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.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vDKyKQCYrU

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.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSSkwGzp1-Q

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!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKKFwl4PM2c

www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-NoxL4dw2M

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.

I wanted to pass along a very interesting and informative resource from the folks over at Nielsen. This is their “State of the Media: Year in Sports 2010″ review of all the top media stories from the past year. It covers all major sports and highlights things such as player buzz, team viewership, ratings by sport, impact of major events and many interesting facts that they identified via their multiple media measurement processes.

I also suggest that you sign up for the Nielsen Wire newsletter, which contains valuable insights that Nielsen shares all throughout the year.

In case you didn’t see it, there was a very interesting moment in last night’s BCS Championship broadcast right before the game-winning field goal attempt by Auburn. Check out this video clip (thanks to fangsbites.com for their post today that included the clip).

www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJmnxPD9vGM

Now before you assume that the “This is for all the Tostitos” line was part of Frito Lay’s’ sponsorship package, Darren Rovell has already confirmed via Twitter that this was not the case (@darrenrovell: “ESPN Spokesperson: Frito Lay did not pay for Brent Musburger’s “This is for all the Tostitos” line.)

Even though the line was an “unofficial plug,” it does raise some interesting questions:

• What was the additional media value generated by the statement?
• Would title sponsors want to have integrated play-by-play mentions as part of their deals?
• How much would this level of integration increase the cost of the sponsorship?
• Could there actually be a negative impact if fans thought the integrity of the game and broadcast was being compromised?

Unfortunately, I don’t have any answers to these questions. I’m sure within a day or so, we may have some estimated numbers to measure the value of the statement from a media value perspective. The other questions will probably be actively discussed by sponsors and properties alike over the coming weeks. Both sides are always looking for new, creative ways to integrate sponsors into the sports experience, and this could make sense if it’s done correctly.

Update: From our friends over at Navigate Marketing (@Navigate_Mktg), “Making educated assumptions, we think ‘This is for all the Tostitos’ will end up being worth about $250k in exposure value for Frito-Lay.”

Update: As of 1:30PM (about 3-4 hours after this post went up), the MLB YouTube page has been fixed so that the error does not appear. I do not know if the mistake came from MLBAM or YouTube. In general I hope that MLB continues to use this channel and increases the amount of digital content released outside of MLBAM managed websites.

Normally I don’t like highlighting anything negative on this site. My preference is to share best practices and success stories that others can take and apply to their own organizations. However, I saw something this morning that I need to share.

Most of you probably know about how all of MLB’s digital content is managing through MLBAM, and as such, you won’t find videos involving MLB content on YouTube or other video sharing sites. Whether you agree or disagree with their position on this is a topic for another time. However, one small exception to this is MLB’s official YouTube channel (youtube.com/MLB).  There are only eight videos up there right now, but it’s a start.

Well, this morning I went back to their official YouTube channel and saw this…

If you can’t read the text, it says “This video contains content from MLB Advanced Media, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.” So if I understand this correctly, MLBAM is blocking a U.S. resident from watching MLB video content on the official MLB YouTube channel. I really hope this is just a temporary mistake. Otherwise, is there really a point to having an MLB YouTube page at all?

By now, I’m sure most of you have seen the latest LeBron James commercial from Nike, but just in case you haven’t, take a look now:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQDHG-P6yg0

Most of the comments I have seen about this video on Twitter have been pretty positive, and I tend to agree. After “The Decision,” there was an obvious PR backlash, and his Q Score took a big hit. ESPN’s Outside the Lines recently did a nice job breaking down the impact on his reputation and image.

However, he’s still LeBron James, arguably the most talented player in the NBA. He’s still an incredibly charismatic figure, and he’s never done anything scandalous to create permanent brand damage. So acknowledging that the process leading up to his “decision” may have been flawed, I love how this video embraces all of the different reactions in an engaging and often humorous way (the Miami Vice part might have been a bit over the top), and then ending with the focus back on basketball. Also, naming the video “Rise” is an appropriate way to shape the idea of how he is going to move forward.  Finally, I like that Nike is doing this video first to help overcome any brand damage before going back to more direct sneaker-sales focused commercials with LeBron.

What do you think of the video? Does it effect how your view of LeBron James? Was this a good move by Nike?

Major League Baseball’s 2010 Fall Classic starts on Wednesday night, when the San Francisco Giants host the Texas Rangers. You can catch all of the games on Fox…unless, of course, you are a Cablevision subscriber. In that case, you’ll have to find a friend or local bar with an alternative TV package (DirecTV, Verizon FiOS, etc.)…or pick up a pair of rabbit ears.

The standoff between Cablevision and News Corp has been going for more than a week now, and it does not appear that there’s a quick end in sight. In total, Cablevision has just over 3 million subscribers throughout the NY, NJ, PA and CT areas, making them the top television service provider in that region. So it’s pretty significant when an audience of that size ends up having the World Series essentially “blacked out.” I can’t imagine any of the parties involved (Fox, Cablevision and even MLB) are particularly happy about this result.

However, how much bigger would this story be if either the Philadelphia Phillies or the New York Yankees had made it to the World Series? Now instead of worrying about the casual sports fans getting tuned out, you’d be looking at a large part of the team’s home market being denied the chance to watch the games. What impact would that have had on the negotiation between News Corp and Cablevision? I asked that question on Twitter, and Michele Steele from Bloomberg Television replied back: “3 sep analysts say yanks in the WS wouldn’t have mattered; blacking out the national pastime is a big deal irrespective of teams.”

While I do agree that losing access to the World Series is quite important even with the Rangers and Giants involved, I have to believe that the negotiations would have taking a more aggressive path if the Yankees were playing. The impact on ratings and revenue that comes with a NY market team’s presence would be significant, not to mention the long-term, negative impact it would have on local sports fans, which are a very passionate, loyal audience. In fact, if the Yankees were playing and the standoff did not end, the biggest winners in this situation would probably have been DirecTV and Verizon FiOS, as it could have led to a large spike in new subscribers desperate to watch the games.

What effect do you think the lack of local market teams making the World Series had on these negotiations? What do you think would have happened if the Yankees or Phillies were still playing?

If you feel a little extra gloomy or tired today, there’s a good reason for it. Today is historically the most boring days of the sports year (in the U.S. at least). It’s the last day of the all-star break, so no baseball games. Hockey, basketball and football are out of season. Normally there aren’t even any soccer games, although there is one lone MLS game tonight. There’s technically a tennis tournament going on, but most top players take this month off.

Recognizing that there’s nothing on the schedule today, this means there is an opportunity for some sports-entity to step forward and get attention that they might not be able to get on another day of the year. There are so many sports-crazed consumers in this country, that it almost doesn’t matter what sport is involved. With no other options available, there will be interest.

Here are a couple of off-the-cuff ideas:

• A non-PPV UFC or other MMA event with a couple of top-tier fighters involved
• A made-for-TV, one-day action sports competition
• A soccer “friendly” featuring the U.S. national team (tough in World Cup years)
• The debut of this year’s 2010 World Series of Poker TV coverage (currently finishing up in Las Vegas)
• A one-hour special featuring a top free agent’s contract decision (relax, I’m kidding!)

