Amongst all the college football bowl games going on this month, one in particular is standing out in my thoughts. This game, the Little Ceasar Pizza Bowl, took place last week in Detroit with a battle between Marshall and Ohio.
Little Caesars, who took over title sponsorship for the first time this year, was hailed in the Detroit local press as a savior for the city, and a good sign that Detroit is still a viable option for major sporting events amidst economic crisis. While this positive press and media coverage is a good thing for Little Caesar, perhaps there was another area of their sponsorship that the QSR chain could have focused on. I am referring to the fact that no Little Caesars pizzas were available inside the stadium. On top of this, one of their competitors, Hungry Howie’s, was present and for sale.
Right off the bat one would begin to question this issue. Why not provide / sell your product at the game? It offers a perfect opportunity for a fan that is already at “your game” to try the exact product that you are there to promote. Not only would you benefit from name recognition, but you would tap into other senses via the pizza.
On the other side of the spectrum is the reality that selling Little Caesars pizza would infringe on the agreement that Hungry Howie’s and Ford Field already have in place. I don’t imagine Howie being too excited about letting Caesar cut into his pizza sales. Did Little Caesars consider this before signing on as a title sponsor? Is there anything they can do next year to avoid this same awkward issue?
Selling Little Ceasar at the game could have proved beneficial to their cause, and the fact that their product wasn’t present defintely caused a few heads to turn. This seems to be an issue that may have not been avoidable, but certainly deserves to be questioned.
As Americans struggling through a down economy, we have had little to do other than budget our spending and look for the light at the end of the tunnel. When we do pull ourselves out of this hole, how will we spend out money when these brighter days come?
One sector that makes this question very interesting is the automobile industry. As of early June, the American Government (i.e. American Taxpayers) owns roughly 70% of General Motors, which could lead to a historic shift in consumer purchasing objectives. Now that the majority of this manufacturing giant is owned by the public, does that make us any more likely to purchase one of their (our) vehicles?
Some would say of course. “How unAmerican would you be considered amongst your peers if you chose a foreign manufacturer, considering future taxes and financial stability are linked to GM’s success?” asks Bill Doyle, VP of Performance Research. Like minded individuals would agree that this sense of “new America” patriotism will offer the domestic auto industry a big bump as we rebound from rougher times.
Besides the possibility of increasing sales in the near future, the post recession customer base will offer GM a chance to re establish themselves as a viable option for the long term, and if they succeed, setting up the building blocks to create a new sense of brand loyalty. The determining factor will be GM’s ability to lure skeptical consumers to sign on the dotted line, by invoking an air of U.S. pride, and offering a product comparable to Asian competition.
If given the option of two similar vehicles, at equivalent prices, I would like to think that I would purchase the American made automobile based on both economic impact, and national pride, but it would be require some consideration. Why do we owe to these companies who took so much, yet how do we turn our backs on one of our own?
What would you do?