|
Post by atownbeaver on Oct 6, 2023 10:23:35 GMT -8
Building a brand isn't really Barnes' job, at least not directly. More on marketing. OSU probably has dropped the ball to a degree in the area but it's not really on Barnes, IMO. Some of it is no doubt related to funds. OSU isn't Oregon. There's not going to be any OSU QBs on NYC billboards. Oregon fell into their partnership with Nike. And that Nike HQ is in Portland helps them capture that media market. It is uphill sledding for OSU. I think we are missing the boat with NVIDIA and their investment in our engineering program. Their processors are driving the cloud-based gaming systems. They have a presence in Portland although their HQ is in Silicon Valley. Conventional thinking is to get money from them to support our program. I'd ask to borrow their brand power. The money UO gets from Nike (typical AD focus) is worth less to them than the association with the Nike brand. I'd put NVIDIA logos on our field if they would let us. You can justify it with their $50 million investment in the engineering program if your are thinking along the lines of the old model. "Powered by NVIDIA" on the jerseys would draw attention to our academic program. State of the art gaming systems in our locker rooms would get the attention of recruits. Pay former NFL players that are now stars in esports competitions be on the sidelines. The new model is use influencers to build a brand. Also, we need to play in a conference that has members in or close to the east coast time zone. And yes, I'm an old fart shaking my fist at the clouds. Not to denigrate the fine Reser family, who of course have donated millions and millions to OSU... But Oregon is effectively sponsored by the single biggest and most popular sports apparel brand in the world. Oregon State is sponsored by a potato salad company. There is no more succinct way to summarize the difference between the programs. If where was a way to more prominently advertise and get behind NVIDIA, we should absolutely do that. Hell, while we are at it lets start begging Intel for something to (they are only kind of competitors, mostly partners). We aren't going to win trying to be a competing sports apparel backed school. Lets win by leaning in to what we do very well at OSU: Engineering and Computer Science, among so many other things.
|
|
|
Post by green85 on Oct 6, 2023 10:53:05 GMT -8
Oregon fell into their partnership with Nike. And that Nike HQ is in Portland helps them capture that media market. It is uphill sledding for OSU. I think we are missing the boat with NVIDIA and their investment in our engineering program. Their processors are driving the cloud-based gaming systems. They have a presence in Portland although their HQ is in Silicon Valley. Conventional thinking is to get money from them to support our program. I'd ask to borrow their brand power. The money UO gets from Nike (typical AD focus) is worth less to them than the association with the Nike brand. I'd put NVIDIA logos on our field if they would let us. You can justify it with their $50 million investment in the engineering program if your are thinking along the lines of the old model. "Powered by NVIDIA" on the jerseys would draw attention to our academic program. State of the art gaming systems in our locker rooms would get the attention of recruits. Pay former NFL players that are now stars in esports competitions be on the sidelines. The new model is use influencers to build a brand. Also, we need to play in a conference that has members in or close to the east coast time zone. And yes, I'm an old fart shaking my fist at the clouds. Not to denigrate the fine Reser family, who of course have donated millions and millions to OSU... But Oregon is effectively sponsored by the single biggest and most popular sports apparel brand in the world. Oregon State is sponsored by a potato salad company. There is no more succinct way to summarize the difference between the programs. If where was a way to more prominently advertise and get behind NVIDIA, we should absolutely do that. Hell, while we are at it lets start begging Intel for something to (they are only kind of competitors, mostly partners). We aren't going to win trying to be a competing sports apparel backed school. Lets win by leaning in to what we do very well at OSU: Engineering and Computer Science, among so many other things. Would like to clarify a couple of things: 1. Nike the company pays Oregon marketing licensing fees and provide sports apparel and equipment. In the same fashion and at the same level they provide those resources to other collegiate partners branded as Nike 2. Nike the company has both UO and OSU alumni working for them. The opportunity to leverage the relationship with Nike for interns and post competition employment are similar for both schools. 3. UO created their Sports Marketing Degree program at the beginning of the Nike involvement with UO branding change (the "O"). The communication lines were active and open at that time, which led to more Nike influence on the development of the program and offering of internships. 4. People confuse Phil Knight supporting Oregon athletics with Nike supporting Oregon athletics. Yes, Phil's money came from Nike, but Nike the company does not tell Phil to which organizations he should donate money. Phil has donated millions to Stanford, especially their graduate business school. He has also donated to OSU. 5. The Nike brand is most closely associated with Oregon in part because people use this perspective: Nike -> Phil Knight -> Oregon. Yes, Oregon wears Nike uniforms (like dozens of other colleges with sports teams). Yes, Oregon prominently displays the "swoosh" at their facilities. Yes, Nike gets mutual benefit from Oregon on field success and marketing. But that does not mean Nike the company supports Oregon more than other schools. Part of Oregon's marketing success with collegiate athletics is a function of the on field success. Being ranked gets more TV slots, gets more talking head time, and more clicks on the internet. That feeds the marketing animal with more eyeballs and more brand awareness. There are plenty of schools that leverage their on field success for more brand awareness; some that are Nike some that are not. Heck, some schools leverage a coaching hire and limited on field success into HUGE brand awareness (e.g. Colorado). Sometimes building a brand is not just about logos and company names. Sometimes its about the story you can tell and how the story is supported with measurable success (selling more units or winning more games).
