Who gets more out of their advertising dollar?

AirplaneFan

Advanced
Aug 20, 2002
174
0
It seems to me that SW gets more out of its sports advertising dollar than AA. While SW does not hold naming rights to areanas, when I watch either the local team (Red Sox) or sports nationally, SW is the team that is more out front. How many stadiums have a Big SW Airline sign on the outfield walls? On ESPN, I must see nightly an outfielder making a play (or watching the ball) with the SW sign clearly visible,. Delta is either the official airline of the Boston Red Sox or Fenway Park (they advertise it so little I don''t know), but SW is the airline that sponsors them on all the local telecasts.

AA put its name on 2 arenas where it has a captive market. I don''t think that is nearly as effective as putting signs up and advertising with tv spots.

Didn''t NHL have SW signs along the boards in all NHL playoff games including Colorado? I believe that NHL made Continental Arena folks put up SW signs for the Stanley Cup Finals.
 
----------------
On 6/26/2003 10:32:34 PM AirplaneFan wrote:


It seems to me that SW gets more out of its sports advertising dollar than AA.  While SW does not hold naming rights to areanas, when I watch either the local team (Red Sox) or sports nationally, SW is the team that is more out front.  How many stadiums have a Big SW Airline sign on the outfield walls?  On ESPN, I must see nightly an outfielder making a play (or watching the ball) with the SW sign clearly visible,.  Delta is either the "official" airline of the Boston Red Sox or Fenway Park (they advertise it so little I don''t know), but SW is the airline that sponsors them on all the local telecasts.

AA put its name on 2 arenas where it has a captive market.  I don''t think that is nearly as effective as putting signs up and advertising with tv spots.

Didn''t NHL have SW signs along the boards in all NHL playoff games including Colorado?  I believe that NHL made Continental Arena folks put up SW signs for the Stanley Cup Finals. 

----------------​
I posted this before, but here it is again. Measured as a percentage of revenue, WN spends 3 times as much as AA. Three times as much. That''s a lot of advertising. WN advertises like a drunken sailor compared to AA''s staid conservative ad budget.

Which is more effective? Who knows?

WN advertises on probably every major league baseball telecast. They are (were?) the official airline of the NFL.
 
----------------
On 6/26/2003 10:32:34 PM AirplaneFan wrote:


It seems to me that SW gets more out of its sports advertising dollar than AA. While SW does not hold naming rights to areanas, when I watch either the local team (Red Sox) or sports nationally, SW is the team that is more out front. How many stadiums have a Big SW Airline sign on the outfield walls? On ESPN, I must see nightly an outfielder making a play (or watching the ball) with the SW sign clearly visible,. Delta is either the "official" airline of the Boston Red Sox or Fenway Park (they advertise it so little I don't know), but SW is the airline that sponsors them on all the local telecasts.

AA put its name on 2 arenas where it has a captive market. I don't think that is nearly as effective as putting signs up and advertising with tv spots.

Didn't NHL have SW signs along the boards in all NHL playoff games including Colorado? I believe that NHL made Continental Arena folks put up SW signs for the Stanley Cup Finals.

----------------​
I posted this before, but here it is again. Measured as a percentage of revenue, WN spends 3 times as much as AA. Three times as much. That's a lot of advertising. WN advertises like a drunken sailor compared to AA's staid conservative ad budget.

Which is more effective? Who knows?

WN advertises on probably every major league baseball telecast. They are (were?) the official airline of the NFL.

AA advertises a lot also. AA placed its name on a couple of arenas for very good reasons (although certain union officers would disagree).

Which is more effective? I doubt the Madison Ave types would agree.
 
For what it''s worth - we have an amphitheater here that used to be called "Sandstone". Verizon wireless just paid a bunch of money to have it named "Verizon Wireless Amphitheatre". Most folks still call it Sandstone. IMHO, naming sports arenas are a waste of money.
 
----------------
On 6/27/2003 8:43:12 AM FWAAA wrote:


----------------
On 6/27/2003 6:07:17 AM KCFlyer wrote:



For what it's worth - we have an amphitheater here that used to be called "Sandstone". Verizon wireless just paid a bunch of money to have it named "Verizon Wireless Amphitheatre". Most folks still call it Sandstone. IMHO, naming sports arenas are a waste of money.

