Boise St. Had Higher Merchandise Royalties Than UCLA
Tell me again how football isn't king and that the UCLA brand is being maximized. That's strike 341, Dan.
4 months ago
Ryan Rosenblatt
37 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Strike 341?
Why is he still batting? Shouldn’t Dan be out by now? Chancellor? Chancellor!!
greg in denver, U.C.L.A. guy for life - BruinsNation.com
He thinks that's his batting average...
it just keeps going up!
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
But what about their medical school??!!
This is so ridiculous. How long does Chancellor Block get to keep Guerrero before it becomes him that needs to go??
by SonOfWestwood93 on Feb 7, 2012 12:17 PM PST reply actions
NIKE > adidas
Obviously Boise is better than us in football, but a lot of it is the availability of Nike stuff vs. the availability of adidas stuff. You can’t even find UCLA stuff in the adidas store at the 3rd Street Promenade in Santa Monica. Zero UCLA stuff at the adidas outlet in Camarillo.
This is why I’d rather be the #2 Nike school in L.A. vs. the #1 adidas school on the entire West Coast.
I don't know how big a reason that is, but...
isn’t it Guerrero’s doing that we have what we have with Adidas? Even assuming it would be better to go with Nike, it is Guerrero’s fault for not doing that, right?
by SonOfWestwood93 on Feb 7, 2012 12:48 PM PST up reply actions
Yes
He settled for Adidas again without allowing Nike/Underarmour to negotiate terms.
Dump Dan!
by bruinclassof10 on Feb 7, 2012 1:07 PM PST up reply actions
That's UCLA's fault
not adidas’s. Michigan and Notre Dame have no problem selling merchandise.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Nike sells itself
Even if Nike didn’t put any effort in to selling our stuff (like adidas), the fact that it’s made by Nike will result in more sales. They have their stuff available in more channels (go to a Foot Locker and compare the amount of Nikes in there versus everything else, also do the same with an online retailer like Eastbay).
Kids who don’t care about UCLA will buy UCLA Nike gear because the colors are cool and they will go nicely with the $120 pair of blue shoes they bought.
I think he's trying to say
that people buy Nike gear because it’s Nike. Brand loyalty goes a long way in consumer products.
And I'm saying
that Michigan and Notre Dame don’t seem to be having that problem.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
I think it's a bit of both
Nike does a great job of making their products more readily available than Adidas as 805 pointed out. However, I completely agree that Notre Dame, Michigan do not have any issues with marketing Adidas products because … well their athletic department understand how to maintain and enhance their schools’ respective brands and execute basic concepts of marketing.
"Brand loyalty goes a long way in consumer products"
That is the party line from Madison Avenue. I happen to think that quality and price have a lot more to do with sales than brand loyalty. I did not watch any of the Super Bowl commercials, but many of you did. So which of those commercials induced you to buy a product you did not think about buying before the commercial? Which commercials induced you to buy a more of a product than you had previously been buying?
The ads on this thread are for something called Smorgtees and for McAfee computer security stuff. I am confident that I will never buy a Smorgtee. The McAfee security stuff was on my computer when I bought it, and I just keep renewing because my real IT guy (my brother in law) says its as good as anything. Those ads cost the advertiser but generate no revenue (at least from me.)
I would like to see an experiment. Suppose Coca Cola were to suspend broadcast advertising for one year. Just put that money in the bank to be added to shareholders’ dividends. What would happen to Coca Cola’s total revenue? Would it increase? Would it decrease? Key question, if it decreased, would the decrease in total revenue be less than the savings in expense? I predict that the savings in expense would more than make up for any loss of revenue. Maybe that’s brand loyalty, or maybe that’s just the notion that the advertising/brand loyalty emperor has no clothes, and that people make more rational buying decisions.
Caveat. This comment refers to grown ups. Children and yuppies (I perceive no difference) will buy anything that is advertised as cool.
Well, I guess my morning rant strayed a little from Bruin sports.
I agree with you, Fox
In my opinion, advertising should be limited to new products. Ads for Bud Light, Coke, Pepsi…that’s just for entertainment purposes in my view. A waster of company money. Sadly, too many people buy items based on emotion, and that’s what these ads target. You would be surprised at the amount of psychological studies that go into advertising.
One thing that has been bothering me most: ever noticed that in most ads, men are shown as dumb and/or losers and/or slackers?
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Men are the dumb/loser/slacker type in most commercials
To offset the sheer awesome from the Old Spice commercials.
