Thursday, August 21, 2014

Who is this Douglass anyway?

Today, my Facebook feed is awash in cryptic posts. Someone named Douglass is either nowhere to be found, or in trouble with the FBI, or has had his name adopted by a number of my friends.


Just to reassure you, if you know someone named Douglass, he is fine. In fact, this particular guy doesn't even exist. Douglass is the title character in a movie entitled I Am Douglass. It is in the development phase, which means we are trying to come up with the means to make it. Those means include money, actors, and distribution.

As it turns out, a career full of creating commercials, advertising, and sports television in Texas doesn't necessarily introduce one to the types of folks who make films happen. As a matter of fact, those sorts of folks tend to be rather skittish about fresh faces. They may well be friendly people, but the world contains a lot more movie ideas than it does commercially viable movie ideas, and that makes such persons understandably reluctant to devote valuable time or resources to an initiative without a track record.

Of course, that doesn't stop my partners and me from wanting to make the movie. It does mean we would need to think creatively to try to make the right connections. We would need a BtoB marketing plan.

Our initial efforts involved networking, as any BtoB plan does. We gained a lot of knowledge, but hadn't been able to network our way to the types of connections we needed. So we decided to focus on the movie's brand. We saw four elements as vital to influencing our target audience : script quality, social media viability, topicality, and our businesslike outlook. If we could demonstrate mastery of those factors, we felt influencers would see our project as either capable of commercial success or worthy of becoming a passion project for them (hopefully both).

Our rollout strategy consisted mostly of social media. Social's capital costs of zero fit our low budget (although the plan includes some limited expenditures to push a handful of posts). But it fit our goals, too. The film's plot involves two men attempting to flee to a place where they can safely reveal explosive information about government surveillance overreach. The topic of surveillance certainly gets plenty of viral play worldwide, so our hope was to latch onto some of that. Both the issue and the internet transcend national boundaries, enlarging our potential audience. If you're trying to show an audience exists for an entertainment product, showing an actual large audience helps make your point.

So a social strategy could help us demonstrate topicality and social media viability (the plot contains social media elements, so that will be an important element of the final marketing mix once we have made the film). The quick-hitting nature of social posts also served our goal of demonstrating our script had quality content. We could post individual lines and plot elements to show its depth and entertaining qualities without spoiling the story.


We felt like the simple act of having a marketing plan at this stage of development would help establish some business credibility. We could also give people the opportunity to review our credentials. Those don't include blockbuster feature films, but they do include quality shorts and work for noteworthy entities like Major League Baseball teams.

We took some other steps to help ourselves look business-minded. We used trade inventory in a local weekly newspaper to promote our website (which we made to appear as if a fan of the title character had created). We created an Indiegogo crowdfunding campaign targeted at pre-production, figuring we would both monetize any social buzz we created and show investors we were committed to raising money any way we could. We also started a Zazzle store selling a number of I Am Douglass items. We created videos promoting the crowdfunding initiative. We hope some of them are funny. While funds generated by crowdfunding and the store will be beneficial, those outlets, like the Twitters and Google+s, are more about providing additional ways for interested parties to interact with the brand.

We'll populate our various social media sites with content about the movie and the issue. Eventually, we hope to see the #iamdouglass hashtag show up in surveillance discussions. Once we get some critical mass of attention, we'll try to merchandise it into earned media. Media outlets that cover or comment on the surveillance issue might find our effort newsworthy.

It all adds up to a formula we hope will entice actors or investors to make inquiries about our project. They may feel strongly about the surveillance issue and believe this provides a way to stoke further discussion about it. A number of actors, like John Cusack and Janine Turner, have expressed their opinions publicly. Others, like Penn Jillette or Drew Carey, espouse worldviews that question governmental intrusiveness. We even speculate that tech companies who have lost overseas business due to NSA policies might consider backing the project as a content marketing play. 

We also hope we'll have established the proposition as a commercially viable one. The concept has appeal for several niche audiences, and the broader issue seems unlikely to disappear soon. If successful, our marketing campaign will demonstrate that the film has staying power, too.

