Big East may sell name to C-7

[keefe]

I don't necessarily consider us a new brand. We'll be a new brand by name, but the conference will be made up of a collection of already highly regarded brands that are doing something that hasn't been done before. I'd like to see them go in fresh with a new conference name and logo and utilize the value of each school's individual brand to create the gestalt of the new conference.

What are you saying?? If we don't have the Big East name we are launching a new brand. Each school has a unique identity with its own qualities and characteristics but the Conference is the Brand.

[GGGG]

I think the C-7 should take the old name, invite Butler and maybe Xavier to join, and believe it or not, invite UC and UConn, into the league for all sports except football.  If they leave later then we cann replace them with these other schools (Creighton, Dayton, St. Louis, etc.).  That would be a truly elite league.  UC and UConn may leave if they get an ACC,SEC, or B1G invite but lets stick the bread in the gravy while its still hot.

UC and UConn are simply not happening.

[GGGG]

MSG is a space available for rent.  As long as our rental checks clears, we are in.  Now if we leave, or change, that gives MSG the opportunity to shop that rental to anyone else who wants that week ... be it the ACC, A-10 or a rich upper west sider that wants to throw a bar mitvah.

There are apparently provisions in the contract with the BE that allow the MSG to void the contract with the BE or whomever inherits the contract.

[Pakuni]

[GGGG]

Agreed

Keep in mind that it's not a choice between the cost of the Big East name and a $0 cost to develop a new name. Choosing to create a new brand is going to incur some VERY high costs (advertising, development, market research) and also come with a bit of a lag time before it becomes 'common parlance.' If the Big East isn't being ransomed for some ridiculous sum (I won't put a number to this without more specifics) then you pay for it and save a lot of headaches.

I think you are overestimating the potential costs.  I can't imagine, for instance, what "advertising" will need to be done that isn't done already.  I would guess that it wouldn't go much into the seven figures, and I think the BE will want more than that.

[akmarq]

I think you are overestimating the potential costs.  I can't imagine, for instance, what "advertising" will need to be done that isn't done already.  I would guess that it wouldn't go much into the seven figures, and I think the BE will want more than that.

I'm not going to go look up a bunch of arbitrary 'average costs' but when I said advertising I was thinking of additional advertising to get the word out/plant the seed for the new name. I figure they would want to do a bit of a 'blitz' when the name is announced (granted, they may do this anyway as a 'rebranding' of the Big East).

I was more thinking about the cost of developing a new logo and name. They will certainly hire a brand management consultant to do this and anything with 'consultant' in the title can be pricey.

Again, not saying that the costs are 100% prohibative and I certainly think there's a price at which you pass on the BE name. I was more pointing out that deciding to do your own brand development carries not only intangible risk (how good is the new branding) but also serious financial investment.

My thinking is guided by my home city, which paid $1mil to get a new marketing campaign/advertising slogan. I have no idea where that fee fits into the scheme of things, but I think it shows that the costs could at least be non-negliable.

[keefe]

I think you are overestimating the potential costs.  I can't imagine, for instance, what "advertising" will need to be done that isn't done already.  I would guess that it wouldn't go much into the seven figures, and I think the BE will want more than that.

The New Coke repositioning cost 9 figures. And was an abysmal failure. The SW Bell morph into the new AT&T and Esso into Exxon cost the same.

Closer to home, Li-Ning's global marketing spend for the D Wade Brand launch will exceed $40MM in the first year. And that is just above the line spend. Incremental to that is research which would approximate $4-5MM then below the line market or trade support that will easily exceed $20MM.  That is more than $60MM in direct and indirect marketing spend in Year 1.

Launching a Brand is bloody difficult and extremely expensive. $60MM+ for an athletic shoe.

[warriorchick]

I say that we pay to keep "The Big East"  and offer to kick in a little extra if the remaining teams agree to call themselves "The Big Least".

[klyrish]

But is there really advertising for a collegiate conference on the same level as a shoe or perfume?

It's not like they're trying to get you to buy Big East high-tops or a full line of smartphone accessories. It's the name of the conference 10-12 teams are playing in. The name/advertising will sort of take care of itself after the initial announcement, will it not? It'll be all over every sports news outlet for months and months and then once bball season starts up again, it'll be in constant mention due to the games being on and everyone talking about the conference.

But maybe I'm wrong and it is as big an undertaking.

[RealWarriorFan]

I like " The Conference" , let's go BIG!

