"Painted Field" for shared time with Vikings?

Donate To GopherHole
Parski1 said:
What did I take away from Station19 you goof?

Good job 19 you found the link....props to you. Turf will be replaced twice which is a pleasant surprise. Still hope the M never leaves the 50.
Click to expand...

If it does will you bring it up in every thread possible
 


station19 said:
So Red McCombs made a large profit on the sale of the Vikings because he had VIKINGS painted on the field for two years.
Click to expand...

Yes, among other things they did to strengthen their brand.

Why do you think teams paint their logo on the field if it doesn't add value?
 

badgergopher said:
Yes, among other things they did to strengthen their brand.

Why do you think teams paint their logo on the field if it doesn't add value?
Click to expand...

Another 'just because' response. At some point you heard or read about having a 'brand'. You obviously have no ability to express how or why it pertains to an actual situation.

It's late and I'm tired. We can continue this tomorrow if you like.
 

Television has the capability to make the field appear to have any logo they wish at any time in any place. The Vikings are much more of a television driven team than are the Gophers. Anybody actually attending a Vikings game in the next two years at TCF is not going to think twice nor care about what the field logos look like; all those watching on television will see whatever logo the Vikings want displayed via the magic of television. Hashmarks will have to be physically changed between games though as they are integral to the actual game on the field.
 


Parski1 said:
What did I take away from Station19 you goof?

Good job 19 you found the link....props to you. Turf will be replaced twice which is a pleasant surprise. Still hope the M never leaves the 50.
Click to expand...

Parski - I may be wrong but didn't you start calling station19 station18, then station 17 and then station 16 etc. etc.? Or did you start adding one number to his moniker? But then again, being a senior member here, I may be just having a senior moment.
 

Parski1 said:
What did I take away from Station19 you goof?

Good job 19 you found the link....props to you. Turf will be replaced twice which is a pleasant surprise. Still hope the M never leaves the 50.
Click to expand...

Killjoy said:
Parski - I may be wrong but didn't you start calling station19 station18, then station 17 and then station 16 etc. etc.? Or did you start adding one number to his moniker? But then again, being a senior member here, I may be just having a senior moment.
Click to expand...

Hey Parsley, you could have changed my number yesterday.

 

On the Sports Huddle today (sunday), Sid and Dave were talking to Lester Bagley from the Vikings, and the subject of improvements to TCF came up. Bagley said something very interesting - when asked about the heating coils, he said they were still looking at options - he specifically said the Vikes were considering "some type of a blanket, or heating coils."

In other words, the heating coils may not be a sure thing. I don't know what type of "blanket" Bagley was talking about, but it's something to watch.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
On the Sports Huddle today (sunday), Sid and Dave were talking to Lester Bagley from the Vikings, and the subject of improvements to TCF came up. Bagley said something very interesting - when asked about the heating coils, he said they were still looking at options - he specifically said the Vikes were considering "some type of a blanket, or heating coils."

In other words, the heating coils may not be a sure thing. I don't know what type of "blanket" Bagley was talking about, but it's something to watch.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a bargaining ploy.
 




station19 said:
Another 'just because' response. At some point you heard or read about having a 'brand'. You obviously have no ability to express how or why it pertains to an actual situation.

It's late and I'm tired. We can continue this tomorrow if you like.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_(accounting)

Read up. There is a whole branch of accounting associated with this. While such spending doesn't increase the value of a brand on the books at the time of the expenditure, it is indirectly recognized when an entity is sold for more than book value. Hence my comment about Red McCombs selling the team.

If your point is that painting a logo on the field doesn't add to the value of the brand, there are 32 NFL marketing departments that disagree with you. I'll side with them.
 

badgergopher said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodwill_(accounting)

Read up. There is a whole branch of accounting associated with this. While such spending doesn't increase the value of a brand on the books at the time of the expenditure, it is indirectly recognized when an entity is sold for more than book value. Hence my comment about Red McCombs selling the team.

If your point is that painting a logo on the field doesn't add to the value of the brand, there are 32 NFL marketing departments that disagree with you. I'll side with them.
Click to expand...

That's not even close to what we are talking about.

BTW goodwill used to be called blue sky.
 

station19 said:
That's not even close to what we are talking about.
Click to expand...

Umm, it was what I was talking about, at least in part. Symbols/logos do have value. In 2008 Ford was able to mortgage their blue oval to help get operating capital.

Someone earlier mentioned that they could just add the logos digitally for the broadcast, yes they could and they might do some of that, but I doubt they would rely only on that. In the end, in about 15 months we will all know the final answer.
 