The point is, there is this wide-open day on the calendar for some entity to get a lot of unhindered attention. Who’s going to step up and fill our empty sports day? If you have an idea, leave a comment below!

Thanks to Sean O’Hara for reminding me of this opportunity in his LinkedIn update from this morning (“ Special day in sports today as it comes and goes so quickly each year. Surprised no brand/sport has tried to capitalize on it.”)

By now, you’ve heard about the United States’ Men’s Soccer team’s win over Algeria. If you live under a rock or have no friends, the short story is that even though they had a valid goal disallowed, and Algeria had many solid chances, the U.S.  pulled out a win when Landon Donovan (right) buried a rebound in the 1st minute of stoppage time. This goal not only continued the Yanks’ World Cup hopes, but also had executives for ESPN breathing a sigh of relief.

As a soccer fan, I’d like to commend ESPN for going ‘all-in’ (to use a poker term) for this year’s World Cup. In the past, U.S. games might be shown, but many of the other games were nothing but afterthoughts. This year, every single match (all 64) will be shown on one of the many ESPN/ABC networks. They have been rewarded for their support, with the US/Slovenia match garnering the largest ever audience for an ESPN-televised soccer match (just under 4.7 million viewers) and the U.S./England match, the second-most watched U.S. soccer match of all time behind a U.S./Brazil match in 1994, garnering over 13 million viewers.

If you average all of the games through this past Sunday, you get just over 2.1 million viewers per game. That means that the U.S. playing in a game increased viewership by more than 300%. With higher stakes (single elimination) and the flood of press that Wednesday’s game will bring, I’d guess final numbers will well exceed the U.S./England match.

To put these numbers in some perspective, the 13 million that watched the U.S./England game exceeded the number of viewers for every single game in the NBA Finals except for game 7. The U.S. will be taking on Ghana in a rematch of a first-round tie in 2006. That game also ended in controversy, with Ghana winning 2-1 on a dubious penalty kick.

Add up all the story lines:

• The United States winning their group for the first time since 1930
• The U.S. advancing into the round of 16
• The U.S. taking on Ghana in a revenge match
• Record-breaking ratings for previous matches
• Prime Saturday afternoon (EDT)/morning (PDT) time slot

This adds up to be a great day for ABC/ESPN execs. They took a chance by signing a $100 million deal in 2005 to show six FIFA-sanctioned tournaments. Not including the advertising revenue they’ll rake in for this Saturday, the networks also stand to gain an increased following from soccer-mad Americans who are grateful that their sport is finally getting the coverage it deserves. I know this soccer fan will remember what network brought all this excitement into her living room, and in HD no less.

So congratulations to the U.S. Men’s National Team. Today they made the country proud, and saved a few jobs over in Bristol, CT.

Let’s take a look at two sports-related commercials that I saw for the first time yesterday and couldn’t be on more opposite ends of the sports advertising spectrum:

#1 – Tiger / Earl Woods and Nike Golf

At this point, I think everyone has seen this ad, and the reaction is all over the place from what I can tell. On the negative side, I’ve heard:

• Too soon for Tiger to be in any commercial
• Inappropriate to use his father’s voice, and a bit creepy
• Nike shouldn’t emphasize their relationship with Tiger right now
• Tiger still come off as unemotional just staring at the camera

On the positive side, I’ve heard:

• It’s the right way to re-introduce him to the market
• Creative way to acknowledge the scandal and start moving forward
• Honest, emotional and connects with the viewers
• Strong move to show Nike’s dedication and support of Tiger

Personally, I think this will end up being an effective approach, especially if Tiger can keep up his strong showing this weekend. Nike is so dependent on Tiger’s success for the health and growth of their golf line that they needed to do something in conjunction with his return, and if they tried to overlook the scandal to make a more traditional Tiger ad, it would have been a massive failure. Now the important question is, what did you think of the ad? Leave your opinion in the comments!

#2 – David Wright / “The Situation” and Vitamin Water

I don’t really have too much to say about this one, but I thought it was a particularly funny way to combine an athlete with a reality show/pop culture figure like “The Situation.” Vitamin Water continues to do well with their creative ad campaigns, and this is a perfect fit with their brand.

Have you noticed the slightly new look that ESPN has rolled out for their news articles? Take a look at the screen shot to the right (or click here to view the article). Right up top in prime viewing position,  you can see:

• Email/Print links (have been there for a while)
• A Comments quote box with count
• Twitter and Facebook share buttons

I don’t know what you think, but all of a sudden, this layout has a lot more of a “blog” feel to it, and I think it’s great. To me, this is an example of how “traditional” media (a news website) has identified elements of “social” media (blogs) that will positively influence their business. These elements highlight an emphasis on generating conversation and sharing information, two key principles of social media.

Now you might say that ESPN has been using their “Conversation” product on their website for a while. However, instead of burying it at the bottom, they’ve put it above the fold, showing an increased dedication to this aspect of their site. They’ve also made the Facebook and Twitter buttons more prominent, which will easily lead to more active sharing of their content across these social channels.

It’s great to see how new forms of communication and media continue to be a positive influence on more traditional channels, and a company like ESPN trying to combine the best of both worlds.

Rather than just giving you my opinions of the Tiger Woods press conference from this morning, I decided to ask everyone on Twitter what they thought. I felt that this would be a more accurate gauge of how the public viewed his statements. Feel free to share your response in the comments below, and thank you to everyone that responded to my Twitter request!

• sportsarizona - Tiger reax: An acting performance that would have made William Shatner proud.
• Stefmara – I didn’t watch! Haven’t cared about this story since the news broke back around Thanksgiving that he cheated.
• 7thWoman – “insincere.”
• khuda1 – Narcissistic
• MeganCassidy – I like that he apologized and defended Elin, I didn’t like how it was delivered at all. Message was right, not the presentation
• js_bizofsports – A heavily-scripted yet ultimately fascinating performance by Tiger Woods. Not necessarily effective, but riveting.
• sports_business – who cares? 1st step to return to normalcy. Time/performance will make him like everyone else (Lewis, Phelps, Kobe, etc.)
• amandarykoff – My take on the Tiger statement: “I screwed up. I got caught. And now I need to say these words.” Blah blah blah.
• nikegoal - it was artificial & hollow, carefully calculated by team Tiger, lack of a true human touch
• EdisonLee – Took a half step forward, TW will still need to answer questions – press won’t be satisfied w/ the staged presser
• IOnSportsMedia – “He did what he had to do as part of his “recovery” process (i.e. apologize), so only time will tell”
• mmahoney13 – Tiger’s anger was believeable, if not poorly timed, but his apology was not believable.. Just play golf please
• jhalitsky – Sure, he’s robotic. We knew that. Did every1 really expect a charismatic Tiger to magically show? Didn’t love it, but w/in expecs
• SteveDittmore – I see lot of vitriol to Tiger’s speech. What is that ppl wanted him to say? Or, is it reaction to delivery and sterile delivery?
• Anita_Lobo – wasted opportunity i.e. going through the motions drags Tiger’s image a few notches lower #sportsbiz #tiger / on the other hand now that the apology is done; let’s get back to #golf!
• WesleyMallette – Perfect today? No. Starting point? Yes. He owned it. Addressed most important issues. Now? Time to rebuild. Most important comment? Owning the money, power, fame and entitlement issue.