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Oct 6, 2023 12:55:04 GMT -8
Not to denigrate the fine Reser family, who of course have donated millions and millions to OSU... But Oregon is effectively sponsored by the single biggest and most popular sports apparel brand in the world. Oregon State is sponsored by a potato salad company. There is no more succinct way to summarize the difference between the programs. If where was a way to more prominently advertise and get behind NVIDIA, we should absolutely do that. Hell, while we are at it lets start begging Intel for something to (they are only kind of competitors, mostly partners). We aren't going to win trying to be a competing sports apparel backed school. Lets win by leaning in to what we do very well at OSU: Engineering and Computer Science, among so many other things. Would like to clarify a couple of things: 1. Nike the company pays Oregon marketing licensing fees and provide sports apparel and equipment. In the same fashion and at the same level they provide those resources to other collegiate partners branded as Nike 2. Nike the company has both UO and OSU alumni working for them. The opportunity to leverage the relationship with Nike for interns and post competition employment are similar for both schools. 3. UO created their Sports Marketing Degree program at the beginning of the Nike involvement with UO branding change (the "O"). The communication lines were active and open at that time, which led to more Nike influence on the development of the program and offering of internships. 4. People confuse Phil Knight supporting Oregon athletics with Nike supporting Oregon athletics. Yes, Phil's money came from Nike, but Nike the company does not tell Phil to which organizations he should donate money. Phil has donated millions to Stanford, especially their graduate business school. He has also donated to OSU. 5. The Nike brand is most closely associated with Oregon in part because people use this perspective: Nike -> Phil Knight -> Oregon. Yes, Oregon wears Nike uniforms (like dozens of other colleges with sports teams). Yes, Oregon prominently displays the "swoosh" at their facilities. Yes, Nike gets mutual benefit from Oregon on field success and marketing. But that does not mean Nike the company supports Oregon more than other schools. Part of Oregon's marketing success with collegiate athletics is a function of the on field success. Being ranked gets more TV slots, gets more talking head time, and more clicks on the internet. That feeds the marketing animal with more eyeballs and more brand awareness. There are plenty of schools that leverage their on field success for more brand awareness; some that are Nike some that are not. Heck, some schools leverage a coaching hire and limited on field success into HUGE brand awareness (e.g. Colorado). Sometimes building a brand is not just about logos and company names. Sometimes its about the story you can tell and how the story is supported with measurable success (selling more units or winning more games). 2-5 are correct. But Nike gives far, far more equipment and apparel to Oregon than any other school, it's not even close. No other school (for example) gets a different pre-game shooting tee-shirt for every game like Oregon's teams do. No other school gets as many different football uniforms (even if most of them are ugly) as Oregon dies. Colorado's "brand awareness" goes away as soon as Deion leaves. The same is not true with Nike and Oregon, no matte rhow many football coaches they cycle through.
