1991 Michigan Marketing & Athletics video

Submitted by Baughlieve on

Another interesting video from Dr. Sap. They even mention the Bo hat.

A look back at how the University of Michigan viewed the Michigan Football Experience in 1991 and how it was interwoven with marketing efforts that promoted the school and the athletic department all in the name in keeping ticket prices down and affordable. Interesting to hear that there was no mention of marketing the "brand" and nothing to the effect of, "if it ain't broke, break it."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKGYdgz29oM

 

Bonus:

1991 Michigan Replay Steve Everitt Segment

Includes footage of the play where he broke his jaw against ND. It's amazing how he came back from that injury in just three weeks.

Bando Calrissian

February 25th, 2015 at 9:02 PM ^

I can just hear Art Vuolo making that same pitch in 2011, but complaining that Dave Brandon shut him down because Michigan took the radio guides in-house to make more money.

It's amazing what watching that video underscores: Michigan built an athletics juggernaut on building fans' goodwill and trust. And it was pretty much pissed away over the last five years.

cutter

February 26th, 2015 at 5:52 PM ^

Reading some of the comments here, I have to think some of you didn't actually watch the video.

It opens up with Brandstatter saying college football is a big business and that  marketing and promotion are key to its success.  

Than Dave Triveline, the AD for Business Operations, goes on to say that UM needs to entertain the customer with more than the athletic event itself.  One of his quotes is that "the customer needs to have more for their dollar".  Brandstatter then goes on to say that Michigan is looking to make the football game the centerpiece of a complete afternoon or evening.

In the next part, Brandstatter talks about how Michigan gets the word out "in unique ways".  We then hear the segment about the free radio guides, which is a sure indication we're in the pre-internet, pre-email, pre-Twitter days of promotion (not to mention a few years before college football really took off on cable).  And by the way, the guides have sponsor ads on them so "we can give them out free to the public".

Brandstatter then goes on to say that "marketing, advertising, and promotion are important to keeping ticket prices in line".  That's an interesting statement that we'll come to later.  He also adds that this keeps the "Athletic for All" concept alive at Michigan.  For t hose of you who don't know, this was what Crisler talked about when he upgraded the women's athletic facilities at UM in the late 1920s with some of the money raised to build the football stadium.

Triveline then goes on to say marketing is part of public relations, and talks about the Bo hat.  He adds how catalogue and mail order sales to fans outside the immediate area help promote the team and the university.

Now I do appreciate how Moeller and Brandstatter both say how important it is to keep ticket prices down so people can come to the games.  It's a wonderful thought--and I have to imagine that was a talking point going into the interview.  Why?

Because according to a March 1991 article in the Baltimore Sun, Michigan was projecting a $2.8M operating fund deficit and a $750K deficit overall for the fiscal year.  Michigan did have $17M in cash reserves, but $10M was earmarked for improvements to the football stadium.  Although I haven't research it yet, I suspect there was a ticket price increase going into the 1991 season in order to balance the books.

The article doesn't mention UM's AD budget, but it does say that Ohio State's revenue was $23M and Notre Dame was at $13M.  Michigan would have probably been in the same range.

Here's the article;  http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1991-03-10/sports/1991069094_1_interco…

The Chicago Tribune also had another article like it at http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-03-04/sports/9101200518_1_schul…

Outside the word "brand", most of these concepts, etc. could have come straight from David Brandon.  These articles and the video in this point to a reality that was in place 25 years ago--the money to support college athletics in general and the Michigan Athletic Department has to come from somewhere.  Television is now a bigger part of the revenue stream along with donations.  As a percentage of revenue, the money from tickdets is actually a lot less than 1991.

Here's the challenge I would make for anyone looking to buck the status quo (I'm talking to you, Brian Cook and John U. Bacon).  Design for me what the Michigan Athletic Department should look like in 2015.  How many teams should it support?  How big should its budget be?  What is its mission statement?  How many employees should it have?  Should it be financially self-supporting or not?  Where would the revenue come from for your hypothetical athletic department?  

Once football spring practice is over and we're in the doldrums regarding major college sports (basketball team in NIT, hockey team post-season a question mark), I'd really like you to spend some time on this and come up with the answers.   The FY 2016 AD budget will get presented to the Regents and released to the general public sometime in June.  That would be a perfect time for you to put together your alternate athletic department with its budget and mission statement.

Let's see if you're willing to embrace the Tar Baby.