The folks over at The Goldklang Group have been running a marketing campaign called “Be Your Own Fan” across the four professional baseball organizations that they represent. To support that initiative, they’ve created a great website called “Be Your Own Fan TV” (byoftv.com). Every two weeks, they release a new video that provides an inside look at a different element of sports business. So far, they’ve produced seven videos that cover topics such as reporting, television production, public relations, baseball operations and more.

I’ve included two of their recent videos here to give you all a preview. They do an excellent job in creating both entertaining and informative content. You can visit their website, byoftv.com, to view additional episodes.

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.

For a die-hard sports fan, the news that the Washington Times was doing away with its’ ENTIRE sports section was a shock. I have family in DC and have probably read the Times once or twice. I’m sure I’ve pulled up a Washington Times article online when searching for the latest on the Gilbert Arenas debacle, or maybe even when I got curious about the Washington Nationals’ record last August (editor’s note: that never actually happened). Regardless, a major newspaper in the nation’s 9th-largest city laying off every beat reporter, every columnist, every editor in its’ sports department was quite possibly the largest development in media since spell check was invented.

Now, we’re all busy people. We have filled our lives with work, family, blogging, reading, UFC, Conan and/or shopping. So, if you’re anything like me, you read about the demise of the Washington Times sports section, your mouth fell open, you retweeted it, and then you moved on to the next thing. I don’t blame you at all, but I had to bring it up one more time… because we have an epidemic on our hands.

Ok, maybe it isn’t actually an epidemic. But I can just about guarantee you that TWT won’t be the first major newspaper to do-away with its’ sports section. I think Bob Dylan said it best: Times, they are a-changin’. I’m not lamenting that fact, I just think this is a great opportunity to see the future before it happens.

Think about what a world without traditional sports news looks like:

• That two and a half minutes in your local news broadcast, that used to be sports (and which has been slowly shrinking over the years), gets re-appropriated to weather/traffic/muggings.
• The empty suites at your hometown stadium become part of the press box to accommodate the 250+ blogger/fans that cover each game.
• You have to bookmark 10+ sites to make sure you really know what happened on the team plane, because there were no actual reporters/bloggers there, and no one has been able to get the story from more than one player to corroborate it.
• You save roughly $300 a year since you can now cancel that pesky newspaper subscription, millions of trees are saved, global warming ceases to exist, and 2012 becomes just another year, instead of ‘the end of the world.

Ok, to be serious, it just hit me this week what a major development this is. It’s easy to dismiss it now, because I have ESPN, Sports Illustrated, and countless team forums/official web sites/fan pages to give me the news that I want at the touch of the ‘Search Now’ button. Plus, I have Twitter, which is like a sieve that helps me catch those stories that I would otherwise have missed.

In closing, I think the shuttering of the Washington Times sports section was like the lighting of the Olympic torch. There is still a journey to take: a journey that will consist of other major papers taking  the same route. Some day, our kids (or grandkids) will have to ask us what ‘sports section’ means. Maybe Wikipedia will even have an entry for it. So let’s take a moment to remember the sports section fondly… the newsprint on our fingers (and eventually on our clothes), the asterisk next to the late game that didn’t finish before the paper went to print, the endlessly optimistic or pessimistic view of the local teams’ beat writer, depending on their personality. If you’re feeling as nostalgic as I am, go out and buy your local paper and read the sports section one more time, for old times sake. And if you’re a Washington Times subscriber, hmmm… I guess there’s always USA Today!

By now, we’ve all heard the updates on the Tiger Woods saga… possibly ad-nauseum. For me, this was the moment I realized I no longer want to hear about the private lives of athletes. Don’t get me wrong, I check People.com occasionally, but I also spend half my day on ESPN.com. Also, I understand the millions of dollars in endorsements that can be wiped out by a US Weekly-worthy single transgression and it’s definitely news-worthy if there is a major criminal offense that has been committed.

But my question is this: is sports better or worse off in this era of 24/7 news cycles?

On one hand, you don’t have to hear about the “shot heard ’round the world” from a newspaper article. You don’t have to imagine Babe Ruth calling his shot and moments later hitting a homerun to that same spot. You don’t have to wonder for 12 hours who won Ali-Frasier II (or III or IV).

What’s left to wonder these days? How many dunks will make the sports show’s Top 10? Why the Monday Night Football highlights weren’t the lead story last night? Whether soccer will get a mention on SportsCenter?

Are we better off for knowing all the intimate details of how Latrell Sprewell choked his coach? For hearing Allen Iverson complain about practice? For having the sports highlight shows seem more like police blotters? Or for reading about Tiger’s philandering?

Does this extra knowledge actually add to our game-watching experience? Some people could argue that knowing more about the players helps us to identify with them. It helps us feel closer to our favorite players and therefore be more interested in buying game tickets and merchandise.

But what we end up with is subtraction by addition. By knowing all of this additional, real-time information, we lose the ability to idolize these players without a nagging feeling that someday it will be their name on the front page of the paper tomorrow. How do fathers look their sons in the eye and say “there is a man you can emulate” when they aren’t truly sure if that player is clean. The athlete could be taking performance-enhancing drugs, driving drunk, carrying around illegally concealed weapons, or cheating on their wives – and sooner or later we’ll know about it.

What I do know are the attributes that draw me to sports: the competition, passion, athleticism and skill that athletes display on their chosen field. They don’t have to be perfect husbands, drivers, or moral-compasses to thrill fans.

For now, besides the athlete’s pocketbook, the coprorate sponsors are the biggest losers. Marketing executives have to be shivering in their shoes when they sign contracts from here on out. Tiger was untouchable. Other than his infamous swearing on the course, he was the closest thing we had to ‘clean.’ This incident will go to show companies that no endorsement is safe. All of them have inherent risks because their products are endorsed by humans, and humans make mistakes.

I for one will long for the days when we knew a little less about our sports stars, so that we could enjoy them a little more.

The 11th Annual FSA Sports Media & Technology conference, hosted by the Sports Business Journal, is taking place today and tomorrow in New York City. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend this conference, but on the bright side, a lot of the conference attendees are sharing some of the best ideas and comments through the Twitter hashtag #sbjsmt.

Here is a live stream of all of today’s conference tweets. Enjoy!

Today ESPN officially launched their second regional sports website, ESPNBoston.com, timed perfectly with the first New England Patriots game of the year on Monday Night Football (another ESPN production). Their first regional effort, ESPNChicago.com, went online back in April and has already become a top site for Chicago sports fans, reaching over 700,000 visitors per month. The company has plans to release similar sites for New York, Dallas and Los Angeles over the next few months.

ESPN realized that even though they offer a tremendous amount of sports content on their primary ESPN.com platform, fans in these hotbeds of sports activity are constantly seeking out more in-depth content for the teams in their market. So why not leverage the power of their brand (arguably the most powerful and recognizable brand in sports) and dig deeper into these individual markets? Because of their global scale, they have more resources available to them than even the strongest regional content provider.  They’ve also attacked their regional expansion in a very logical manner, starting with cities where they already have an established core of writers and contributors that will generate immediate interest.