[Pakuni]

The New Coke repositioning cost 9 figures. And was an abysmal failure. The SW Bell morph into the new AT&T and Esso into Exxon cost the same.

Closer to home, Li-Ning's global marketing spend for the D Wade Brand launch will exceed $40MM in the first year. And that is just above the line spend. Incremental to that is research which would approximate $4-5MM then below the line market or trade support that will easily exceed $20MM.  That is more than $60MM in direct and indirect marketing spend in Year 1.

Launching a Brand is bloody difficult and extremely expensive. $60MM+ for an athletic shoe.

The difference here is:

- that while the conference name is new, the entities that make up the conference are well-established "products" with built-in customer bases. They aren't creating a new soft drink or shoe in need of a marketplace. They aren't creating something out of whole cloth. They're putting a new name on a product already established in the marketplace.

- the new conference already will have a multibillion entity - likely Fox Broadcasting Company - performing the lion's share of marketing on its behalf. The new conference won't have to find a way to get into people's homes and consciousness, Fox largely will do it for them, and do it far more effectively across a wide spectrum of media platforms than the conference ever could itself.
Think about it:
NFL on Fox
Fox News
Fox Business
FX
American Idol
Daytona 500
College Football on Fox
UFC
These and many more platforms can and will be used to promote the new conference, and all not costing the conference members a penny.

[keefe]

But is there really advertising for a collegiate conference on the same level as a shoe or perfume?

It's not like they're trying to get you to buy Big East high-tops or a full line of smartphone accessories. It's the name of the conference 10-12 teams are playing in. The name/advertising will sort of take care of itself after the initial announcement, will it not? It'll be all over every sports news outlet for months and months and then once bball season starts up again, it'll be in constant mention due to the games being on and everyone talking about the conference.

But maybe I'm wrong and it is as big an undertaking.

This is an umbrella brand positioning. Each school under the umbrella sells tees, jerseys, mugs, shot glasses, dog cushions, tickets, local broadcast rights, etc... Building the Conference Brand and vesting value in its equity is crucial to all of this. Think about it this way:

Painted on the Al Court were the words "Conference USA."

Those words were changed to "Big East."

Which did you feel better about? And did you feel a lot better about it? Brands are powerful mechanisms for making you feel good and want to be a part of it. See all those people getting up off their wallets to buy NFL licensed merchandise? It works. But it costs money.

[GGGG]

The New Coke repositioning cost 9 figures. And was an abysmal failure. The SW Bell morph into the new AT&T and Esso into Exxon cost the same.

Closer to home, Li-Ning's global marketing spend for the D Wade Brand launch will exceed $40MM in the first year. And that is just above the line spend. Incremental to that is research which would approximate $4-5MM then below the line market or trade support that will easily exceed $20MM.  That is more than $60MM in direct and indirect marketing spend in Year 1.

Launching a Brand is bloody difficult and extremely expensive. $60MM+ for an athletic shoe.

It would be absolutely nothing like that.  We have done pretty extensive branding initiatives here, with focus groups, message development, graphics, etc. for low six figures.  This would obviously be more extensive than that, but since they aren't going to launch an extensive external advertising campaign, the costs are going to be held in check.

I mean really, you come up with a catchy name...a catchy logo...and the branding of that conference is done through success on the court.  Yeah, you have to do some advertising, but it is likely advertising that you do already.  

[GGGG]

This is an umbrella brand positioning. Each school under the umbrella sells tees, jerseys, mugs, shot glasses, dog cushions, tickets, local broadcast rights, etc... Building the Conference Brand and vesting value in its equity is crucial to all of this. Think about it this way:

Painted on the Al Court were the words "Conference USA."

Those words were changed to "Big East."

Which did you feel better about? And did you feel a lot better about it? Brands are powerful mechanisms for making you feel good and want to be a part of it. See all those people getting up off their wallets to buy NFL licensed merchandise? It works. But it costs money.

Right.  Brand equity.  But really how much is that worth?

[Coleman]

It would be absolutely nothing like that.  We have done pretty extensive branding initiatives here, with focus groups, message development, graphics, etc. for low six figures.  This would obviously be more extensive than that, but since they aren't going to launch an extensive external advertising campaign, the costs are going to be held in check.

I mean really, you come up with a catchy name...a catchy logo...and the branding of that conference is done through success on the court.  Yeah, you have to do some advertising, but it is likely advertising that you do already.  