|
|
|
Post by green85 on Oct 6, 2023 13:44:01 GMT -8
Would like to clarify a couple of things: 1. Nike the company pays Oregon marketing licensing fees and provide sports apparel and equipment. In the same fashion and at the same level they provide those resources to other collegiate partners branded as Nike 2. Nike the company has both UO and OSU alumni working for them. The opportunity to leverage the relationship with Nike for interns and post competition employment are similar for both schools. 3. UO created their Sports Marketing Degree program at the beginning of the Nike involvement with UO branding change (the "O"). The communication lines were active and open at that time, which led to more Nike influence on the development of the program and offering of internships. 4. People confuse Phil Knight supporting Oregon athletics with Nike supporting Oregon athletics. Yes, Phil's money came from Nike, but Nike the company does not tell Phil to which organizations he should donate money. Phil has donated millions to Stanford, especially their graduate business school. He has also donated to OSU. 5. The Nike brand is most closely associated with Oregon in part because people use this perspective: Nike -> Phil Knight -> Oregon. Yes, Oregon wears Nike uniforms (like dozens of other colleges with sports teams). Yes, Oregon prominently displays the "swoosh" at their facilities. Yes, Nike gets mutual benefit from Oregon on field success and marketing. But that does not mean Nike the company supports Oregon more than other schools. Part of Oregon's marketing success with collegiate athletics is a function of the on field success. Being ranked gets more TV slots, gets more talking head time, and more clicks on the internet. That feeds the marketing animal with more eyeballs and more brand awareness. There are plenty of schools that leverage their on field success for more brand awareness; some that are Nike some that are not. Heck, some schools leverage a coaching hire and limited on field success into HUGE brand awareness (e.g. Colorado). Sometimes building a brand is not just about logos and company names. Sometimes its about the story you can tell and how the story is supported with measurable success (selling more units or winning more games). 2-5 are correct. But Nike gives far, far more equipment and apparel to Oregon than any other school, it's not even close. No other school (for example) gets a different pre-game shooting tee-shirt for every game like Oregon's teams do. No other school gets as many different football uniforms (even if most of them are ugly) as Oregon dies. Colorado's "brand awareness" goes away as soon as Deion leaves. The same is not true with Nike and Oregon, no matte rhow many football coaches they cycle through. Read an article about Nike and their university partnerships on uniforms. Here is the concluding paragraph: "Full list of schools that have transitioned to clean and simple uniforms in the past 4years: 2018: Illinois, Iowa State, Virginia, Oregon, Minnesota, Virginia Tech. 2019; Baylor, West Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Oregon State. 2020: Arkansas. 2021: Arizona, Missouri, Vanderbilt." Fact is Oregon has 4 uniforms and OSU has 3. Both can mix pants and jerseys for various combinations. Note Nike provided but Oregon has 4 helmets and OSU has 3. I honestly belive if OSU asked for any new uniform or one time uniform (throwback or other) that Nike would not hesitate to provide it at no charge just like they do for Oregon.
|
|
|
Post by wetrodentia on Oct 6, 2023 14:03:17 GMT -8
Our unis were not "clean and simple" prior to 2019? I don't pay that much attention but since when (besides the terrible bras) were our unis anything other than pretty straightforward? It's not like we wore green face masks and socks (remember uofOwned wearing orange?) Are we talking getting rid of the subtle wood grain or the copper highlights? Nike u has had some ridiculous outfits over the years. It was like nike being a little girl playing dress up with her dolls with an unlimited budget.
|
|
|
Post by bvrbred on Oct 6, 2023 15:37:29 GMT -8
The uniforms we had during the late Riley/GAG era were no less clean and simple than what we have today, at least IMO. Looking back, the uniforms we had during the Matt Moore/Mike Hass era were anything but clean and simple. They were not designed by Nike to my recollection. The bra uniforms were designed by Nike, to great hoopla and introduced by Nike at a Nike run press conference. Out of backlash against that our uniforms have been relatively clean and simple ever since.
Also, do we have 3 helmets? We did prior to Jonathan. Today I think we only have two, black and orange.
|
|
|
Post by sparty on Oct 7, 2023 6:09:55 GMT -8
If Scott stepped into the role as a new PAC commissioner how would people feel about it? Would he take it?
|
|
|
Post by drunkandstoopidbeav on Oct 7, 2023 8:59:20 GMT -8
If Scott stepped into the role as a new PAC commissioner how would people feel about it? Would he take it? I’ve been thinking of this as a possibility. From all the rumors, it’ll be Navarro. Would he want to take her on, or would he stay in a comfortable spot?
|
|
|
Post by korculabeav on Oct 7, 2023 9:09:29 GMT -8
Loos like he is here for a bit. This topic can now die.
|
|
|
Post by Dave86 on Oct 8, 2023 18:43:32 GMT -8
|
|
ftd
Sophomore
"I think real leaders show up when times are hard." Trent Bray 11/29/2023
Posts: 2,388
|
Post by ftd on Oct 12, 2023 10:52:03 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by korculabeav on Oct 12, 2023 16:26:14 GMT -8
with that said, time to lock this thread.
|
|