It will be interesting to see how the ESPN regional websites grow and what their total impact is on existing local content providers. In the past, ESPN has convinced many of the best local writers to join their national platform, and I’m sure they’ll pursue similar efforts to try and get the best content on these new platforms. This is also another hurdle for local newspapers to deal with. For some readers, local sports coverage is the only reason to still get the paper, but that reason is quickly fading away.

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?

Last week, news came out about a new “Twitter policy” being implemented by ESPN.com. It started with a tweet from Ric Bucher, followed by lots of speculation, and then information on the actual guidelines was released on TheBigLead.com.

Last night, I had the chance to talk with Rob King, Editor-in-Chief of ESPN.com, about this policy and the relationship between ESPN.com and social media.  I wasn’t able to do a full podcast recording, but here are some notes and quotes from our conversation that I thought were really valuable:

On the new guidelines:

• The recent guidelines are meant to be a starting point for the company, because there was nothing in place with regard to how ESPN personalities were using Twitter, blogs and social media, and this seemed like the right time to put something in place.
• These channels are viewed as a “valuable opportunity to relate with our audiences” and it is regarded “as a form of important programming and publishing,” and as such, the focus on the guidelines is less on prohibiting content and more on how social media should be used.
• The desire is to disseminate news on ESPN platforms, but continue to converse with and engage with fans through other platforms such as Twitter.
• There is an additional challenge as a media company in balancing the opportunity to broadcast a personal message versus a company message, so “even in the instance of a 140 character message sent along through a cell phone, we’re in the position of representing something a lot larger” and they wanted to make sure everyone is aware of this.

On driving users to ESPN.com vs. reaching out to them in other locations:

• ESPN realizes that the conversations often occur outside of the ESPN.com platform, and still wants to engage users in those ways.  As such, there’s been an increased focus on using blogs, optimizing the site for search engines and a partnership with YouTube for video content.
• ESPN has also worked with a company called CoveritLive to integrate with live Twitter conversations, which was used in the WNBA All-Star Game and Sunday night’s game between the Yankees and Red Sox. This let users engage with ESPN through the website or Twitter, whichever they preferred to use. There are plans in place to use this again during ESPN’s coverage of the PGA Championship.

On the reaction to the new guidelines:

• Internally, there was a large follow-up call to review the policy, which helped clarify things and created a lot more understanding. Some questions might still come up as to what content is “breaking news” and where the content can or should be shared.
• There was an “appropriately passionate” initial response from the public. Rob received a lot of thoughtful feedback, and it showed how much people cared about ESPN and how passionate they are about their sports coverage.  Most of the negative public reaction died out in less than a day, once people saw the policy and learned more about it.
• “If there’s a great story here, its that people clearly expressed the notion that they enjoy connecting with our talent or our contributors in a way that was immediate, that was direct, and that was ongoing through the course of the day.”

I want to thank Rob for taking the time to talk with me.  You can follow Rob on Twitter at twitter.com/rfking.

I know I’ve mentioned these guys once before, but I wanted to share a couple of the recent videos from The Row Show.  Every week, they put out a new video that covers the combination of sports, business and technology.  In some of the most recent episodes, they discuss user-generated video promotions, social media campaigns, developing a Twitter strategy, and much more (including a nice reference to this site in their most recent episode – thanks guys!)  Hope you enjoy the videos!

Episode 013: Twibbon, Lebron, & Sixovertimes.com

Episode 012: Developing a Twitter Strategy With The Oakland Raiders

Episode 010: How to Monetize your Twitter Feed

By now, everyone knows the story, but let’s do a quick recap anyway.

• Jordan Crawford, a college basketball player from Xavier, attended a Nike basketball camp that LeBron James was at.
• During a game at this camp, Crawford dunked over LeBron.
• Employees from Nike confiscated all video footage of said dunk, possibly at the request of LeBron.

I know that I’m skipping over the details of the story, but that’s a nice quick summary.  The news of this generated a lotof buzz in the sports media, both traditional outlets like television and radio, as well as new media outlets like blogs and social networking sites.  The big questions were:

1. Did LeBron and Nike make the right or wrong decision in confiscating the footage?
2. Will we ever get to see this dunk?

Well today, the 2nd question was answered, as two different video clips of said dunk have been released on TMZ.com and eBaumNation.com.  Here’s some of the footage (Note – I am operating under the assumption that this is legitimate. There is always the chance this is fake.)

So now we all must return to the first question – was the original decision to confiscate the video of the dunk a good or bad move by Nike and LeBron?  I heard a lot of people saying that in the age of YouTube, it was a good thing to take the video, otherwise the “embarrassing” footage would be out there for the world to see for years to come.  By taking the video away, you’d get a short-term negative reaction, but ultimately the story would fade and LeBron’s reputation wouldn’t take a hit.

However, I completely disagree, and I think that so far, the evidence is in my favor.  By taking away the video, Nike turned this into a much bigger story, unintentionally creating a viral conversation that most companies would pay big money to generate. Everyone wanted to see this dunk, and taking the footage away only intensified our collective desire.  When the clips leaking out today, Twitter was buzzing with people sharing the link and talking about the dunk. If the video made its way around naturally the day or so after it happened, people would have reacted and then the story would end.  Instead, the story has lasted for several days and will probably continue for several more.

So back to the question one more time – was confiscating the video the right decision?  If they wanted to “protect” LeBron and try to make this a non-story, then no.  However, in an odd way, Nike has generated a lot of buzz and publicity, so maybe it ended up being the right decision but for the wrong reasons!

UPDATE – 7/24/09: News came out today that Nike will now return the confiscated video footage. Of course, this was decided only after other video footage had already leaked.  And according to their statement, their decision to take the video “…was never about the play or the player, it was always about our media policy.” If it was really about policy, why did it occur after the dunk, and why decide to release it now? I don’t know how these decisions have been made throughout this story, but they did either strategically or accidentally manage to sustain quite a buzz surrounding all of this, regardless of what their actual intentions might have been.

By now, most of you have probably seen this commercial from EA Sports, but I wanted to share it here anyway because I think it’s one of the best sports-related ads that I have seen in the past few years.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMQBVSNSaSs

All of us have (or had) our dreams of being a professional athlete, and when we watch our favorite teams, we tap into our dreams of sports glory.  EA understands this passion that we all share as fans and made it a reality in this ad by putting the fans into the moment.  They integrated all of us, old and young, male and female, into a wide spectrum of sports experiences.  They show us the most exciting moments from tennis, soccer, golf, hockey, baseball, basketball and football, connecting with us as fans, and then tie it all together at the end by showing the video game controller and their line of sports games as our way to be a part of the event.

EA is also taking this campaign (aptly titled “The Win”) online through their new beta website, http://beta.easports.com/theWin.  One by one, they are adding the different sports and associated video game titles to this site, and under each section you can watch behind-the-scenes footage, interviews and clips of epic wins displayed through their different games. You can even submit your own epic wins to EA and have the story of your great video game victory become part of the new site.