----------------​
I agree. Stadium naming rights are a waste of money, IMO.

But Verizon really doesn't care what YOU or I call the arena. Companies pay to name arenas so the media will say their name whenever it is mentioned on TV or radio. And the media will use the new name. And many companies find that repetition worth the money.

----------------​
But here's the kicker - AA (and others) paid mega millions to name an arena or a stadium so that the media uses the name. Most in the local media will use the name, but in the national media, the name might be used when returning from a commercial break. Then Southwest spends several million dollars less money to strike a deal with the sports league, so that in the middle of all the action is a huge sign (going out nationally) with SOUTHWEST AIRLINES written on it - regardless of the name on the outside of the arena - and advertisements during games (again nationally) for Southwest. So for the 'hometown team' it would appear that AA (and others) have drastically overpaid for the "exposure" that they get in return.
 
----------------
On 6/27/2003 6:07:17 AM KCFlyer wrote:


For what it''s worth - we have an amphitheater here that used to be called "Sandstone".  Verizon wireless just paid a bunch of money to have it named "Verizon Wireless Amphitheatre".  Most folks still call it Sandstone.  IMHO, naming sports arenas are a waste of money. 

----------------​
I agree. Stadium naming rights are a waste of money, IMO.

But Verizon really doesn''t care what YOU or I call the arena. Companies pay to name arenas so the media will say their name whenever it is mentioned on TV or radio. And the media will use the new name. And many companies find that repetition worth the money.
 
----------------
On 6/27/2003 12:03:44 PM AirLUVer wrote:
Then if you live in the Dallas area, and work by downtown, you see AA big as life on all faces of the arena every time you drive by. The money spent on this arena is probably less than the money spent for spots during the Superbowl for 2 seasons. And this is year round advertising.

All true, but that reaches the folks in Dallas. For those of us who don''t live in Dallas but tune in to a sporting event at American Airlines Center, chances are that we see "Southwest Airlines" more often that we see or hear "American Airlines".

Plus naming rights can be sold if the marketing isn''t what you expected it to be, or to raise money in tough times. The Starplex in Dallas has gone through two or three different names in the 9 years I have been here.

I still long for the good old days when the "Cotton Bowl" was the "Cotton Bowl" and not the "sponser of the year Cotton Bowl".
----------------​
 
----------------
On 6/27/2003 8:50:01 AM KCFlyer wrote:




----------------
On 6/27/2003 8:43:12 AM FWAAA wrote:


----------------
On 6/27/2003 6:07:17 AM KCFlyer wrote:



For what it''s worth - we have an amphitheater here that used to be called "Sandstone".  Verizon wireless just paid a bunch of money to have it named "Verizon Wireless Amphitheatre".  Most folks still call it Sandstone.  IMHO, naming sports arenas are a waste of money. 

----------------​
I agree.  Stadium naming rights are a waste of money, IMO.

But Verizon really doesn''t care what YOU or I call the arena.  Companies pay to name arenas so the media will say their name whenever it is mentioned on TV or radio.  And the media will use the new name.  And many companies find that repetition worth the money. 

----------------​
But here''s the kicker - AA (and others) paid mega millions to name an arena or a stadium so that the media uses the name.  Most in the local media will use the name, but in the national media, the name might be used when returning from a commercial break.  Then Southwest spends several million dollars less money to strike a deal with the sports league, so that in the middle of all the action is a huge sign (going out nationally) with SOUTHWEST AIRLINES written on it - regardless of the name on the outside of the arena - and advertisements during games (again nationally) for Southwest.  So for the ''hometown team'' it would appear that AA (and others) have drastically overpaid for the "exposure" that they get in return. 

----------------​
Actually, the arena deals guarantee the name to be announced for a 20 year period if I remember correctly. WN has to pay up every year.... and believe me it is not thousands of dollars per year WN is paying for advertising. Also with Arena deals your name is announced for other events that go on there, concerts, circuses, boat shows.... and on and on. Then if you live in the Dallas area, and work by downtown, you see AA big as life on all faces of the arena every time you drive by. The money spent on this arena is probably less than the money spent for spots during the Superbowl for 2 seasons. And this is year round advertising.

