|Crass Commercialism: Does it Really Work?|
|Topic||Introduction to Marketing|
|Key Words||Nontraditional Marketing, Event Marketing|
|InfoTrac Reference|| A116931603
If your textbook came with an InfoTrac passcode, click here to login on InfoTrac.
When the Gillette Cavalcade of Sports brought the Willie Pep vs. Chalky White Featherweight Championship bout to thousands of American homes in 1944, the era of program sponsorship was born. And while network television thrived on sponsorships during its formative years--think Texaco Star Theater, Kraft Television Theatre--they fell out of favor by the mid-1960s. Relegated to public television during the next four decades, sponsorship deals, along with their sibling marketing concept, product placement, are making a comeback.
Businesses seeking to promote brands often link products to popular events, movies, TV shows, hip trends--to just about anything, really. One would assume this commercialism must be extremely profitable to megacorporations spending collective billions to name the Fiesta Bowl after Tostitos chips, have Simon Cowell drink Coca-Cola, or show E.T. eating Reese's Pieces on the big screen. But do sponsorships and product placements really work, or are they just overrated opportunities to fritter away marketing budgets on pop-culture fads?
The recent boom in sponsorships
and product placements seems to be achieving results, but some industry
insiders suggest that overdoing it could actually risk damaging brands
as well as the entertainment vehicles with which they become associated.
|Source||Kenneth Hein, "You be the judge: do product placement and sponsorships work? Or is the concept overused?," Brandweek, May 17, 2004 v45 i20 pSR40(2).|
|Instructor Discussion Notes|| Discussion
These notes are restricted to qualified instructors only. Register for free!
Return to the Introduction
to Marketing Index
©2004 Thomson Business and Professional Publishing. All Rights Reserved webmaster | DISCLAIMER