As you can tell, I think this is an excellent campaign from EA.  Their tag line has always been “It’s in the game,” and now they are doing their best to put you in the game through their advertisements and website.

As I mentioned in my last post, I attended the “Blogs With Balls”sports bloggers conference on Saturday.  I have to say the event was a great success.  The discussion panels were excellent and covered a wide range of topics, including how to leverage social media, generating advertising revenue, contrasting mainstream media vs. “new” media and much more.  There were panelists from ESPN, Sports Illustrated, YardBarker, SB Nation, Bleacher Report, Octagon and too many quality sports blogs to list.

Many people were “live tweeting” the event, including myself.  Here are some of my favorite comments and thoughts from the event, all collected via search.twitter.com:

• AnnaLindow “Content is king, marketing is the queen” -from@garyvee at #blogswithballs
• mikehall03: Perhaps the takeaway of #blogswithballs is that any blog written with a clear purpose can be successful within constraints. Is thàt enough?
• rscibetti: From @bankoff There is a demand for quality. Sometimes there is a need to moderate the conversation. #blogswithballs
• joshuaduboff: YardBarker CEO: online advertising revenue for sports blogs will be up a few % despite economy #blogswithballs
• BlueWorkhorse: “best way to luck into something is to work really hard” – matt ufford from with leather #blogswithballs
• StephBags: You need to use google analytics on your blog so you know where your readers are going/why they leave: @joesportsfan #blogswithballs
• CompanyWoman: Wow. Daily twitter circulation of @The_Real_Shaq (1.2MM+) surpasses the NY Times. #blogswithballs

Here are links to some other articles and blog posts that wrote about the event.

• http://www.lacrosseallstars.com/blog/2009/6/14/we-just-got-struck-by-blogs-with-balls.html
• http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/pretzel/Maybe_we_arent_all_going_to_die.html
• http://www.thejetsblog.com/2009/06/14/my-blogswithballs-report/
• http://jeffpearlman.com/?p=1853
• http://gogameface.com/blog_detail.php?postid=291
• http://thedugoutsportsshow.com/?p=244 (Podcast recorded live during the event)

Thanks again to everyone from HHRMediaGroup who created Blogs With Balls. I can’t wait for the next one, and I encourage anyone else who is interested in learning more about blogs and social media to attend.

According to Sports Business Journal, the New York Yankees will become the first team in professional sports to offer streaming video coverage of their games online in their local market.  This is part of an agreement between the YES Network and Cablevision (the service will only be available to Cablevision customers for an additional fee). 

MLB has had a lot of success with streaming their games online via MLB.TV, and their model was copied by the NHL this season.  However, because of regional media contracts, these services cannot show local games online (both services use the viewer’s source IP address to black out anyone that should be able to watch the game via local television). 

Most local media outlets have resisted the idea of making their video content available online as it provides direct competition for their television broadcast.  However, with more and more consumers choosing to consume video content online, it was just a matter of time before someone decided to make this plunge.  Ultimately, with the large variety of sports content options both on television and online, the most important this is making your content available to as large an audience as possible, rather than trying to force your audience to use a specific channel.  YES and Cablevision will still be able to generate significant advertising revenue through this new option, which should more than make up for any loss in value (if any) that this causes to their television advertising revenue.  It will not be long before other teams in baseball and other sports pursue similar options.

Everyone here has most likely seen this classic sports commercial, featuring a very intense game of HORSE between Michael Jordan and Larry Bird:

Why doesn’t the NHL (or one of the NHL’s top sponsors) create a similar commercial featuring Sidney Crosby and Alex Ovechkin?  These two are clearly the most marketable players in the league, and on top of that, they have quite the individual rivalry brewing.  How hard would it be to put the two of them together in a hockey-style HORSE match? 

If I was creating this commercial, I’d even try to make it as close to the commercial above as possible.  In fact, isn’t McDonald’s a league sponsor?  They should be the company to recreate it.  Combining the nostalgia of the original commercial with the top two emerging stars of the NHL would be an instant hit!  Someone get McDonald’s and the NHL on the line!

I’m watching the Rangers/Capitals playoff game this afternoon (which is quite a fun game to watch), and on the bottom of the screen, they mention the NHL Star Cam.  Apparently, NHL.com is offering a live stream that follows around the star player of the game, which for this game is clearly Alexander Ovechkin (when Ovechkin is off the ice, the camera follows a different star player).  If you visit NHL.com during the game, you can play the stream right from the home page.

This is an interesting way to promote and market hockey.  Normally, teams and leagues are hesitant to focus their marketing around specific players.  This approach can backfire if a player is traded, gets hurt, or simply under-performs.  Also, most sports believe that marketing the team or the game itself is enough to generate interest from their fans and potential fans.  However, since the NHL has had some trouble generating as much public interest over the past couple of years, I like that they are trying new things.  In particularly, the league has two very marketable players in Crosby and Ovechkin, and they should find new ways to leverage these superstars wherever possible.  The star cam also offers a unique way of viewing the game that existing fans will appreciate.

The most common fear that people have is public speaking.  The idea of being up in front of a large audience, whether that audience is sitting right in front of you or listening to you on radio or television, can be very intimidating.  However, it is important to try to overcome this fear and develop your skills as a public speaker. 

This is very relevant in sports, whether you are a player, coach, sales rep, marketer, PR director, vice-president, GM or intern.  There are just too many situations, both internally within a company and externally to the public, where you have to stand up and speak confidently and persuasively.  Do not think that if you’re lower down on the totem pole that this does not apply to you.  This is a skill to develop now before you’re in a position of more authority.  In fact, being a strong speaker will help you advance much faster. You will be able to present your ideas more effectively to your co-workers, helping you stand out from the crowd.

The reason I’m writing about this today is because of yesterday’s episode of PTI.  On the show, they had Greg Paulus, the former Duke point guard, come on for their “Five Good Minutes” interview segment.  I was listening to the interview and was immediately distracted by how often he was saying “you know” in the middle of his sentences.  It was his “hesitation phrase” the way a lot of people say “um” when they speak.  You can visit the PTI page on ESPN.com’s Podcenter and listen to the April 16th episode and hear it for yourself (skip to the 10:35 mark).  I went back to listen again, and counted 62 times that he said these words.  I’m sure he didn’t realize he was doing this, and I’m not trying to pick on Paulus as I’m sure he’s a nice guy.  The point is that you need to evaluate yourself as a public speaker so that you can avoid embarrassing moments like this.  You will definitely benefit in the long run!

Looking for some examples of viral sports videos?  Or maybe you’re trying to find some of the best sports-related commercials from the past.  Either way, there is a lot of valuable sports video content on YouTube, but its not always easy to find what you need.  I want to help with this!

I’ve created a YouTube channel that can be found at www.youtube.com/TheBusinessOfSports.  It is definitely a work in progress, but my goal is to aggregate the most useful sports business video content on this channel.  This will include clips of game presentations, commercials, viral videos, conferences, presentations and any other valuable content that I (or you) can find.  We already have some classic sports commercials (Mean Joe, Michael vs. Larry, Spike Lee), more modern ads (Tiger, LeBron, Wade and Chuck), recent viral successes (Ronaldinho, Kobe, Tiger) and several educational news and conference clips.

