The NCAA News - News & Features

Panel advises NCAA to enhance marketing

Group recommends more flexibility

A blue-ribbon committee examining the NCAA's marketing and licensing effort believes that the Association's current approach is too conservative and that the NCAA "should be more aggressive and flexible" in this area.

The Special Committee to Study NCAA Marketing, Licensing and Promotional Activities recently completed its work and has made a number of recommendations that will be considered by the NCAA Executive Committee at its August meeting.

For the moment, however, the particulars may be of less interest than the overall conclusion that the NCAA needs to be more aggressive in its marketing philosophy.

Carol Kaesebier, vice-president and general counsel of the University of Notre Dame, chaired a subcommittee on marketing philosophy and said the group considered whether the NCAA should be more involved or less involved, or whether it should continue in a manner similar to its current approach.

Ultimately, she said, the committee was persuaded that opportunities exist to promote college athletics in a good way and that the proposed joint licensing program (in which NCAA and institutional marks would be used in tandem) represents an opportunity to help a number of member institutions financially.

"To be honest," Kaesebier said of the proposed joint licensing program, "I'm not sure that adding the NCAA mark will help us at Notre Dame. But it will not hurt us and it will be good for college athletics. At some schools, the joint licensing approach might promote sales that they would not otherwise get.

"If it were only Notre Dame, we might take a more conservative approach. But there is more to it than that."

Kaesebier noted that what is being proposed is an entirely voluntary program.

"Not only is it voluntary," she said, "but just because a school wants to be involved doesn't mean it will have to be involved in everything that is offered. The schools will have the right to approve every single product that will be licensed."

Subcommittee reports

The special committee, which was chaired by Robert Lawless, president of the University of Tulsa and chair of the Division I subcommittee of the NCAA Presidents Commission, was divided into four subcommittees.

In addition to the marketing philosophy group, the other subcommittees were licensing, chaired by C. William Byrne Jr., athletics director at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln; corporate partnerships, chaired by John J. Crouthamel, athletics director at Syracuse University; and revenue distribution, chaired by James E. Delany, commissioner of the Big Ten Conference.

The reports of the subcommittees, which all were accepted by the full committee, contained the following observations and recommendations:

* Marketing philosophy: The subcommittee agreed that providing additional revenue for the membership should be an important goal of the NCAA's marketing, licensing and promotional activities. It also noted the importance of protecting the NCAA trademarks.

The subcommittee report also stated that championships promotions should be flexible, allowing more corporate and local involvement in championships that need to grow.

With regard to licensing, the subcommittee suggested that the NCAA could act as a clearinghouse for licensing information about the collegiate market since no entity currently fills that need and that the NCAA could "add value" to licensed products by combining NCAA and institutional marks.

* Licensing: The subcommittee noted anecdotal evidence from experts in the marketing and licensing business that the NCAA brand is powerful and may currently be under-used as a revenue source for member schools. However, it also noted that some institutions may not be convinced that the NCAA brand would add value to their marks when used in conjunction with them.

Because of the uncertainty relating to both observations, the subcommittee recommended research to explore the value of the NCAA brand, both individually and in conjunction with institutional marks.

The subcommittee concluded that it favors licensing as a vehicle to increase institutions' revenues and noted that an NCAA licensing program can benefit all participating institutions, without adversely affecting any institution's individual efforts. At a minimum, the subcommittee noted that the NCAA can assist member institutions to become more competitive with professional sports licensing and to develop a larger niche in the industry for collegiate athletics.

* Corporate partnerships: The subcommittee identified issues that could aid in enhancing the value of the corporate-partner program. Examples of the concepts that were supported were permitting corporate partners to have hospitality tents near the Final Four venue and permitting them to purchase billboards in a city hosting an NCAA championship without NCAA logo restrictions.

The subcommittee also recommended bringing administration of the corporate program "in house" but retaining Host and Associates (which currently administers the program) to sell corporate partnerships.

* Revenue distribution. The subcommittee discussed five principles: (1) Prior to any decision to increase the Association's licensing and marketing activities and revenue, a clear understanding must exist as to the way in which such expansion would result in financial benefits to NCAA members; (2) as much as possible, NCAA licensing and marketing revenue should not be designated or directly connected to specific NCAA programs, activities or expenditure categories within the NCAA's general operating budget; (3) maximizing the allocations or distributions to member institutions should be a high priority for NCAA governing bodies as they consider the Association's budgetary matters; (4) the NCAA should explore opportunities for member conferences and institutions to participate in cooperative licensing and marketing programs with the NCAA, recognizing that some conferences and institutions may require additional financial incentives to do so; and (5) there should be a recognition that licensing revenue generated through a true partnership between the NCAA, conferences and member institutions accrues to the benefit of all NCAA members.

The committee noted that any additional revenue derived from an enhanced marketing and licensing program would be included in the allocations established for Divisions II (4.37 percent) and III (3.18 percent) at the 1996 NCAA Convention. Seventy percent of the 92.45 percent allocation for Division I would go to Division I-A.

In a related matter, the full committee recommended against permitting affiliated organizations to use promotional marks on equipment or playing fields. The committee was concerned that if such a practice were approved for one sport, it would spread to all sports and compromise the Association's exclusivity.