Of course,
those, and The Most Interesting Man In The World, are just exceptions…
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
It's certainly not a waste
Bud Light, Coke, Pepsi and the like flood the media and buy up all the air time for a very specific reason: to deny up-and-coming competitors a chance to gain a media foothold to market their competing products. If they want to compete with the big boys, the big boys aren’t going to let them do it for cheap.
If you watch Storage Wars, its the same reason Dave Hester bids up EVERY locker, even the ones he’s not interested in. He makes his competitors spend more money to play the game, because he knows they have less money to spend, and the less profit his competitors make, the better for his business.
That's a different point
I was mostly talking about whether commercials make anyone want a product more if they didn’t already want it. Yours is an absolutely crucial point from a competitive standpoint, but not a consumption one (other than not letting consumers experience a competing product).
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
It's the same reason people buy Coca Cola
when there are cheaper, equally pleasant tasting beverages sitting RIGHT next to Coke on the shelf. Or why people buy an iPod when there are cheaper and sometimes better mp3 players out there. People just trust the brands they know. And the reality is, when it comes to athletic merchandise, Nike is king.
To Tasser’s point, Michigan and Notre Dame would be successful no matter who their merchandise provider is (ie. Adidas, UA, Reebok…) for the very same reason; because people know Notre Dame and Michigan. For decades upon decades on a national scale, Notre Dame and Michigan were synonymous with college sports. Heck, Notre Dame is arguably the most recognizable university in the entire country
I disagree with that
UCLA should have the same brand appeal as a Michigan. Our brand appeal used to be lot stronger till it was degraded by years of incompetence from Dalis and Guerrero. It is still considered one of the blue chip brands in college athletics despite the rampant dysfunction and incompetence at the AD. If it was run with basic competency, we’d see much better results through the partnership with Adidas (which as it is one of the most lucrative ones in college sports).
That's a big "should"
A history of championships and winning, specifically in football, are the primary drivers of brand appeal in college sports. It’s the reason Michigan and Note Dame get tons of national exposure even when they have down seasons. Michigan has both a long tradition of winning football programs(11 national championships in football) as well as fairly recent success, UCLA has neither.
Another big factor is iconic players. Michigan has 2 Heisman trophy winners in the last 2 decades, and several others nominated. UCLA has 0. Michigan has had dozens of players named All-Americans while UCLA only has a handful.
Also, it doesn’t help us that we’re on the west coast and there is definitely an east coast bias in college football.
Arguing in circles
Your points are valid, but then, why does Boise State sell more merchandise than UCLA? They don’t have championships or Heisman winners, and UCLA has much better history than they do. They just have more recent success.
Despite the things you bring up, none of it absolves our crappy athletic department of their failure to do basic marketing of the UCLA brand. And if you can’t market the success, you certainly can market the image of the school. There’s a reason UCLA gets the most applications of any school in the country.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Well Said!!
Your last sentence brings up a great point. UCLA receives more applications than any school in the country, and has been ranked as the number one dream school for high school seniors by Princeton Review. You would think that this popularity would extend to merchandise.
This is not to blame on Adidas, it is due to the incompetency of our AD. Like you said, Notre Dome and Michigan do not have a problem with Adidas.
While you can't fault BSU; they have simply fielded a better product that we have;
You can’t help but fault Guerror and G Block for not understanding basic marketing principles. Interesting enough, UCLA has a business school, which offers marketing classes. Dan? Time to strap on one.
Winning is not a sometime thing; it's an all the time thing. You don't win once in a while; you don't do things right once in a while; you do them right all the time. Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing. ~ Vince Lombardi
"What's wrong with the way I conduct business?"
Dump Dan!
by bruinclassof10 on Feb 7, 2012 1:07 PM PST up reply actions
I find myself saying, "What's wrong with...."
,,,quite a bit these days, in meetings. Of course, no one but me gets the joke.
This is one Gue-error-ism that is sticking with me.
Same here
I find myself asking “What’s wrong with ______.” At least Dan is good for one thing: comedic relief, here and there. Pathetic comedic relief because he’s actually serious.
Dump Dan!
by bruinclassof10 on Feb 8, 2012 3:16 PM PST up reply actions
Consistent branding
We don’t even have consistent looking script or colors.
If we can’t get that right, how are we expected to get the broader marketing/branding agenda right?
The gold is pretty consistent
Its the blue that throws everybody off. I was at Ackerman a few weeks ago and noticed powder keg blue, True Blue, Cal blue, Carolina blue and blue shirts.
Dump Dan!
by bruinclassof10 on Feb 8, 2012 3:17 PM PST up reply actions
Not really
the gold changes with the blues too. You can see all the examples linked at the end of this post.
But hey, what do I know. I’m just the 800 lbs bruin in the room.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
Related FanShots on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