I do need your help with this though.  If you know of some videos that I should include in The Business Of Sports Video Library, either leave me a note here or you can send me a note through the YouTube channel.  Thank you for your help and happy viewing!

I have to share this commercial with everyone, not just because it’s really funny but also because there are some good takeaways from it:

Beyond the humor, here are some valuable insights:

• College coaches, especially notable ones like Knight, Williams, Krzyzewski and Pitino, can be very marketable, which is particularly important since you cannot use current college players to sell your product.
• Music and sports can often connect with the same audience.  Guitar Hero has tapped into this fact twice now, first with their original commercial for World Tour that featured Tony Hawk, A-Rod, Michael Phelps and Kobe Bryant and now with their “coaches” version of the ad.
• Timing is everything. What better time to release a commercial featuring these coaches then during March Madness, particulary with three of the four actually coaching in the tournament (although Williams is the only one left now). This as does not have the same effect one month earlier or one month later.

I hope you all got a good laugh and some good thoughts out of the video.

Odds are, you probably won’t even see this post today as you and the rest of America is busy watching the first round of the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament right now.  If you are reading this, I won’t distract you for too long!  (Actually, if you have an extra minute, check out my post from last year about staying productive during March Madness.)

I was informed of an interesting promotion that Coke Zero is running, and I thought I’d briefly share it with you.  Coke Zero is encouraging fans to visit their “Taste the Madness” website (http://www.tastethemadness.com) and upload their craziest fan videos and pictures supporting their college team.  Here is an example from an Iowa State fan.  The best submission is going to be used as part of a Coke Zero ad that will air just before tipoff of the championship game.  This is the first time they are using fan-generated content in their direct advertising, a trend that has gotten more popular over the past two years.  I like to see creative approaches like this, where the consumers can truly engage with a brand through their passion for sports. 

OK – back to the madness – enjoy the games!

Yes, I know I’ve been writing a lot about Twitter lately, but in the last few weeks it has really been embraced by the mainstream sports world, and the latest entrant in the game is the worldwide leader, ESPN.  Here are some of the ways that they’ve starting using Twitter:

• Two of their most popular shows, PTI and Around the Horn, both have their own Twitter accounts now.  You can find them at twitter.com/PTIShow and twitter.com/AroundTheHorn.  Both shows have been actively promoting their Twitter accounts, and both have thousands of followers (and growing daily).  Also, both shows are using Twitter to actively solicit questions and ideas from viewers. 
• Some ESPN and ESPN-related personalities have started their own Twitter accounts, including Matthew Berry (twitter.com/TheRealTMR), Bill Plaschke (twitter.com/BillPlaschke), and Rebecca Lobo (twitter.com/rebeccalobo).  Matthew is one of their top fantasy sports columnists and he has been promoting his Twitter account through his ESPN podcast, using it to engage with his readers directly.  Bill is regular on Around the Horn, and he has been updating his account regularly; however, he doesn’t reply back to followers the way that Matthew does (although he does ask for feedback, so I’m sure he is reading the fans’ replies). Rebecca is a women’s basketball analyst, and she’s been updating her account very frequently with a lot of personal tidbits, as well as thoughts on the various games she covers.
• ESPN also has a “corporate” account at twitter.com/espn.  However, this account is just updated with the latest ESPN headline articles, and doesn’t interact at all with followers.

Finally, just the other day I found out about a unique initiative that ESPN Regional Television is doing with the Big 12 Conference.  They are using the Twitter account @Big12Network (twitter.com/Big12Network) to directly interact with fans all throughout the course of the Big 12 Conference tournament.  In addition Doug Bell, who is one of their on-air personalities, will be doing the same thing through his personal Twitter account (twitter.com/DougBellESPN).  I hope they have a lot of success with this plan, so that we might see similar efforts with future ESPN-broadcast events.

I think its great to see ESPN diving into Twitter and using it to engage their fans.  I know that ideally, they would prefer that everyone goes directly to ESPN.com to consume content, but the truth is that with how many alternate websites and social media outlets there are, companies need to be willing to go outside their own web-space and seek out their fans in other places. The fact that a company as large and powerful as ESPN recognizes this is a great sign.

Here are my quick picks for this week, “Commercials Edition”:

Baseball: The latest ESPN advertisement for the World Baseball Classic:

This isn’t actually the version of the commercial I was hoping to find.  There is another one that includes Jeter, Ichiro, and Rodriguez, where Jeter says he’s played for world champions, Ichiro says he’s played for the WBC champions, and Rodriguez says he’s played for “division winners.”  The commercial seemed odd that it almost highlighted A-Rod’s lack of a championship compared to the other two.  Also, with his latest controversies, the Dominican Republic’s impressive roster and the fact that A-Rod played for the U.S. last year, I wonder if they could have picked a different player to be in his spot.

Golf:  The latest Nike advertisement with Tiger Woods:

The thing that impressed me with this spot is the willingness for the other golfers to openly admit they play second fiddle to Tiger now that he’s back.  I think this is a very funny and creative way to announce his return, and in a way, it still does highlight the success of some of the recent winners, which actually could help them build their names more in spite of Tiger’s return.  I’m sure the PGA was hoping that Tiger would last a little longer in the Accenture Match Play, but just getting him back out there was a huge lift.

Do you have a good “pick of the week?” Use the Contact Us link at the top of the page and send me your picks!

News was released today about a new partnership between the NHL and MLB.  Starting next week, fans of both leagues will now have the opportunity to purchase a combined membership to MLB.tv Premium and NHL GameCenter Live, the two streaming video products produced by each league.  The package will be available for purchase at both NHL.com and MLB.com, and will cost $139.95.  This is a very nice price for fans, considering the MLB product costs $109.95 and the NHL’s “Race for the Cup” video package costs $79. 

Along with their typical selection of regular season games, both products have added to their product packages.  MLB.tv will include over 100 spring training games and the first two rounds of the World Baseball Classic, while NHL GameCenter will include select playoff games.  This deal will probably be more beneficial for the NHL in improving adoption of their GameCenter product.  MLB.tv has been around for a few years now and is more well-known by sports consumers, while this is the first year for GameCenter Live.  

“We couldn’t be more excited about this tremendous opportunity to introduce our groundbreaking NHL Game Center LIVE experience to an even bigger audience,” said John Collins, COO for the NHL. “MLB.com has built a great business by engaging their audience with a best-in-breed product. This partnership is all about our mutual commitment to deliver world class digital sports experiences to sports fans everywhere.”

I don’t know what their expectations are in terms of total sales numbers, as I’m sure there are some questions about how much crossover there is between MLB and NHL fans.  But even if the numbers are small, any increase in NHL viewership by sports fans as a whole is a very positive thing.

Over the years, the commercials on Super Bowl Sunday have become almost as big a story as the game itself.  After the game ends, people love to write and argue about which ones were the best and which were the worst.  So, I figured that I should get in on the conversation too!  Here are my picks for “Winners” and “Losers” in the Super Bowl advertising game, and I’m basing my decisions on more than just which were the funniest.

