Yesterday in our e-Marketing class our professor, Sven, reminded us of the requirements for our blog project. I was one of the many students who realized, "son of a mother duck, I should probably post some blogs on the required content." Well timed my German instructor.
Considering the nerds who run the pro blogging sites never post about sports, athletes, or any kind of ball, I turn to the only blog at my disposal that does mention this realm, the blog of 3 of my classmates, CommercialsAreUs, all 3 are athletes. Soooooooo I check out their ish a lot.
Their blog looks at, you guessed it, commercials, but also the TV industry in general. I noticed that some of the ads they were mentioning used sports as a vehicle to a successful campaign.
The two ads I saw were for beer, and fast food (Burger King). Which got me to thinking, these are two categories wherein the majority of consumption comes from men. Which then led to my breakthrough, that isn't entirely a breakthrough, considering its stereotypical public knowledge, that running ads that employ sports as the vehicle for portraying your message is a great way to make men buy your product.
This got me to thinking...why is that?
Gentlemen, why do ads that employ sports appeal to you?
Ladies, do ads that employ sports appeal to you? Do you feel left out the the sports marketing inner circle?
Here are some to think about...
~Z
Friday, May 6, 2011
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Cars. Mattresses. Cynicism. OH MY!
In the posts that I've done about the automotive industry, I've asked a lot more questions than anything else. I feel like this is because it is such a strange industry to nail down. Cars serve many different purposes, obviously. They have a functional purpose, they are status symbols, and there is a rich history of the automotive business in the growth (and recent demise) of the American economy.
I was watching TV the other day (a rarity, I assure you except for Mariners games) and one of those fun commercials for "The Mattress Ranch" came on. You know, the one where the guy in the Spongebob Squarepants tie is dancing around with money in his hands and telling you that you can "save more bucks at the Mattress Ranch." I got to thinking, "how do mattress companies even make money? Nobody regularly buys a mattress." Really, it's not just one of things you go out and get. Once you buy a mattress, you've got it for a while. The mattress companies recommend that you buy a new mattress every 5-7 years because in that time, mattresses go flat and are no longer usable, at least with a reasonable amount of comfort. This thought also got me thinking about the auto industry. It certainly doesn't seem like they'd be making a lot of money, considering that cars do in fact last a long time. I'm rollin' in a 1997 Mazda Protege... Just saying. Digging a little deeper, I found out that the average person changes cars every 5-7 years as well. But obviously this isn't because of loss of functionality (unless of course you drive a Pinto).
So what is it about cars that cause such a frequent turnover? Why is it that, even though we don't NEED a new car, is the average ownership of a vehicle 5-7 years? OK, I get that the life cycle of a car, if taken good care of, is probably longer than a mattress and is overall an issue of milage. So sure, that accounts for the similar ownership turnover. I'm questioning the necessity here. I really think that there is a lot of social pressure on Americans to have the best car available. They are symbols of wealth, power, and prestige. All of which I personally think are BS (this comment is not endorsed by the Dream Team as a whole). In a lot of ways I believe that a car is like a mattress; you don't need a new one all too often, and they are wonderful if you have one that fits your preferences. With that said, America seems to disagree with me.
When a person parts ways with a mattress, it's usually because it no longer can serve it's functional purpose. When a person parts ways with a car, in far less time (and at a far greater expense), it has to be for some other reason(s). Why is that we are willing to commit huge sums of money (and quite frequently according to the statistics) on something that we don't necessarily need to? I know we live in the land of overindulgence, but I don't really get this one. But then again, I often equate myself to a cynical old man... Help me understand, folks.
Enjoy some Ted Sadler!