Those cryptic posts referenced in the opening paragraph? They're how we launched the social campaign. We asked friends and friends of friends to post these cryptic messages with our hashtag #iamdouglass. We confused more than a few folks, and hopefully will have created interest for when we reveal tomorrow what it was all about. We took the same approach with our website, creating a fake front page that makes you wonder, just for a minute at least, what the heck is going on. Our pitch video, too, tended toward the conspiratorial.

Will our campaign work? We start finding out tomorrow.




Rush Olson has spent two decades making movie-like creative products for companies, sports teams, broadcasters. He currently creates ad campaigns and related creative projects through his company, Rush Olson Creative & Sports.

RushOlson.com
Linkedin.com/company/rush-olson-creative-&-sports

Facebook.com/RushOlsonCreativeandSports

Wednesday, August 6, 2014

Where’s the Cost-Benefit Analysis on International Ball?

The NBA offers the world’s best basketball competition in which players can play for any of the league’s clubs regardless of nationality. FIBA offers the world’s best basketball competitions in which players compete only for teams representing their countries of origin or naturalization. Because the two groups draw on much of the same player pool, injuries sustained in one competition affect the other.  Paul George’s recent mishap has led to suggestions that the relationship disproportionately favors FIBA.(1)

That may indeed be the case and the NBA office needs to find out if it is. The league needs to perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine if the risks of endorsing international player participation outweigh the rewards. If it determines it receives more from FIBA and the IOC than it puts in, it needs to put together a really kick-butt PowerPoint to demonstrate how to its owners, since at least one loud one believes the opposite.(2) If it determines the arrangement needs alteration, it should do it in a hurry to give any outrage a chance to die down as much as possible before the next wave of Olympic hype.

The most crucial area the NBA needs to analyze is how much benefit it derives from its international exposure and what role having its players compete internationally plays. Can we feel certain that marketing benefits flow to the NBA from inter-country games and not the other way around? The point has been made that the NBA’s ability to make money internationally skyrocketed after the Dream Team’s 1992 Olympic appearance. (3)(4)  While the time frame matches up to the beginning of a rise in the league’s global fortunes, measuring Barcelona’s impact is complicated by a couple of other synchronous developments. First, the Cold War had just ended. It is likely that NBA teams would have long been signing Sergei Belovs or pre-tendon-injury Arvydas Sabonises had not the players’ governments forcibly prevented such freedom of association. That related notions of “amateurism” held a certain sway didn’t help, but NBA/ABA money could have defeated those shams. Also in the early 1990s, Sky Sports launched.(5) Soon, Europe would have sports-only channels to help popularize NBA games and other contests. The internet would shortly follow. Thus it is by no means clear that having pros in Olympic competition was the essential tipping point in the league’s rise in worldwide popularity. The NBA’s high level of international investment in recent years has also provided it a present-day marketing prowess that does not depend on its players wearing the red, white, and blue or the bleu, blanc, et rouge. 


The Association should also evaluate just how much its players value the opportunity to compete in their countries’ uniforms. They could attempt to monetize it in the next CBA by requiring players to make contractual concessions to participate. The NBA could also allow individual clubs to decide whether to allow their players to play internationally. Free agents could then decide if they preferred, for instance, the team that offered the most money or a team that would allow them to suit up for Scotland in the Commonwealth Games. The league could also, as Mark Cuban has suggested, simply part ways with FIBA and launch its own nation-specific tournament.(6) That possibility brings us to the organization that needs to perform a cost-benefit analysis even more than the NBA.

FIBA’s bottom line reads as follows :
If the NBA forbids its players from playing internationally, FIBA will lose most of its top players. If FIBA forbids players from playing in the NBA, FIBA will lose most of its top players. Even the International Olympic Committee won’t be able to help FIBA overcome guaranteed contracts financed by a percentage of the NBA’s massive revenue pie.

