College Goes Corporate
Marketing Efforts Changing Universities
By Chris Peak

It’s hard to see past the Tostitos Fiesta, Insight, and Capital One Bowls when looking at the marketing and sponsorship of college sports. Those are obvious examples of corporate money in the college game. But as athletic budgets have swelled over the last twenty years, so has the emphasis on corporate partnerships.

As college sports evolved through the 1970’s and into the 1980’s and 1990’s, so did the demands on the athletic departments. Twenty years ago, the majority of marketing ventures were handled through the office of the sports information director: one S.I.D., a couple assistants and a group of eager interns compiling and distributing stats, arranging interviews, sending out press releases and promoting the sports to the fans. Now, the athletic department at a school like Southern Cal. not only boasts a full staff focused solely on marketing, but also a director of corporate sponsorship, a director of business affairs, and numerous assistants for each of those positions. All in addition to a ticketing department, a development team AND a full sports information staff.

SPONSORS WANTED
Jose Eskenazi is the director of sponsorships and licensing at USC. His duties basically represent the athletic department’s non-donation fundraising efforts.

“My job is to bring in revenue to the athletic department through corporate sponsorships and partnerships, licensing of USC’s athletic marks and logos, and general ticket sales,” Eskenazi explained.

The corporate sponsorship/partnership aspect of Eskenazi’s job is probably the one that has grown the most over the years. The licensing and sale of team items has increased in volume and scope, but selling jerseys is still the basic concept. Ticket sales are an age-old revenue producer (and some would say the most pure). But, in the realm of sports marketing, corporate sponsorships and partnerships have become a relatively new – and vital – form of fund-raising.

“The emphasis on generating revenue is much greater now than it has ever been,” Eskenazi said. “At USC, we are one of only two departments that do not receive money from the general university.” The self-sufficient model requires that, as the costs of operating an athletic department continue to increase, the fund-raising efforts increase as well.

At the University of Pittsburgh, the athletic department is NOT currently self-sufficient. Rex Hough is one of the people working toward that goal.

As Assistant Athletic Director for Sponsorship, Radio, and Television, Hough handles essentially the same duties that Eskenazi works on at USC: the non-donation fund-raising. When he first started with the Pitt athletic department, though, his position didn’t exist.

“My position started in 1997,” Hough said. “We saw an opportunity to put together a formalized program to bring marketing solutions to various companies around the area.”

Basically, the Pitt athletic department decided that the marketing and sponsorship space already available wasn’t being maximized.

“If you look back at Pitt stadium,” Hough said, “it was basically Mellon and Coke that were the main sponsors. In 1997 we increased to eight different sponsors and a few additional sponsors at different levels.”

It was around that time that a number of major sports, both professional and collegiate, began realizing sponsorship possibilities that hadn’t been considered previously. Naming rights for new stadiums were sold to the highest bidder. Basketball team websites were posted on the top of the backboard to be viewed during overhead shots of plays in the paint. The Chicago Bears even took on sponsorship for the team as a whole, although the idea lost interest quite quickly. Boston College’s head football coach is Tom O’Brien…but his official title is the “Gregory P. Barber and Family Head Football Coach at Boston College.” Apparently the “at Boston College” portion of the title leaves room for the Barber Family to sponsor a head coach elsewhere.

From a university’s perspective, the advantage of the shift in advertising and sponsorship is clear: increased revenue. Hough understands the sponsor’s stake as well.

“People identify with sports teams and people have a feeling of loyalty to a sports team. I think that’s why advertisers like to associate. Heinz gets good representation at Heinz Field from both the Steelers and the Panthers. That builds not only brand awareness but it gives them an affiliation with those teams.”

It would seem, though, that the association between sponsor and team is only advantageous to the advertiser if the team is successful. No sponsor wants to be affiliated with a loser. That isn’t a problem Eskenazi has had at USC lately.

“The national championships have been huge,” he said. “Our advance season ticket sales are at an all-time high. Corporate interest in our program is very high.”

The correlation between ticket sales and corporate interest is not coincidental.

“Winning, especially at this level, creates massive interest. We become more ‘top of mind,’ Eskenazi said of the Trojans’ success.

Hough concurred about the impact of winning.

“It opens more doors for you. Everyone wants to be part of a winner.”

He did add one caveat: “You’re only national champs for one year.”

In Eskenazi’s case, that’s not entirely accurate, and he sees the advantages of USC’s repeated success.

“It makes communicating our message easier because we are breaking through all of the clutter.”

HOW MUCH IS TOO MUCH
The sponsors have, as of late, decided to place more value on their stake in the relationship.

“Eight or 10 years ago, sponsors were happy with logo recognition,” Hough said from his office in the Peterson Events Center. “Today that has changed. They want to see a return on their dollar: people going into their store, traffic on their website, etc.”

Indeed, it appears that the other direction of the two-way street called corporate partnerships serves traffic that wants value. The advent of large-scale sponsorships created revenue opportunities for the universities and sports teams; now the sponsors have come calling for returns on their investments.

“In the last five years, people are looking for value,” Hough said. “The sign on the scoreboard is great, but they want something to measure. They’re being held accountable for the money they spend on sponsorship.”

In addition to commissioning more market research studies than the average consumer would care to consider, sponsors have taken to ensuring that their message is properly received. Gatorade, for instance, dictates the placement of each Gatorade cooler, each Gatorade bottle, even each Gatorade towel. Teams that enter into sponsorship agreements with Gatorade receive a diagram displaying the proper location of each item. It seems to the price to pay for the Gatorade money.

Both Eskenazi and Hough made it clear that they worry about how far the trend in corporate sponsorships and partnerships will go.

“I feel that the reliance on corporate sponsorships will continue to increase,” Eskenazi said. “Most universities will then have to strike a balance between bringing the revenue and not over-commercializing themselves.”

Hough said that Pitt has tried to self-monitor the number of corporate sponsors.

“We don’t want to be over-saturated. We have limits on how many sponsors we have on the scoreboard or on the scorers’ table.”

While it is reassuring that both men have the same opinion about knowing when to say when, one can’t help but think of how far things have come in the last twenty years, and only wonder about the next twenty.

Chris Peak covers college sports for Rivals.com.