Norsk_Gopher said:
Umm, it was what I was talking about, at least in part. Symbols/logos do have value. In 2008 Ford was able to mortgage their blue oval to help get operating capital.

Someone earlier mentioned that they could just add the logos digitally for the broadcast, yes they could and they might do some of that, but I doubt they would rely only on that. In the end, in about 15 months we will all know the final answer.
Click to expand...

Here is my original statement.

"I still don't understand why the Vikes would want to make the field look all Vikings. What do they really gain. Advertising income I could understand. How about if one end zone is purple and gold Vikings(on Viking days), and the other end zone is maroon and gold MINNESOTA?"

This on the thread "Painted Field" for shared time with Vikings?, makes it obvious I am referring to TCF Field for the two years the Vikes play there.

Badgergopher follows with because it's their brand and brand makes money, links Wiki about goodwill accounting to make his argument.

I asked him to try to explain how the brand makes money or works in a actual situation. He can't do it . He heard/read that having a brand makes money but he does not know how.

Meanwhile the Vikings not painting the whole field Vikings(which it looks like they won't be doing) will not be losing/getting rid of their BRAND.

What I originally stated was the Vikes will not make more money by painting TCF Filed full of Viking logos for the two years they play there. Why why turn this into an argument about Brands do make money and show me quote from Wiki about goodwill accounting. Totally absurd debate that had nothing to do with my original statement.
 

station19 said:
Here is my original statement.

"I still don't understand why the Vikes would want to make the field look all Vikings. What do they really gain. Advertising income I could understand. How about if one end zone is purple and gold Vikings(on Viking days), and the other end zone is maroon and gold MINNESOTA?"

This on the thread "Painted Field" for shared time with Vikings?, makes it obvious I am referring to TCF Field for the two years the Vikes play there.

Badgergopher follows with because it's their brand and brand makes money, links Wiki about goodwill accounting to make his argument.

I asked him to try to explain how the brand makes money or works in a actual situation. He can't do it . He heard/read that having a brand makes money but he does not know how.

Meanwhile the Vikings not painting the whole field Vikings(which it looks like they won't be doing) will not be losing/getting rid of their BRAND.

What I originally stated was the Vikes will not make more money by painting TCF Filed full of Viking logos for the two years they play there. Why why turn this into an argument about Brands do make money and show me quote from Wiki about goodwill accounting. Totally absurd debate that had nothing to do with my original statement.
Click to expand...

If you're acknowledging that companies invest in advertising for the purposes of brand building in addition to the merchandising benefits, then I have no quarrel with you. Your original point referenced above - that the Vikes would not be forgoing much by not having their logo all over TCF for two years - is a fair point. I was mostly reacting to your 'just cause' comment which seemed dismissive of the entire concept of investing in a brand.

I think we'd both agree that all things being equal the Vikes would rather have their logo on the field than not and that they have a valid reason for wanting it there. If your point is that one less logo isn't going to make a big difference in the grand scheme of things, touché.
 

badgergopher said:
If you're acknowledging that companies invest in advertising for the purposes of brand building in addition to the merchandising benefits, then I have no quarrel with you. Your original point referenced above - that the Vikes would not be forgoing much by not having their logo all over TCF for two years - is a fair point. I was mostly reacting to your 'just cause' comment which seemed dismissive of the entire concept of investing in a brand.

I think we'd both agree that all things being equal the Vikes would rather have their logo on the field than not and that they have a valid reason for wanting it there. If your point is that one less logo isn't going to make a big difference in the grand scheme of things, touché.
Click to expand...

Your "one less logo" comment is more in line with my original statement. Not exact but close enough I guess.

The 'just because' comments have to do with the fact that you can't just "say it makes money because it builds the brand." HOW does it make more money? Give me an example. That's the point I was making.

Try this:

Does it increase ticket sales?
Does it increase TV revenue?....NFL btw not Vikings
Does it increase local radio rights?
Does it increase concession sales?
Does it increase suite sales?
Does it increase parking revenues?
Does it increase merchandise sales?

You increase value by lowering expenses or raising revenues. Advertising and Branding do not automatically increase value. It is the effect of those efforts that CAN increase value.

I will also acknowledge that I have invested in advertising and branding for the companies I have managed.

Oh, and BTW I was a Marketing Major.
 


station19 said:
I will also acknowledge that I have invested in advertising and branding for the companies I have managed.

Oh, and BTW I was a Marketing Major.
Click to expand...

Just as I thought! All these posts are about re-branding the station19 moniker after all the damage parski did with his station19 minus one campaign. Once a Marketing Major always a Marketing Manager.:cool:
 




You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom