(12-28-2022 07:48 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(12-28-2022 07:41 PM)DallasTiger Wrote:  

(12-28-2022 07:07 PM)msu35 Wrote:  Seems to me that if marketing is indeed the challenge, it would be best to engage a marketing agency versus hiring yet another employee. The University of Memphis already has a marketing department. If they're not getting it done, probably time to outsource to the experts.

That's the problem. The U of M Marketing Dept, if there is one, is not solely in charge of putting butts in seats. There is no focus on that only and there is no expert on staff anywhere at the U of M dedicated to this project.

They do have a marketing department, and on their web page they state they work with Athletics. If they aren't getting the job done, probably time to outsource.

Snippet from the website:

Quote:Our focus is primarily on the University's academic, administrative and service units. We work in concert with Athletics on projects and efforts affecting the entire University community and branding for Memphis Tigers sports.

I think the question is....who is the person who handles this full time? Saying there is a department handling this is admitting no one has this as a full time responsibility. When a group has multiple responsibilities, it is easy for them to change priorities and decide what is more important and work on that first and foremost. When one person is in charge of one project, things tend to get done and focus is maintained or that person is replaced until the right person is in charge. Measuring results is easy if one person has this as their only responsibility. If it is a group, excuses and finger pointing replace ultimate responsibility.

(12-28-2022 01:35 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(12-28-2022 11:54 AM)DallasTiger Wrote:  Just to repeat myself....hire someone experienced who is actually responsible for increasing attendance. They are out there....just have to decide that it is worth the investment. Big stadium...lots of seats....needs butts to go in those seats.

The best way to increase attendance would be a 42,000 seat stadium.

ON CAMPUS !!!

2019 was also when they were deciding not to count tickets for huge chunks of the stadium instead of just reporting sold like everyone else.

(12-29-2022 12:05 AM)DallasTiger Wrote:  I think the question is....who is the person who handles this full time? Saying there is a department handling this is admitting no one has this as a full time responsibility. When a group has multiple responsibilities, it is easy for them to change priorities and decide what is more important and work on that first and foremost. When one person is in charge of one project, things tend to get done and focus is maintained or that person is replaced until the right person is in charge. Measuring results is easy if one person has this as their only responsibility. If it is a group, excuses and finger pointing replace ultimate responsibility.

All of this seems to point to the marketing department not being the best tool for the job. A single hire is expensive and they would still report to and fall into the existing culture and structure. If this initiative is something that is warranted, my vote would be to apply those funds to a marketing agency with demonstrated expertise in this area. Money better spent.

(12-29-2022 10:21 AM)Psicosis Wrote:  2019 was also when they were deciding not to count tickets for huge chunks of the stadium instead of just reporting sold like everyone else.

Exactly. I suspect it has to do with under-reporting to the city for lease payments, or something along those financial lines.
It seems this year, they decided that the propping up the coach with inflated numbers was more important than spending extra on the lease.
At least that's my theory.

(12-28-2022 08:41 PM)tcountytigerfan Wrote:  

(12-28-2022 07:51 PM)ImaTiger Wrote:  

(12-28-2022 02:51 PM)fsquid Wrote:  Bingo, during our "golden season". Only 33k for Navy, 30k for Tulane, 36k for the 1st Cincy game, 33k for the Champ Game. Acting like winning brings in the attendance is laughable.

until this thread I thought those where solid attendance numbers...

For a G5, those are solid numbers. I want to get back to those numbers as the normal. I think 30K should be a minimum, but maybe that’s just the fan in me. I was disappointed for the championship game against Cincinnati in 2019 - I honestly thought we’d be well north of 40K, but we weren’t.

Fsquid makes a good point (and helps with my position) that winning alone doesn’t bring in big numbers. There has to be a real connection with the community. That’s really the essence of my original post: what can the school do to better market the football program to the community and continually refresh & improve the game day experience.

Those are very solid numbers. Not sure what other point there is to make. When our lowest attended game is still > 30k, in a year in which they typically under-reported attendance - that's a very good year.

(12-28-2022 01:11 PM)tcountytigerfan Wrote:  

(12-28-2022 12:49 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  Where was all the we need marketing talk from 2014-20?

IMO: 1) winning brought the fans back in 2014. We had gone through the worst of it, and just being competitive and bowl bound excited the masses. This all happened during the Fuente era. 2) Norvell brought a unique energy and took care of the marketing himself. He was everywhere and very media savvy.

Those two things took care of the marketing themselves. Much harder to build and maintain that momentum after a trip to the Cotton Bowl and after people got used to watching from home during Covid. A new and heightened marketing approach must be taken by the school (and programs all over, generally) IMO

I disagree. You can put all the makeup on a pig but if you don’t win it goes back to the slop. I heard this same talk 25 years ago. It took hiring the right COACH to turn it around. Hopefully Silverfield can win the conference next season. That and only that will bring the fans back

(12-29-2022 01:09 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(12-28-2022 01:11 PM)tcountytigerfan Wrote:  

(12-28-2022 12:49 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  Where was all the we need marketing talk from 2014-20?

IMO: 1) winning brought the fans back in 2014. We had gone through the worst of it, and just being competitive and bowl bound excited the masses. This all happened during the Fuente era. 2) Norvell brought a unique energy and took care of the marketing himself. He was everywhere and very media savvy.

Those two things took care of the marketing themselves. Much harder to build and maintain that momentum after a trip to the Cotton Bowl and after people got used to watching from home during Covid. A new and heightened marketing approach must be taken by the school (and programs all over, generally) IMO

I disagree. You can put all the makeup on a pig but if you don’t win it goes back to the slop. I heard this same talk 25 years ago. It took hiring the right COACH to turn it around. Hopefully Silverfield can win the conference next season. That and only that will bring the fans back

Exactly and speaking of "slop" ask the Hogs how they boosted attendance. They got the right coach, started winning games, and making a name for themselves. Pretty straightforward.

(12-28-2022 11:48 AM)tcountytigerfan Wrote:  Looking forward to what should be a big 2023, what are some ways the University can improve their football marketing and game day experience? Here are a few thoughts I’ve had:

- increase our presence on 92.9. Focus should be placed on the mid-day show and the drive-home show. With GP leaving in the Spring, it could be a good time to push for a weekly segment on the drive-home show. Quality content to help fill the time with a product and topic the listeners want to hear - feels like a real win-win

- emphasize the players. I think the football team does a fantastic job of having the players and coaches give back to the community, but are there ways to bring more players to interact with the fans? Radio interviews, meet-and-greets, etc. I’m sure the 901Fund and other NIL programs have some great ideas here already that will also benefit the players too

- emphasize the revamped Liberty Bowl and push for getting in on season tickets now to ensure your best seating options post-renovations.

- emphasize our path to the playoffs. That is THE advantage of still being in the AAC. Pump it! This is already true for men’s basketball

- cross market with the other programs. Great things are also happening with women’s basketball and Tiger baseball, women’s soccer, tennis etc., but obviously football and men’s basketball take center stage. Maybe having a meet the players event at another sports game (for example, meet the basketball players at a soccer game).

- in-game experience needs a refresh. Kiss cam and flex cam is good, but the drum thing wore out. I think the school does a good job keeping it kid/family focused, just need some new ideas. The basketball games have been well produced imo. Another little thing - get the volume levels at the Liberty Bowl corrected. It was so hit or miss and there were times when you literally couldn’t have a conversation over the PA. That’s okay when we’re blasting “Whoop that trick”, but not so much when we’re doing a Conway Heating spot during a timeout. Lastly, it would be nice to have more scores and perhaps highlights showing on the video board.

These are a few ideas, what are yours?

Go Tigers!

92.9 only talks about tiger football to fill a void between tiger basketball and grizz basketball because they a) they know the statistics of listeners of each segment and know basketball gets the most listens and b) they don't really care for tiger football.

(12-29-2022 01:23 PM)msu35 Wrote:  

(12-29-2022 01:09 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  

(12-28-2022 01:11 PM)tcountytigerfan Wrote:  

(12-28-2022 12:49 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  Where was all the we need marketing talk from 2014-20?

IMO: 1) winning brought the fans back in 2014. We had gone through the worst of it, and just being competitive and bowl bound excited the masses. This all happened during the Fuente era. 2) Norvell brought a unique energy and took care of the marketing himself. He was everywhere and very media savvy.

Those two things took care of the marketing themselves. Much harder to build and maintain that momentum after a trip to the Cotton Bowl and after people got used to watching from home during Covid. A new and heightened marketing approach must be taken by the school (and programs all over, generally) IMO

I disagree. You can put all the makeup on a pig but if you don’t win it goes back to the slop. I heard this same talk 25 years ago. It took hiring the right COACH to turn it around. Hopefully Silverfield can win the conference next season. That and only that will bring the fans back

Exactly and speaking of "slop" ask the Hogs how they boosted attendance. They got the right coach, started winning games, and making a name for themselves. Pretty straightforward.