Plus naming rights can be sold if the marketing isn''t what you expected it to be, or to raise money in tough times. The Starplex in Dallas has gone through two or three different names in the 9 years I have been here.
 
----------------
On 6/27/2003 8:50:01 AM KCFlyer wrote:




----------------
On 6/27/2003 8:43:12 AM FWAAA wrote:


----------------
On 6/27/2003 6:07:17 AM KCFlyer wrote:



For what it''s worth - we have an amphitheater here that used to be called "Sandstone".  Verizon wireless just paid a bunch of money to have it named "Verizon Wireless Amphitheatre".  Most folks still call it Sandstone.  IMHO, naming sports arenas are a waste of money. 

----------------​
I agree.  Stadium naming rights are a waste of money, IMO.

But Verizon really doesn''t care what YOU or I call the arena.  Companies pay to name arenas so the media will say their name whenever it is mentioned on TV or radio.  And the media will use the new name.  And many companies find that repetition worth the money. 

----------------​
But here''s the kicker - AA (and others) paid mega millions to name an arena or a stadium so that the media uses the name.  Most in the local media will use the name, but in the national media, the name might be used when returning from a commercial break.  Then Southwest spends several million dollars less money to strike a deal with the sports league, so that in the middle of all the action is a huge sign (going out nationally) with SOUTHWEST AIRLINES written on it - regardless of the name on the outside of the arena - and advertisements during games (again nationally) for Southwest.  So for the ''hometown team'' it would appear that AA (and others) have drastically overpaid for the "exposure" that they get in return. 

----------------​

At least for Maverick games at the AA Center, "American Airlines" is painted in two places on the court. During a basketball game that lasts 2.5 hours, the words "American Airlines" are shown for probably 1 - 1.5 hours.

Moreover, it seems like you have very little to back up your statement that "it would appear that AA (and others) have drastically overpaid for the exposure that they get in return." I don''t particularly care very much about this issue, but let''s not make such strong conclusions without any hard evidence outside of one person''s observations.
 
----------------
On 6/27/2003 1:14:32 PM buzzkill wrote:

Moreover, it seems like you have very little to back up your statement that "it would appear that AA (and others) have drastically overpaid for the exposure that they get in return." I don''t particularly care very much about this issue, but let''s not make such strong conclusions without any hard evidence outside of one person''s observations.

----------------​
I''ll put it this way - I''ve never booked a flight , bought an oil or snack food or chain saw based on an arena name, stadium name, or football game name.
 
----------------
On 6/27/2003 1:18:48 PM KCFlyer wrote:




I''ll put it this way - I''ve never booked a flight , bought an oil or snack food or chain saw based on an arena name, stadium name, or football game name.​

How about that, we agree on something!

What I''d like to know is if a skybox comes with the deal to have their name put on the Arena?

Maybe its just another perk for the executives thats hidden as an advertising deal.​
 
----------------
On 6/27/2003 1:18:48 PM KCFlyer wrote:




----------------
On 6/27/2003 1:14:32 PM buzzkill wrote:

Moreover, it seems like you have very little to back up your statement that "it would appear that AA (and others) have drastically overpaid for the exposure that they get in return."  I don''t particularly care very much about this issue, but let''s not make such strong conclusions without any hard evidence outside of one person''s observations.

----------------​
I''ll put it this way - I''ve never booked a flight , bought an oil or snack food or chain saw based on an arena name, stadium name, or football game name.   

----------------​

Or have you? Companies spend a lot of money just to make people feel good about their brand, and a lot of smart people seem to think it works. People may or may not think, "I think I will fly AA because I saw their name at the AA Center." But, people very likely think positively about the arena or the team associated with the arena and associate that positive image with a brand that is associated with it.

My real point is that it is easy for each of us to anecdotally conclude that this is or is not a good use of advertising money. A more informed conclusion might come from doing a little research on the subject. Try reading one of the following articles on the subject.