FIBA may decide it doesn’t need the top players because fans will support its competitions solely because of the names on the fronts of the jerseys. If it decides instead, however, that its business model depends on having elite talent, then the organization needs to take some initiative and figure out how to make international competition into a partnership with the NBA that is sustainable. They can't risk the NBA's cost-benefit analysis showing them as anything but an asset. Maybe FIBA should be the ones to show up at the owners’ meetings with a kick-butt PowerPoint. Otherwise, they risk another Cold War – one they can’t win.


Rush Olson has spent two decades directing creative efforts for sports teams and broadcasters. He currently creates ad campaigns and related creative projects for sports entities through his company, Rush Olson Creative & Sports.

RushOlson.com
Linkedin.com/company/rush-olson-creative-&-sports
Facebook.com/RushOlsonCreativeandSports


Footnotes

(1) Marc Stein, “Mark Cuban wants 'own World Cup',” espn.com. http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/11301340/mark-cuban-dallas-mavericks-feels-paul-george-renews-call-separate-quadrennial-competition (accessed August 5, 2014)

(2) IBID.

(3) Mac Engel, “Cuban concerned about cash, not player safety,” Star-Telegram.

(4) John Smallwood, “Mark Cuban has it all wrong,” philly.com. http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/sixers/20140805_Mark_Cuban_has_it_all_wrong.html  (Accessed August 5, 2014)

(5) “Timeline,” Sky. https://corporate.sky.com/about_sky/timeline (accessed August 5, 2014)


(6) Stein

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Rooting for The Captain . . . or Not

Mac Engel, writing in his must-read Star-Telegram column,(1) recently offered some thoughts on Derek Jeter. He deemed Jeter worthy of respect as a human being, despite his status as a wealthy, pinstripe-wearing, paparazzi magnet.

After reading it, I can’t disagree with the case Mac builds. From showing common courtesy to earning the respect of the staff at visiting stadia, Jeter demonstrates a humanity some celebrities struggle to retain. I don’t know Jeter personally. I’ve worked with a lot of athletes, but never crossed paths with The Captain. I do know the other two voices who testified in the article, however, and can vouch for the general quality of their insights. Mac has loads of experience dealing with athletes and if there’s one guy who knows the straight dope on what kinds of folks pass through Globe Life Park in Arlington’s third base dugout, it’s Visiting Clubhouse Manager Kelly Terrell.

The visiting dugout at Globe Life Park in Arlington (Derek Jeter not pictured)

I’ve been trying to square the rosy, and doubtless accurate, picture they paint of Jeter with the fact that since September 15, 2010,(2) I have rooted against him when he has played baseball. Some of my antipathy comes from the name on the front of his jersey, of course. The Yankees cost me too many opportunities to enjoy postseason games in the ‘90s for me to ever hope they win. I can usually set that aside when it comes to individual players, however. If Mark Teixeira hits a walk-off home run, I am displeased the Yankees won. I am happy for Tex, though, because I found him a great pleasure to work with when he played for the Rangers.

In 2010, Jeter did something on a baseball field I really disliked. He lied. He claimed to an umpire that a pitch had hit him when he knew it had actually hit his bat. Jeter’s ruse succeeded, he took first, and later scored on a Curtis Granderson home run.(3)

Since I find dishonesty distasteful, I have since hoped that Jeter’s at-bats all end with weak grounders to short, as he did to end last night's game. After reading Mac’s article, it struck me that lying is likely out-of-character for Derek Jeter. Yet on that night in St. Petersburg, he perpetrated a scam.

I hate blaming things on “society.” Individuals are responsible for their actions. But in this case, it’s the only explanation. Rays manager Joe Maddon got ejected for arguing the call that night, but after the game suggested he would have “applauded” one of his players for doing the same thing.(4) He’s not alone. I once had a conversation with a former big league coach in which I asked what would happen if a player admitted to an umpire that he had trapped a ball instead of catching it. The coach suggested that the player’s reception when he returned to the dugout would not be a positive one.

I hoped that replay would help modify such conduct, at least from a practical standpoint, if not an attitudinal one. Then in June, Matt Carpenter faked an HBP and got away with it despite replay.(5) I want to cheer for Matt Carpenter. He’s a Texan, for goodness sake. I even called a handful of his games when he attended TCU. But since then, I must admit, I’ve kind of been hoping the pitchers win their matchups with him.

Carpenter majored in communication at TCU,(6) and it’s conceivable he took a course at some point that covered ethics in the profession. And, indeed, had he or Jeter deliberately lied to a reporter, journalists would justifiably vilify them. If they fib to an umpire, however, many laud them for doing whatever it takes to win. The baseball instruction they received over the years deemed playing by the rules subordinate to winning.

If the culture could change, it would have to begin at the most basic levels. Coaches would have to teach children that playing a game involves entering into a contract. You agree to play by the rules and your opponent agrees to do the same. If you violate the contract, you have done something wrong, even if you get away with it. Even if the deceit helps you win, it’s still wrong.

It’s not that way yet, and, unfortunately, perhaps never will be.

Does a worthy end justify an unethical means? In baseball, that seems the prevailing wisdom. Even the good guys do it, which makes it darn hard to decide for whom we should cheer.



Rush Olson has spent two decades directing creative efforts for sports teams and broadcasters. He currently creates ad campaigns and related creative projects for sports entities through his company, Rush Olson Creative & Sports.

RushOlson.com
Linkedin.com/company/rush-olson-creative-&-sports
Facebook.com/RushOlsonCreativeandSports


Footnotes


(1) Mac Engel “Jeter always realized key to being loved was simply ‘don’t be a jerk’,” Star-Telegram.

(2) Associated Press “Derek Jeter Fakes Getting Hit By Pitch, Claims ‘It’s Part of the Game’,” NESN. http://nesn.com/2010/09/derek-jeter-fakes-getting-hit-by-pitch-claims-its-part-of-the-game/,” (accessed July 29, 2014)

(3) Ibid.

(4) Ibid.

(5) Thomas Harding “HBP call stands following Rockies' challenge,” Rockies.com. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article/col/cardinals-hit-batter-ruling-stands-following-rockies-challenge?ymd=20140623&content_id=81296404&vkey=news_col (accessed July 29, 2014)

(6) Amber Parcher “TCU baseball player, coach aid national team to victory,” Daily Skiff.


Saturday, July 26, 2014

Can Team Brands Suffer in RSN Disputes?

For decades, Chicago Blackhawks owner Bill Wirtz clung steadfastly to the once commonly-held belief that televising home games led to decreased attendance and wasn't fair to season ticket holders.(1) It took winning a Stanley Cup (as well as televising a lot more games after Wirtz's death) to repair the damage to the Original Six team's brand.

Modern thinking embraces widespread television exposure and believes it does not negatively affect team revenues or ticket buyer loyalty. In fact, the extra exposure leads to additional opportunities to generate revenue and for potential fans to embrace the brand. The brand enhancement and the revenue creation usually go hand-in-hand. Some teams, however, have recently seen the two come into conflict and face some difficult decisions because of it.

The Los Angeles Dodgers’ brand has a lot going for it, including marquee players, a distinguished history, and a great chance to make this year's postseason. Their local TV deal, however, cannot be helping their brand image.

Last year, the team executed a big-money contract with Time Warner to create a new sports network with the Dodgers as its cornerstone programming. The agreement guarantees the franchise $8.35 billion over 25 years. (2)

Such a substantial amount of money would seem difficult to turn down no matter what the circumstances. That even includes the current situation, in which carriage disputes have kept Dodgers’ games out of some 70% of the market’s homes, because $8 billion is just a lot of scratch. (3) When teams do a deal to create a new network, however, they may want to keep in mind a couple of things besides the immediate revenue numbers.


One is the potential long-term impact on their brand in case the network's distribution piece doesn't work out and ticked-off fans blame the team or become apathetic about it. If fans perceive your arrangement as a money-grab at their expense, that can’t be good. Businesspeople always have difficulty quantifying brand-related effects of deals. It’s a squishy science, to be sure. In the long term, does the revenue generated from the TV deal offset that lost from brand negativity? We can measure the amount of team-controlled promotional inventory running in the games that fans missed, but there’s no standard spreadsheet for calculating the broader impact.