Winners:

• Coke Zero and Troy Polamalu:  The idea of modernizing an old favorite with a new twist is a perfect fit with Coke Zero’s value proposition compared to classic Coca-Cola.
• Doritos Crystal Ball: This was a fan created spot, and it was definitely one of the funnier commercials.  It also had good focus on the product with the vending machine.
• GoDaddy.com:  Their ads aren’t anything special anymore, but they do have a gift for driving millions of visitors back to their website, which in their business will directly lead to revenue.
• Denny’s Thugs: The ad wasn’t that funny, but they decided to make their ad part of a bigger campaign by using the spot to promote a free breakfast for everyone on Tuesday. This ad will drive consumers into restaurants, and that make its successful.
• Hyundai “Bosses”: Hyundai knows that many other car companies are struggling, so why not take the opportunity to show off the success of your product in direct comparison to the competition.  This ad isn’t funny at all, but I think the angle and message are effective.

Losers:

• eTrade Baby: The cute, clever baby was a great idea last year, but its getting old and repetitive. I don’t see them generating new interest my just changing up the punchline this year.
• GE Scarecrow: What exactly was GE’s goal with this ad?  I guess they just wanted to improve their brand image, but I didn’t see any clear benefit to be gained from their ad.
• Pepsi and PepSuber (MacGruber): This spot was played the night before as a skit on Saturday Night Live, so it just seems like a waste of money to rerun it the next night.  It wasn’t very funny either, and it’s a little too self-mocking by Pepsi.
• Coca-Cola Avatars: This commercial does not seem to connect with the brand. Its just a guy walking around past a bunch of cartoon/video-game characters, with a pleasant soundtrack. How does this sell Coke?
• Castrol Grease Monkeys: This is a pun gone bad.  Very cheesy, not funny, and does little for the brand.

Please leave your comments and let me know which commercials you liked the best or hated the most.  You can view all of the commercials on YouTube’s AdBlitz page.

The third and final discussion panel that I attended at last Friday’s Princeton Sports Symposium was on “Sports Media & Technology.” The panelists were Steve Hellmuth (EVP of Operations and Technology, NBA Entertainment), Jon Litner (President, Comcast Sports Group), Burke Magnus (Senior VP of College Sports Programming, ESPN) and Bill Rasmussen (Founder, ESPN and Founding Partner, College Fanz Sports Network), and the moderator was Susan Briglia (VP of Branded Content, Collegiate Images).  Here are some of my notes from the discussion:

Burke Magnus on the new deal between the BCS and ESPN:

• ESPN does have the advantage of dual revenue streams (subscriber fees and advertising) compared to over-the-air stations, but they also have several other reasons to make the deal.
• College football is considered a foundation of ESPN.
• The company feels like they made a big mistake a few years ago in letting the BCS go to begin with, so there was a feeling of wanting to get back what they never should have lost.
• The decision is also based on a content-focused philosophy. ESPN has many platforms to leverage the content on, and the deal does allow them to use all these platforms, including ESPNU.  They now feel like they are well positioned in the sports from the start of the season through to the very end.

Jon Litner on the ESPN/BCS deal and competing with ESPN:

• Comcast is focused on regional rights, so they don’t feel like they compete with ESPN and that there is room for everyone (meanwhile, ESPN feels like that have more competition now than ever before).
• The BCS was created in part by ABC, and ESPN/ABC already have the rights to most of college football, so there is a good fit.
• The deal will also help the various bowls in selling title/naming rights (more exposure across the ESPN platforms).
• It is more viable now for the BCS to be on cable.  For example, the MLB League Championship Series and NBA Conference Finals are on cable.  Also, 95% of Fox’s BCS audience viewed the games via cable or satellite (not over-the-air).
• The cable migration has already occurring on a regional level (YES, NESN, etc.) so this has become the norm.

On teams/conferences creating their own networks:

• The number one challenge is distribution.  This is what the Big Ten Network has struggled most with.
• The iconic brands will succeed, but many smaller initiatives fail to get off the ground, such as attempts in Minnesota and Kansas City.
• The SEC weighed the options and went with ESPN because the didn’t want to take the distribution risk. The safer course was to take the guaranteed money from rights fees.

On sports media content:

• Networks want new ways to connect with the audience.
• The branded show, specifically SportsCenter, was the brilliant concept to put sports programming on the map.  Bill Rasmussen specifically shared a fun story on how no one believed in the SportsCenter concept when they first launched it. Bill was right, everyone else was very wrong!
• The question is, what original content do we own or can you afford to create that will resonate like SportsCenter, after considering the money spent on just the rights fees.
• Innovation can push content to new levels.  Two examples are pocket cameras for poker and PTI for talk/opinion shows.
• Two other important questions to consider are, how many people are watching and how long are they watching.  Efforts like SportsNation on ESPN try to engage the audience and keep them interested longer.
• Media companies know that there is a two-screen formula (TV + laptop/mobile), but they don’t know how to create the one-screen formula (interactive TV).

The panel members were also asked to sum up their careers in just three words:

• Bill Rasmussen:  Excitement, Enthusiasm, Energy
• Burke Magnus:  Passion, Hustle, Love
• Jon Litner:  Perseverence, Passion, Listening
• Steve Hellmuth:  Work, Innovation, Knowledge
• Susan Briglia:  Passion, Persistence, Belief

Finally, Lewis Howes sat down with Bill Rasmussen for a video interview after the panel ended.  You can check out the interview on SportsNetworker.com.  This wraps up my coverage of the Princeton Sports Symposium.  There were several other panel discussions going on in parallel to the ones I attended on topics such as the Olympics, Athlete Representation, and Professional/Amateur Sports Properties, and I’m sure those panels were just as interesting and informative.  They did an excellent job compressing a lot of information into a half-day event, and I got to network with some great people.  I look forward to attending again next year!

According to the old cliche, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity.”  There is definitely some truth to this statement. A player makes some public mistake and the media covers every detail of that team and league.  It might not be the best publicity, but there is no question that your teams will get a lot of additional media exposure.  But eventually, the hype dies down and the publicity ends, right?  Well, what if the league had an easy way to keep it going, say by suspending the player?

The case I’m specifically referring to is with Sean Avery of the NHL’s Dallas Stars.  Avery recently made some recent off-color remarks regarding an ex-girlfriend that is now dating a player on the Calgary Flames (the team he was playing that night).  Now even though the remarks were crude, players have said and done much worse over the past few years, so you wouldn’t think this would be that big of a story.  Well, Gary Bettman disagreed and decided to immediately take action, suspending him indefinitely and turning the incident into a top story across all media outlets.

Bettman was completely within his right to suspend Avery, but to me it seems just a bit too quick and drastic of a decision.  Then I saw a comment from another blogger (www.motherpucker.ca) who said “Letting him play would have received attention, but it would have died off. Suspending him is viral.” That is a great observation – it was the drastic action by the NHL and the corresponding attention it brought to Avery’s statements that made the story take off.  Could Bettman have been motivated by the publicity he knew the suspension would generate?  It’s not a bad idea, really.  The NHL always struggles to take exposure from the other three major U.S. leagues, so why not do something to generate some headlines?  It will be interesting to see how long the story hangs around and how Avery and the NHLPA react over the next couple of days.  In the meantime, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity!”

