Unlimited Upside Potential

On January 26, Full Sail University was fortunate to host the Founder's Dinner for the National Sports Forum, the largest sports marketing conference in the country.  Several of my colleagues and team members were then able to attend the conference itself over the following three days.  The Forum itself is an interesting convergence of sports businesses -- teams, marketers, agencies, college, technology companies and more -- all vying to create business for the business of sports.  One of my students, attending such a conference for the first time, met up with me at lunch.  "Josh," he said, with his eyes opened wide, like one of Willy Wonka's children visiting the chocolate factory for the first time.  "I never knew there were so many different kinds of businesses connected to sports."

I was thrilled to see that he got it.

The business of sports has never been more interesting.  The world used to be simply about the games -- how many people could you get into the stadium, and at what price per ticket?  Teams would play for three hours, add up the score, and tally the gate receipts.  The math ended there.  Front offices were filled with ex-players who had never been to college or studied much finance or business.  Businesses operated on salesmanship, charisma and intuition.

Now, the geeks run the show.  Big data rules the day.  Athletic performance is measurable by biofeedback rather than mythology.  Consumer behavior is trackable through RFID chips and GPS technology.  Businesses can operate towards maximum efficiency because they know when to push certain initiatives towards whom, as well as when to do it, and to what specific point inside the ballpark or stadium.

Franchises and agencies have the ability, and maybe the necessity, to be their own media companies.  To be relevant, they need to engage their fans 24 hours a day 7 days a week.  They need to create relevant content by converting old agate type box scores into modern visual infographics.  They connect by creating e-cards for posting on over 130 different media streams.  They make films, run events and productions, and create a variety of different kinds of engageable media that allows them to produce their own message, rather than run it through the filter of conventional electronic media.  The good ones see the interconnectivity between music, video, content, storytelling and the ultimate product on the field of play.  They understand how it drives business.

Because of these developments, sponsors have more opportunities to connect with properties than ever before, if the properties can figure out how to manage and sell them, and if potential sponsors, particularly those business that have never been in sponsorship before, can see the light shining on potential new clients.

Even at the Forum, supposedly a gathering of the elite of the business, it is clear that there are those who bask in the glow of these new opportunities, and those who are blinded by the brightness of the light.  It is obvious who truly understands the concept, and who is just selling something.  It is a time for the true standard bearers to rise and lead the industry into this brand new world.

I plan to be one of them.

Resources
Bradley, M. (2012, April 03). [Web log message]. Retrieved from http://sportsjournalism.org/sports-media-news/professional-sports-teams-becoming-their-own-media-entities/
Fischer-Baum, R. (2013, January 02). The best sports infographics of 2012. Retrieved from deadspin.com
Laird, S. (2011, December 02). How microchipped jerseys are changing hockey fans' experience. Retrieved from Mashable.com
Seaver, R. (2013, January 31). Retrieved from sports-forum.com
Tom, C. & Fienlieb, D. (2012, October 5). Big sports: Powered by big data. Forbes, DOI: Forbes.com

Live Strong or Die

The conventional wisdom is that Lance Armstrong has wrecked his once-sterling brand and reputation in the kind of crash that he used to avoid in his sport.  But how sterling was that reputation, really, before his Oprah confessional?  In the seven-plus years since he retired from the Tour de France and most of his competitive racing, Armstrong suffered through accusations, personal attacks and formal investigations, enough that any casual sports fan certainly would cast a jaundiced eye at any of Armstrong's significant accomplishments.  In other words, the brand had already taken a hit.

The argument is about what happens next to Armstrong's legacy, and it's a more difficult question than would seem on the surface, because despite the cheating, so much of Armstrong's story remains inspirational on its own, and because so much good has come from his now-tainted accomplishments.

The sport portion of the argument is somewhat easily dismissed.  Sure, Armstrong cheated, but he did so in a sport rife with cheating.  Cycling was -- and probably still is -- so filthy, that once the Tour de France stripped Armstrong of his titles, they couldn't award them to the 2nd or 3rd place finishers in ANY OF THE YEARS in which Armstrong one, because all of them have been found guilty of cheating, admitted to cheating, or are under serious suspicion of cheating.   In the eyes of many competitive cyclists, the moral decision isn't "to cheat or not to cheat", but rather how many people they are willing to hurt in order to avoid getting caught.  In a world full of cheaters, Armstrong was simply the best at it.  But now his name is no longer associated with the best of the sport.

The more poignant question is how Armstrong's admission cuts into the enormous success of the Livestrong foundation, the fighting cancer support and service group that Armstrong originally launched in his own name in 1997.  In sixteen years, the Livestrong Foundation has raised more than $470 million dollars, of which nearly 80 percent has gone directly to survivor support groups and programs.  And of course, Livestrong initiated the ubiquitous support wristbands, which have launched a zillion imitators from the serious to the sublime.  There's been a lot of good-doing here.  Does the end justify the means?

The answer, unfortunately, has to be no, and this is really the big swinging hammer that shatters the glass of Armstrong's image.  Armstrong simply hurt way too many people, encouraging some to make reckless moral decisions, and tarnishing the images of other noble champions.  Armstrong made other people look small and petty, when in fact they should have had the towering might of truth and justice on their side.  He made tons of money, and dated some of the world's most beautiful and talented women, entirely on the premise of a lie.  As a society, we simply have to be against this on principle.

The good news is that Livestrong should live on.  It has done so much good, and having replaced Armstrong's name on the letterhead a decade ago, it is such a brand name of its own that it should be insulated from Armstrong's demise.  It has even lent its name to a soccer stadium, nicely placed in the center of the country, perhaps geographically representing our national focus on curing cancer.  

The shame is that it didn't need to be this way.  Armstrong's recovering from cancer just to be able to compete in the Tour de France should have been inspirational enough.  Admittedly, his winning the Tour de France multiple times in dominating fashion called more attention to his accomplishments, and thus to the causes, but he gave up a good story and a good family in pursuit of legend.  He was Icarus on a bicycle, pedaling too close to the sun.

And in that way, we see the entirety of the value of Armstrong's brand.  It has been erased from the past, replaced in the present, and despite Armstrong's recent contrition, God only knows who would embrace it in the future.

Additional Resources

http://www.livestrong.org
http://examiner.com