Franchises also must consider the long-term viability of the network itself if it doesn't get distribution. Poor distribution could hurt ad sales enough that the revenue loss can’t be offset by the monies a Comcast or Time Warner bring in from subscribers switching or staying. It won't do any good to have signed a big-bucks deal with a TV outlet if the station goes out of business. A couple of teams in Houston have found themselves confronting that scenario.(4)

When the NFL Network launched, they did so with a sizable charge for operators but without universal distribution. It took them nearly a decade to get close to universal availability.(5) MLB Network, perhaps learning from the NFL’s experience, prioritized carriage.(6) They likely made that decision partly with the long-term health of the MLB brand in mind.

A team network implies team control, which should make for enhanced brand opportunities. That presumes the business side works, however. Sometimes we get YES (7) and sometimes we get Royals Sports Television Network.(8) Fox Sports’ regional channels seem to have found a happy medium by adding team-centric ancillary programming and working to promote team initiatives.

The Dodgers’ disputes have climbed to a new level of contentiousness, with Time Warner calling out DirecTV.(9) How does that kind of negativity affect the Dodgers’ brand? It’s difficult to quantify, of course. Perhaps we could measure it by the number of folks using the #NeedMyDodgers hashtag now showing up onscreen during Dodgers’ telecasts (presumably seen only in sports bars and on highlights shows by those affected).

The Dodgers reside in the country’s second-ranked television market. The Astros and Rockets also occupy a top-ten slot. Could these be the disputes that pop the sports rights bubble? It’s conceivable. What’s for certain is that the impasses will damage teams’ brands. Will it be enough that only championships can rebuild them? Teams should make sure they’ve evaluated the possibilities.



Rush Olson has spent two decades directing creative efforts for sports teams and broadcasters. He currently creates ad campaigns and related creative projects for sports entities through his company, Rush Olson Creative & Sports.

RushOlson.com
Linkedin.com/company/rush-olson-creative-&-sports
Facebook.com/RushOlsonCreativeandSports


Footnotes


(1) Steve Nidetz “Nhl's Tv Blackout Policy Hot Topic,” Chicago Tribune.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-02-07/sports/9303176598_1_espn-officials-blackout-sportschannel-america (accessed July 25, 2014)

(2) Joe Flint “Standoff over Dodgers games could be defining moment in sports TV,” Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la-et-ct-dodgers-tv-standoff-20140718-story.html#page=1 (accessed July 21, 2014)

(3) Ibid.

(4) David Barron “Judge returns Crane-McLane-Comcast lawsuit to state court,” Houston Chronicle. http://blog.chron.com/ultimateastros/2014/07/23/judge-returns-crane-mclane-comcast-lawsuit-to-state-court/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+houstonchronicle%2Ffanblogastros+(FanBlog%3A+Astros)#22102101=0 (accessed July 25, 2014)

(5) Mike Reynolds “NFL Network Finally Adds TWC, Bright House to Distribution Roster,” Multichannel.com. http://multichannel.com/news/orphan-articles/nfl-network-finally-adds-twc-bright-house-distribution-roster/126037#sthash.406t6dcG.dpuf (accessed July 25, 2014)

(6) “MLB Network learns lesson,” Washington Times.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/13/mlb-network-learns-from-nfls-mistakes/ (accessed July 25, 2014)

(7) Bloomberg News “As TV Sports Surge, YES Network Extends Yankees Rights Through 2042,” Ad Age. http://adage.com/article/media/tv-sports-surge-extends-yankees-rights-2042/238396/ (accessed July 25, 2014)

(8) The Staff “Fox Sports Midwest gets Royals TV deal,” BizofBaseball.com. http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=514:fox-sports-midwest-gets-royals-tv-deal&catid=40:media-news-television-radio-internet&Itemid=52 (accessed July 25, 2014)


(9) Steve Dilbeck “Time Warner ad campaign may signal movement in Dodgers' TV impasse,” Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/sports/dodgers/dodgersnow/la-sp-dn-dodgers-tv-impasse-20140724-story.html (accessed July 25, 2014)