The country’s current economic conditions have definitely had an effect on the sports industry.  Even though sports are often consider “recession-proof,” ticket sales and sponsorship revenue has declined this year and several teams have even had to make budget cuts and reduce staff.  There is a good article on MSNBC.com (11/11/08) discussing the recession’s impact on sports, paying particular attention to the effect on “second-tier” sports that don’t have the level of guaranteed corporate and media revenue that the major sports have. 

Speaking of media revenue, a news item just came out today from SportsBusiness Daily reporting that the BCS may move their games to ESPN.  They’ve received a large bid from ESPN (don’t know the details), while Fox has offered a 25% increase over their current contract.  That seems reasonable especially considering the economy, but the BCS wants a 50% increase!  I assume that the ESPN offer has to be around this amount, so maybe the economy for sports (at least some of them) isn’t in such bad shape.  Maybe teams will try to weather the storm on the ticket side by trying to make up the revenue on the media side.  People are still watching the games – they just can’t afford to attend them!

I’ve been using Twitter to help grow my network, get more exposure for the site, and look for interesting content.  Earlier today, I found a great article on NHL.com web traffic, courtesy of @detroitredwings. 

According to the article, “80 percent of visitors to NHL.com that watch videos return the next day.”  That’s an incredible repeat percentage.  Many organizations concentrate on how to get initial visitors, but repeat traffic is the key to developing loyal fans and customers, and clearly for the NHL, video is the most effective way to build this loyalty.  Video has been the biggest focus for the new NHL.com, from their free programming (game highlights, The Hockey Show, and more) to their new GameCenter Live product.

Another important takeaway from this is the value of engagement.  Too many entities focus on acquiring as many potential customers as possible, growing their database, and them immediately trying to convert those subscribers to revenue.  While generating revenue is the ultimate goal, there need to be an extra step between acquisition and monetization - engagement.  Provide additional value for your users, whether its video, games, or an “insider” newsletter.  The better you can engage your fans first, the greater that customer’s lifetime value will be.

After many months, we have reached the 2008 MLB World Series.  Congratulation to the Tampa Bay Rays and the Philadelphia Phillies – clearly, there were the two teams that everyone expected to reach the series when the season started!  Regardless, now that they’ve made it, here are some of my World Series thoughts:

• As I’ve mentioned once already, this is definitely not the matchup that MLB wanted from a ratings perspective.  The league should be going PR-crazy this week to really sell the story of the underdog Rays and diehard Philly fans to drive some additional media interest.
• Philadelphia has come alive the past couple of weeks supporting the Phillies.  The city is desperate for a major championship (they haven’t had one since 1983).  Every local business should be trying to capitalize on the team’s success.  Big spikes in merchandise sales and even tourism should be expected.
• Speaking of merchandise, the Tampa Bay Rays picked a great year to change their look and should also see a big spike in merchandise sales.  I don’t think the city of Tampa will show as much of a financial windfall as Philadelphia.
• The Rays (team salary = $43M) are built on young, low-cost players in multi-year contracts. Without holdouts, they are in great shape to manage their salary costs into the next couple of seasons while keeping the core of the team together. 
• The Phillies($95M) the other hand have some expensive vets and stars.  Some of these salaries will come off the payroll next season (Burrell for $14M), while others are locked in at a premium (Utley at $15M per) or even worse, are eligible for arbitration (Cole Hamels).  The Phillies will have many payroll/roster issues to maintain this team.
• MLB and its teams do a great job with game presentation, especially on the biggest stages (this year’s All Star Game comes to mind).  I am excited to see what the pregame festivities are like for game 1.
• All the games are schedules for 8PM starts.  I guess it could be worse, but knowing how many commercials there are going to be, the games are going to easily hit midnight.  Since both teams are on the east coast, 7PM starts or maybe even a weekend afternoon game would be great, but I don’t think we’ll see that happen ever again.

That’s it for now.  I think this series has a lot of potential for great storylines and great baseball.  I just hope that the national public turns on the TV and watches!

There are some great storylines in this year’s MLB playoffs.  We’ve had the continued disappointment of the Chicago Cubs, the revival of the Los Angeles Dodgers, the continued success of the Boston Red Sox, and the surprising presence of the Tampa Bay Rays.  But there is a dark lining to this puffy white cloud – the ratings for the Division Series games on TBS were down over 20% from last year (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/7/08).

There are several reasons for this drop, the first of which is the fact that the Yankees are not playing in the Division Series for the first time since 1994.  However much people like to root against the Yankees, you have to believe that the folks at MLB secretly wish the team to at least make the postseason for the benefit of the entire league.  The quick demise of the Cubs and White Sox is also important, as Chicago is arguably the 2nd biggest baseball market.  Having the Brewers as the wild card team also caused a ratings drop because of their small market size.

The final factor to note is the presence of the Rays in the playoffs.  Even as a Yankees fan, I’m very interested in their story and supposedly many other are, but no one is watching the story unfold.  From what I’ve heard, the ratings have started to shift upwards slightly for the ALCS and NLCS, but if the World Series comes down to the Rays vs. the Phillies, MLB is going to close out a great season on a surprisingly quiet note.

I received an email yesterday announcing the launch of NHL GameCenter LIVE, the NHL’s new online streaming media service that will broadcast all of this season’s game live (hence the name).  The service seems to be modeled after MLB.tv, with a subscription costing $19.95 per month (this is an initial promotional price), and potential blackout restrictions applying for games televised in your local market.

This is GREAT news for the NHL.  To me, the number one problem holding the league back is a lack of public exposure.  Too many fans, both casual and dedicated, either do not get Versus or are not in the habit of searching for it.  Last year I thought that this type of service would be a great way to help fans get around the lack of TV exposure to watch the games conveniently on their computer.  I have little doubt that the more “hardcore” fans will flock to this service, generating a nice new revenue stream for the league.  I disagree slightly with the price point however.  This seems too high for the more casual fans, limiting the initial adoption and limiting the league’s chance for additional public exposure.  I would do two things right off the bat (or stick, in this case):

1.  Create a discounted full-season option (right now, the full-season is $159, which is the same as the monthly price for the length of the season).  Yes, you may lose a bit of revenue, but you will increase exposure which for the NHL simply needs to be a higher priority.

2.  Create two monthly price points with differentiated features, similar to what MLB.tv did.   The “premium” package can have better quality streams, the ability to aggregate multiple games on one screen, show additional camera angles, etc.  The dedicated fans will select this full-featured option, and the casual fans will be more likely to sign up through the lower price-point option.  Right now, I think they are going to miss out on a large percentage of the casual fans by only offering the full-featured package at the current price.

Even if they do not go with either of these suggestions, NHL GameCenter LIVE is still a big step forward for the league.  Their attendance numbers have continuously increase, so the interest is definitely there from the fans.  Now they need to capitalize on this growth and expand into the public light.  I believe that this will be a very good year for the NHL.