the accidental “reply-all” email. The problem is that viewers can connect so much to the humor that we didn’t end up connecting to the brand. There were only a couple of brief clips showing car tires during tight turns, with most of the time focused on the crazy guy grabbing computers and cell phones. Without the three-second Bridgestone tag at the end, I would have had no idea what type of product, let alone company, was being promoted.
• BMW, Mercedes, Hyundai, Kia, Mini, Chevy, Chrysler, Suzuki, Cars.com, Carmax: This seemed to be a very car-heavy year for Super Bowl ads, which unfortunately has the effect of making them all blend together. I think most of these ads were generally pretty good (among these, the Chrysler “Detroit” and Chevy “Glee” ads stood out most), but because of the clutter, I’m unsure about what impact they ended up having.

“Old Faithfuls”:

• Budweiser, Snickers, E-Trade, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Doritos, Go Daddy: Nothing too surprising with these brands, which all seemed to go with their usual approaches (humor, talking babies, user-generated content, and “see the unrated version online”). I almost feel like these brands are so entrenched as part of the Super Bowl experience, the only impact left would be if any of them decided not to advertise. This is the approach Coors took, which probably made Bud’s advertising more effective.
• Movie trailers: Blockbuster movies continued to have a big presence in the commercials. For a product like this, where the films aren’t being released for several months and large scale ad campaigns are most likely on the way, I still wonder about the impact that a single Super Bowl ad can have for a film.

I know there were many more ads than this, but these were the ones that most clearly stood out as being part of these categories and its hard to review all of them. Most others were generally pretty good, with a mixed level of brand effectiveness. If there was anything else that really stood out to you, please share your comments below.

One final thought – in the days leading up to the game, I felt there was some buzz related to how this year’s advertisements would have a deeper social media connection as a way to engage viewers beyond the ad itself. Other than several videos being “leaked” online ahead of time, I didn’t notice any significant social media promotion or utilization in this year’s ads. Considering the cost and the different approaches of television (mass advertising) vs. social media (individual engagement), maybe the advertisers didn’t see much additional value in it, although that is still surprising to me.