You make it sound so easy. The fact is, it isn't. Look at the debacle the Big 10 had with just naming their divisions. I'm sure they did their due diligence and market research and it still turned out that everyone hated it. The biggest risk here is you find something that is divisive or unpopular (same issue with finding a new mascot). Look at how much time and effort MU put into that over the past 20 years.

If you have something that is well-liked and popular, you keep it. And you pay for it. This should be a no brainer. Pay for the Big East name.

Also, I think a lot of people here are overestimating the brand equity of each of the C-7 schools. Seton Hall, Providence, etc. don't carry much weight with people who aren't already Big East fans. Hell, there's still a lot of people out there who think Marquette is located in Michigan. Besides maybe Georgetown, we don't have a school  that carries instant recognition with the general population in our group (Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, Notre Dame and West Virginia are those kinds of schools, the C-7 just aren't) But people know the Big East. If its something that people can recognize quickly and associate with elite college basketball, that is worth the cost.

[Aughnanure]

Oooh ... oooh ... oooh! I can't wait to see all the folks coming out of the wordwork to agree with you on this.

I agree.

[GGGG]

You make it sound so easy. The fact is, it isn't. Look at the debacle the Big 10 had with just naming their divisions. I'm sure they did their due diligence and market research and it still turned out that everyone hated it. The biggest risk here is you find something that is divisive or unpopular (same issue with finding a new mascot). Look at how much time and effort MU put into that over the past 20 years.

If you have something that is well-liked and popular, you keep it. And you pay for it. This should be a no brainer. Pay for the Big East name.

You make it sound so easy.  What value do you place on it?  What price is too high?

[Coleman]

It is a lot easier to shell out for something that already works than try to make one from scratch.

How much? I don't know. I don't know enough about the financials. But I think you definitely need to be willing to pay more than what it costs to build a new one. Because a new one is a crap shoot. It could work. It might not. This works. So you pay the premium.

[Tugg Speedman]

It is a lot easier to shell out for something that already works than try to make one from scratch.

How much? I don't know. I don't know enough about the financials. But I think you definitely need to be willing to pay more than what it costs to build a new one. Because a new one is a crap shoot. It could work. It might not. This works. So you pay the premium.

+1

It is not issue of paying for the Big East name or paying nothing.  The new conference either shells out bucks for the the Big East name or bucks to develop a new name.

[warriorchick]

It is a lot easier to shell out for something that already works than try to make one from scratch.

How much? I don't know. I don't know enough about the financials. But I think you definitely need to be willing to pay more than what it costs to build a new one. Because a new one is a crap shoot. It could work. It might not. This works. So you pay the premium.

And keep in mind that if they sell, the conference leftovers are going to have to come up with a name and a brand for themselves.  There is no way they are going to sell their old brand for less than what it will cost them to develop a new one.

[Spaniel with a Short Tail]

If the C-7 end up having to change conference names, Marquette University should be designated to lead the transition based on how smoothly and quickly they managed the transition from Warriors to whatever it is today.

[Windyplayer]

It is a lot easier to shell out for something that already works than try to make one from scratch.

How much? I don't know. I don't know enough about the financials. But I think you definitely need to be willing to pay more than what it costs to build a new one. Because a new one is a crap shoot. It could work. It might not. This works. So you pay the premium.

Its not an issue of working or not working. Its a matter of liking or disliking. The product under the umbrella is what ultimately matters in this context.

[mu_hilltopper]

Pay whatever it takes, within reason, to keep the Big East name.  It is extremely valuable.

[Norm]

If the C-7 end up having to change conference names, Marquette University should be designated to lead the transition based on how smoothly and quickly they managed the transition from Warriors to whatever it is today.

Unless they bring back the Warriors nickname for the new conference? Get some donors to cough up enough cash to pay for the Big East name? Think about it...=)

[keefe]

It would be absolutely nothing like that.  We have done pretty extensive branding initiatives here, with focus groups, message development, graphics, etc. for low six figures.  This would obviously be more extensive than that, but since they aren't going to launch an extensive external advertising campaign, the costs are going to be held in check.

I mean really, you come up with a catchy name...a catchy logo...and the branding of that conference is done through success on the court.  Yeah, you have to do some advertising, but it is likely advertising that you do already.  

Wow. It's that simple, huh? Catchy name, cool logo? Branding is done through success on the court? Is that right?

I guess Michael Porter was wrong when he said never, ever confuse product with brand. Like you just did.