UT made bad hires for over a decade. So did Bama. Florida has since Meyer. Texas same thing. It’s about coaching plain and simple.

Now if you really want to market something how about start marketing the university as a whole to students. Start by getting some rich private school kids to attend. That’s where your money is coming from. Not sure what you do but that’s where you need to go. We need alumni with money. And where it starts is with the wealthy youth. Like many have said a lot of our big money donors are getting old.

(12-29-2022 02:13 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  UT made bad hires for over a decade. So did Bama. Florida has since Meyer. Texas same thing. It’s about coaching plain and simple.

Now if you really want to market something how about start marketing the university as a whole to students. Start by getting some rich private school kids to attend. That’s where your money is coming from. Not sure what you do but that’s where you need to go. We need alumni with money. And where it starts is with the wealthy youth. Like many have said a lot of our big money donors are getting old.

Absolutely agree with this. Having recently garnered R1 status helps, and attracting the right students is more important than any stadium. Sometimes people can't see further than their own nose.

(12-28-2022 01:11 PM)tcountytigerfan Wrote:  

(12-28-2022 12:49 PM)Eagleonpar Wrote:  Where was all the we need marketing talk from 2014-20?

IMO: 1) winning brought the fans back in 2014. We had gone through the worst of it, and just being competitive and bowl bound excited the masses. This all happened during the Fuente era. 2) Norvell brought a unique energy and took care of the marketing himself. He was everywhere and very media savvy.

Those two things took care of the marketing themselves. Much harder to build and maintain that momentum after a trip to the Cotton Bowl and after people got used to watching from home during Covid. A new and heightened marketing approach must be taken by the school (and programs all over, generally) IMO

This is the biggest piece of it right here, along with winning and playing an exciting brand of football with developing pros everywhere, Norvell was out there pumping up his program at every turn while winning big games. Silverfield is the exact opposite, boring interview, all coach speak and our offense has taken a huge hit with playmakers and scoring while losing more games. That is the issue right there, not a marketing genius in the world can sell boring .500 football.

Went to the Cowboys v Titans game last night … true it was pro vs. college, but here is my two cents on experience…

Lighting …. There was more and it was brighter .. much .. could actually see what was happening on the field …

Volume … excellent… carried on conversations and could actually understand the PA guy ….

WiFi …. Omg … they had it, and it actually worked…

(12-30-2022 09:49 PM)DDrum1961 Wrote:  Went to the Cowboys v Titans game last night … true it was pro vs. college, but here is my two cents on experience…

Lighting …. There was more and it was brighter .. much .. could actually see what was happening on the field …

Volume … excellent… carried on conversations and could actually understand the PA guy ….

WiFi …. Omg … they had it, and it actually worked…

I mean, yeah - NFL.
They are also getting a $2B new stadium.
We're just asking for chump change with $200M.

Titans game also had fewer butts in the seats the other night than a few of our games in 2019.

Really is asinine that one of the singular smallest NFL fanbases will get two new stadiums since 1999.

Clown ass state.

Corporate welfare at its finest.

(12-31-2022 11:14 AM)msu35 Wrote:  Corporate welfare at its finest.

Hum, not sure it is all that simple. Doing some research actually provided some more important information on what is really happening when a new football stadium is built.

https://www.hksinc.com/our-news/articles...on-giving/

Read this:

The NFL: America’s socialist utopia

Small sample from the article:

Quote:Conservatives within the game have proudly argued that football tutors spectators in these capitalist virtues. Quarterback-turned-congressman Jack Kemp celebrated football as “democratic capitalism” in action; Fran Tarkenton, who incorporated himself as a business and published three books by age 30, called the game “part of our free enterprise system.”

But this has never been true. As former Cleveland Browns owner Art Modell once remarked, the NFL is run by “a bunch of fat-cat Republicans who vote socialist on football.” According to Harvard Business School’s Rosabeth Moss Kanter, few industry associations have more effectively wielded the power of collective advantage. In fact, it was not competition, but rather the NFL’s historic ability to scheme its way around competition — with encouragement from the government and fans — that enabled the creation of the Super Bowl.

(12-31-2022 10:49 AM)AlonsoWDC Wrote:  Really is asinine that one of the singular smallest NFL fanbases will get two new stadiums since 1999.

Clown ass state.

they're doing it to host the Super Bowl, not for the Titans fanbase