I was watching TV the other day (a rarity, I assure you except for Mariners games) and one of those fun commercials for "The Mattress Ranch" came on. You know, the one where the guy in the Spongebob Squarepants tie is dancing around with money in his hands and telling you that you can "save more bucks at the Mattress Ranch." I got to thinking, "how do mattress companies even make money? Nobody regularly buys a mattress." Really, it's not just one of things you go out and get. Once you buy a mattress, you've got it for a while. The mattress companies recommend that you buy a new mattress every 5-7 years because in that time, mattresses go flat and are no longer usable, at least with a reasonable amount of comfort. This thought also got me thinking about the auto industry. It certainly doesn't seem like they'd be making a lot of money, considering that cars do in fact last a long time. I'm rollin' in a 1997 Mazda Protege... Just saying. Digging a little deeper, I found out that the average person changes cars every 5-7 years as well. But obviously this isn't because of loss of functionality (unless of course you drive a Pinto).
So what is it about cars that cause such a frequent turnover? Why is it that, even though we don't NEED a new car, is the average ownership of a vehicle 5-7 years? OK, I get that the life cycle of a car, if taken good care of, is probably longer than a mattress and is overall an issue of milage. So sure, that accounts for the similar ownership turnover. I'm questioning the necessity here. I really think that there is a lot of social pressure on Americans to have the best car available. They are symbols of wealth, power, and prestige. All of which I personally think are BS (this comment is not endorsed by the Dream Team as a whole). In a lot of ways I believe that a car is like a mattress; you don't need a new one all too often, and they are wonderful if you have one that fits your preferences. With that said, America seems to disagree with me.
When a person parts ways with a mattress, it's usually because it no longer can serve it's functional purpose. When a person parts ways with a car, in far less time (and at a far greater expense), it has to be for some other reason(s). Why is that we are willing to commit huge sums of money (and quite frequently according to the statistics) on something that we don't necessarily need to? I know we live in the land of overindulgence, but I don't really get this one. But then again, I often equate myself to a cynical old man... Help me understand, folks.
Enjoy some Ted Sadler!
NFL lockout is the best thing for college education
Does the NFL lockout have college professors rejoicing?
In a recent article from ESPN titled "Pac-10 announces ESPN/Fox TV deal" the Pac-10 -- soon to officially become the Pac-12 -- has agreed to a 12-year television contract with ESPN and Fox that will more than triple its media rights fees and be the most valuable for any conference in college sports.
The contract, which will begin with the 2012-13 season, will be worth more than $225 million per year -- or $2.7 billion over the life of the deal, Sports Business Daily and The Associated Press reported on Tuesday.
This got me to thinking...
With NFL owners using their billions of dollars to prohibit the happiness of the American people, NCAA football looks like the only football we will have for the 2011-2012 season.
This significantly drove up the price of media rights fees to televise these college conferences. With all that money going to college conferences, 3x more, this means that 3x more money is going to colleges than before.
How much of that money translates to the classroom is unknown, but it wouldn't be a far cry to say that after this deal was made public, chemistry professors in the Pac-10 probably got the OK from their university's president to put in orders for some beakers.
How do you think the NFL lockout will effect education, or America in general?
~Z
In a recent article from ESPN titled "Pac-10 announces ESPN/Fox TV deal" the Pac-10 -- soon to officially become the Pac-12 -- has agreed to a 12-year television contract with ESPN and Fox that will more than triple its media rights fees and be the most valuable for any conference in college sports.
The contract, which will begin with the 2012-13 season, will be worth more than $225 million per year -- or $2.7 billion over the life of the deal, Sports Business Daily and The Associated Press reported on Tuesday.
This got me to thinking...
With NFL owners using their billions of dollars to prohibit the happiness of the American people, NCAA football looks like the only football we will have for the 2011-2012 season.
This significantly drove up the price of media rights fees to televise these college conferences. With all that money going to college conferences, 3x more, this means that 3x more money is going to colleges than before.
How much of that money translates to the classroom is unknown, but it wouldn't be a far cry to say that after this deal was made public, chemistry professors in the Pac-10 probably got the OK from their university's president to put in orders for some beakers.How do you think the NFL lockout will effect education, or America in general?
~Z
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)