I replied in private to Steve, but I see his response was also addressed to the list, so I will repeat my question to him. Should I be familiar with the Philly Phanatic? I'm guessing baseball?
At any rate, my point still stands about first having to show that mascots (any mascot, let alone a butt ugly one) have a *positive* effect on finances. I know a lot of people will point to the Big 3 pro sports and their heavy use of mascots, but I'm not so sure that's a valid argument. Staying close to home, look at the Portland Trail Blazers. They have gone years without a mascot (they had some hill billy sasquatch thing back in the 80's that I'm not sure would count as a mascot), yet they've been among the most profitable NBA franchises and last I saw were something like the 2nd or 3rd most profitable franchise in all of pro sports. (As an aside, this is yet one more reason why I believe most journalists are non-thought capable idiots. They love to harp on the Blazers huge payroll, but they never bother to mention that they typically earn more money on that investment than teams with half the payroll. Simple arithmetic.) Going a step further, the Blazers decided to add a mascot -- a very ugly and heavily ridiculed one, no less -- and this has become easily the worst year in franchise history in terms of public perception. Obviously that is not all due to the mascot, but you can certainly make a strong case that stop gap measures which by themselves offer nothing positive certainly do not help to cover up a bad situation. Unfortunately, that sounds very similar to what USATF is attempting to do in a "no financial cost" endeavor. Dan --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 1/6/03 6:43:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > You left out one important detail: Was the mascot you saw last night > > anywhere near as hideous as the one USATF was given? If not, then I > beg > > to differ with, "If they really were able to get it for free, its even > > better, as there will only be a gain financially from it." That > overlooks > > the possibility that USATF could actually be hurt financially from it > if > > it makes a joke of the sport and drives some fans away without > attracting > > others... How much revenue does USATF draw from children in the form > of > > spectators??? Is there any market research that indicates youth > > participation will actually go up as a result of mascots? > > > > Dan > > > > > > Dan, > > The Philly Phanatic is not exactly attractive. > > Steve S. > ===== http://AccountBiller.com - MyCalendar, D-Man, ReSearch, etc. http://Run-Down.com - 10,000 Running Links, Fantasy T&F ------------------------------------------------------------ @ o Dan Kaplan - [EMAIL PROTECTED] <|\/ <^- ( [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] ) _/ \ \/\ (503)370-9969 phone/fax / / __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
