Many college athletic departments prohibit – or, at the very least, strictly regulate – alcohol sales at on-campus venues. These programs often do this for the safety of their spectators, and to limit underage drinking as much as possible. However, some schools have began opening up spirit sales on game day, and the University of Oklahoma is the most recent to follow suit.

On October 24, 2018, the University of Oklahoma Board of Regents voted to open up alcohol sales during basketball (both men’s and women’s), baseball, and softball games. These sports will serve as a trial for possible sales during football games, maybe even as early as the 2019 season. Additionally, the Board voted to allow alcohol-related advertising at home sporting events, which would be another source of revenue for the Sooners’ athletic department.

As we all know, college sports (especially football) and alcohol seem to go hand-in-hand. Whether you’re a current student or graduated 30 years ago, tailgating is often the highlight of game day. From having a casual beer with a few friends to creating a party tent, it’s nearly impossible to host a college sporting event without alcohol being present in some way. I think that OU is making a great choice when it comes to boosting concessions revenue – whether the Sooners are winning or losing, fans are going to have a reason to drink. I also think that it’s a smart move to create a “trial” period with the less-popular revenue sports. Diving straight into selling beer during football games could cause an uproar in the stadium, and get the university into a lot of legal trouble. However, by testing the waters with other sports, the Board will have a basis of what to expect for large-scale attendances. The Sooners are also giving themselves some wiggle room to work out all the kinks before football season, which will be beneficial to them in the long run. When it comes to sales, you’re going to make more money if you know what you’re doing and you do it well, point blank. Had the Board voted to jump right into selling Coors Light (or whatever your beer of choice) for the 2019 football season, they would be shooting themselves in the foot. Would they make some money from alcohol sales during that season? Yes. However, if they didn’t have experience selling beer on campus, they would run into some issues on game day that could prevent fans from purchasing alcohol at concession stands – or even coming back to games. From a sales perspective, experience is the only way you will learn how to properly do your job. It’s important to learn from your mistakes, and of course it’s more beneficial for the organization to make smaller mistakes than large-scale screw-ups.

On the other hand, let’s talk about the allowance of alcohol-related advertising. We see it all the time in professional stadiums, on TV, and even on billboards posted across town. Many colleges and universities prohibit liquor ads on their campus, most likely as a means to reduce underage drinking. Do I personally think that beer and wine ads will make minors want to consume alcohol? Probably not. You may think otherwise, which puts us at the same standstill that college athletic departments have been in since the dawn of time. Everyone’s experiences are different, and when it comes to marketing, you have to take your target market’s thoughts, beliefs, and morals into account. There’s a lot of money in alcohol sales, so universities must weigh the pros and cons of promoting these products on their campus. OU is not the first college campus to allow the sale of beer at athletic events, so they have the mistakes of others to learn from as a guide. Overall, I think the University of Oklahoma is making a great decision that will increase revenue and fan engagement.

What do you think? Should more college campuses allow the sale of alcohol at their athletic events? If so, should the selection be kept strictly to beer, or should wine and liquor be introduced as well?

Let me preface this post with a disclaimer: Unfortunately, this post is not about the Dallas Cowboys. While the aptly-named “America’s Team” may be leading sales in the professional leagues, there’s a new sheriff in town when it comes to college football. To almost no one’s surprise, it’s Texas A&M University. According to a Forbes study published in September 2018, the Aggies boast the most valuable team in college football, raking in $148 million in revenue and $107 million in profit. This shot the team right up to #1, surpassing the Texas Longhorns – their in-state rival and the previous breadwinners. It’s no shock that Texas A&M was able to generate such a hefty revenue: donors, students, and the public all rallied together to raise $485 million to cover the costs of renovating Kyle Field, which began in 2013. But how can a team who hasn’t won a national championship in nearly 80 years become so financially successful? My guess is that  brand recognition has a heavy influence. When college football fans see maroon, they most likely associate it with Texas A&M. The color is fairly unique, and the team has definitely made an impact on the national stage from athletics to academics. Topping all that off with Kyle Field and the other illustrious football facilities, it’s hard to stay away from the Aggies when you’re a sports fan.

However, there’s no revenue without sales. Just knowing about a brand or product isn’t enough – you need a team that can work their tails off to promote whatever it is that you’re selling. While it definitely helps to have deep-pocketed donors standing at the ready to throw their money at you, the university must provide a desirable product or service that makes it all worth it. Texas A&M and the 12th Man Foundation have done a great job at promoting their athletic program, especially the football team. The latter somewhat sells itself with how prevalent football is in the south, but they really take it to the next level with the videos, concessions, and facilities that come with the program. Another factor that comes into play is ticket sales. While season tickets seem to be the gift that keeps on giving, the different flex packs and discounts available to the public throughout the season are easy selling points. Combined with the ease of StubHub, Texas A&M’s official partner for reselling tickets, it’s now easier than ever to see the Aggies in action. Regardless of what happens on the field, the support and camaraderie apparent at Texas A&M almost ensures that there will never be a deficit in the athletic department.

So what do you think – will Texas A&M stay on top for years to come, or will their rise to stardom be short-lived?

After years of boasting a season ticket waitlist of nearly 200,000 people, the Washington Redskins have finally opened up season and single-game ticket sales to the public. According to a Washington Post article published in June 2018, season patrons will have access to more benefits, including reduced concession stand prices and invitations to offseason events. While this may be exciting to some Redskins fans, many are left wondering how the franchise was able to suddenly offer so many ticket options in such a short period of time. This causes fans to question whether or not there was ever a waitlist, and if there was, did it really close in at 200,000 people? After all, FedEx Field, which houses the Washington team, rarely hosts sellout crowds. According to an ESPN article, the average home attendance was just over 75,000, despite the stadium’s capacity of 82,000. So why did the Redskins advertise such a prestigious waiting list? My prediction: to increase sales.

With fan attendance declining, marketers were most likely scrambling to increase turnout at FedEx Field – in 2017, the Redskins saw the lowest home attendance average in over 10 years. The team presumably aimed to create a higher demand for their product by overestimating their potential sales. By projecting such a large demand for tickets, more patrons would feel rushed to secure their seats while they still can, increasing overall sales and turnout. Ultimately, without fans the team would have no sponsorships, which would put the Redskins in financial trouble. Sponsors want to support teams with large fan bases, as this usually leads to more interaction and engagement with their product. Without fans there is no exposure, and without exposure there are no fans. If the team is able to convince the public that there is a high demand for their tickets, more people will be willing to purchase season packages so they, too, can be part of something special. Think about it: have you ever purchased something that was “limited edition”, just to later realize that you had no use for that product or did not actually need it? Companies advertise that their products are “selling out fast” or produce limited batches to make people purchase them without a second thought, and to me it seems like the Redskins are employing this same tactic with their season tickets. It’s a smart move when it comes to sales, but can be incredibly frustrating in the consumer’s eye. The last thing a company needs is backlash from their target market, which may be just what the Washington team created with their overzealous sales projections.

If you were a current (or even potential) season ticket holder, would you be upset with the Redskins for overprojecting the numbers on their waitlist? Or would you be content with having the opportunity to watch your favorite team and enjoy the new perks available to you? If you would not be happy with this marketing style, would you continue to purchase season (or even single game) tickets?

Colin Kaepernick. You’ve probably heard this name countless times within the past 72 hours, mixed in with the phrases “Nike” and “protest”. If you haven’t heard of Colin Kaepernick, here’s a little backstory: during the 2016 football season, the then-quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers began taking a knee during the National Anthem to peacefully protest racial injustices occurring in the United States. Some players followed suit, while others continued to stand during the pregame activities. This raised some eyebrows across the country, and it quickly became a hot topic. Whether or not you were a football fan, it was nearly impossible to escape what was happening on the field.

As for recent events, on September 4^th, 2018, Nike debuted ads to celebrate the 30^th anniversary of their “Just Do It” campaign, one of which featured Kaepernick. Superimposed over an image of his face is text that reads “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything.” The Internet had a field day over the new ad campaign; just in time for the 2018 season, Kaepernick was becoming a popular discussion point once again. Many users took to social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, to express disdain, as images of destroyed Nike apparel flooded timelines and news feeds. People began cutting the Nike logo off of their clothing and burning any Nike shoes they owned as a way to “protest” against the new ad campaign. While the idea is definitely there, many supporters of Kaepernick and the campaign raised an important question: How does this affect Nike’s sales? If these people have already purchased the apparel, and Nike has their money, how is destroying it going to affect the company in any way?

According to a recent CNBC article, Nike ran the numbers and discovered that 60% of their revenue comes from outside North America. Many of these countries already disagree with the way that the United States handles its race issues, so the new ads may actually boost sales in these areas. In addition, Nike has built such a strong reputation over the years in it’s home country that it may not even feel the affects of these “protests” displayed on social media. This brand loyalty, both foreign and domestic, means that there is an inelastic demand for their products. In other words, people are going to buy Nike no matter what. Will there be people who refuse to ever buy from the company again? Of course. Will there be people who completely ignore the marketing aspect and continue to purchase products they enjoy? Definitely. Had a smaller, lesser-known company made the same bold move, they most likely would have fallen, or at least had to increase prices to cover the losses incurred. However, the sheer volume of Nike’s sales allows them to stabilize their prices without causing any major damage to revenue.

Whether or not the ads increase Nike’s revenue, they are definitely giving the brand extra exposure online. Tons of people, whether they follow sports or not, are talking about the company, allowing it to reach a much broader audience. Making Colin Kaepernick the face of the anniversary campaign was a bold strategy for Nike, and from a marketing standpoint I think it’s going to pay off for them in the long run.