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/8577.html
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/sto.../07/story8.html
http://www.adage.com/images/random/stadium_names.pdf
 
----------------
On 6/27/2003 3:14:30 PM KCFlyer wrote:




----------------
On 6/27/2003 3:08:11 PM buzzkill wrote:


Or have you?  Companies spend a lot of money just to make people feel good about their brand, and a lot of smart people seem to think it works.  People may or may not think, "I think I will fly AA because I saw their name at the AA Center."  But, people very likely think positively about the arena or the team associated with the arena and associate that positive image with a brand that is associated with it.

My real point is that it is easy for each of us to anecdotally conclude that this is or is not a good use of advertising money.  A more informed conclusion might come from doing a little research on the subject.  Try reading one of the following articles on the subject.

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/8577.html
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/sto.../07/story8.html
http://www.adage.com/images/random/stadium_names.pdf

----------------​
On the other hand, the "warm fuzzies" that people hold about a corporation name on a stadium or arena may have petered out just after "Enron Field" was renamed.  And I wonder how much "goodwill" in engendered when a guy has to shell out either top dollar for a plane ticket or a few hundred dollars in change penalties, all the while thinking to themselves "If they didn''t blow their wad on that dad-gum arena they wouldn''t have to bend me over at the ticket counter". 

----------------​

Did you read the articles?
 
----------------
On 6/27/2003 3:08:11 PM buzzkill wrote:


Or have you? Companies spend a lot of money just to make people feel good about their brand, and a lot of smart people seem to think it works. People may or may not think, "I think I will fly AA because I saw their name at the AA Center." But, people very likely think positively about the arena or the team associated with the arena and associate that positive image with a brand that is associated with it.

My real point is that it is easy for each of us to anecdotally conclude that this is or is not a good use of advertising money. A more informed conclusion might come from doing a little research on the subject. Try reading one of the following articles on the subject.

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/perl/story/8577.html
http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/sto.../07/story8.html
http://www.adage.com/images/random/stadium_names.pdf

----------------​
On the other hand, the "warm fuzzies" that people hold about a corporation name on a stadium or arena may have petered out just after "Enron Field" was renamed. And I wonder how much "goodwill" in engendered when a guy has to shell out either top dollar for a plane ticket or a few hundred dollars in change penalties, all the while thinking to themselves "If they didn''t blow their wad on that dad-gum arena they wouldn''t have to bend me over at the ticket counter".
 
----------------
On 6/27/2003 3:56:32 PM buzzkill wrote:


Apples and oranges. AA didn''t purchase the naming rights after it was in financial trouble, so I don''t see how the Sprint comparison is valid.

If one of the benefits of naming rights is that they can sell them, perhaps now that AA is in financial straits, it would be a good time to exercise that right.

And why would corporate sponsorship cause ticket prices to rise? It seems more logical that a corporate sponsorship would do the opposite. (Actually, it seems more logical that the team would charge whatever price maximizes profits, but that is another topic).

I believe I implied "if" prices were to rise. I believe there is a greater chance of that happening than of pricing remaining flat or a reduction in prices.

Did you notice the quote from one of the articles that said, "In a survey of more than 700 people last year, more than one-third said such deals had a positive effect on their opinion of a company while only about 10 percent said they generated negative connotations."? How about this quote: "The value of a deal--as measured against the cost of the same amount of media exposure if it came from paid advertising--shoots up when a game is televised nationally, said Jason McCullough, spokesman for Sponsorship Information Services, a New York-based market research firm."

Are there only 700 people watching a nationally televised sporting event? That''s a problem of "representative samples" - who exactly is being sampled? Yes, people may not know what 3Com or Cisco does, but they know who they are...their shareholders know what they do...and aren''t too happy these days. Were any of those folks included in the 700 people sampled?

Also, the AdAge report graded the 50+ major venues with naming rights. It give its highest grade of "A" to only 4, and the AA Center was one of the four "A''s".

That''s great - but here''s an impression that a lot of people get (bear in mind that there are a lot of people on the internet who believe that the good person in Nigeria wants to make them a millionaire just for helping the transfer some money) - American airlines OWNS the building...not the naming rights. And those people most likely weren''t included in the 700 respondents.

Personally, I don''t really care what your opinion is on this subject, but I think this board could be more useful if people posted opinions with some research or facts behind them.

And that''s fine. Consider me the 701st respondent and I''d be included in your "facts".

----------------​
 

Latest posts