Skip to comments.Reflections on Beer, Billboards, and Bargaining at the University of Illinois
Posted on 11/19/2014 9:19:18 AM PST by jfd1776
Coors Light is the official beer of the Fighting Illini.
This doesnt necessarily mean that Coors Light was voted on by the student body of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, or that the schools sports teams drink the stuff at halftime or wear its logo on their cars. No, just like dozens of other products from soft drinks to gym shoes, it means that the company signed a sponsorship deal with the University of Illinois.
Now, I dont know how you feel about it, but with the cost of college skyrocketing, Im inclined to think that almost any revenue stream that doesnt require tax increases or tuition hikes is worth considering. If the product is legal and beer has been legal in this country for eighty years now its legitimate for a sponsorship deal.
Within months, the sponsorship was paying dividends. MillerCoors worked with the university to develop artwork, and promptly multinational corporations know how to move fast MillerCoors was advertising the school along with its product, on barroom tabletop tents and posters, on coasters and print ads and billboards around the Urbana-Champaign area.
Thats when the schools worthies (or whatever passes for worthies at that school) threw a hissy fit. We didnt approve billboards! they screamed, and they demanded that the billboards come down.
Part of the beauty of our capitalist system is how broad every deals effects can be. A big advertising deal doesnt just create revenue for the advertiser (if its successful); it also creates work for advertising agencies, copywriters and printers, photographers and models. The companies that print the tabletop tents and posters, the campus magazines and community newspapers that can only afford to be printed if they sell these full page ads, the bartenders and shopkeepers who sell the products being advertised these all benefit from a successful ad campaign.
This deal isnt just about selling beer and raising revenue for the school, its part of the diverse economy of the United States.
Billboards are a key part of that world. There are four key costs in any billboard ad: producing the artwork, putting it up on the board, taking it down, and the monthly rent of the space. The shorter the duration, the more expensive it is; the longer, the more cost-effective. By demanding that these billboards be taken down immediately, theyve robbed the billboard rental businesses of critical revenue. If the advertiser only wants to run the ad for a month or two, or if the campaign fails to be effective, then thats life, the luck of the draw. But if an outside entity, a pompous and self-righteous college administration, interferes and calls off the campaign early, thats an unfair attack on the advertising marketplace.
MillerCoors didnt enter this deal intending to create business for all those advertising media; thats just the beauty of capitalism. It happens automatically. MillerCoors did it for the school and for beer sales; the school agreed to it for the revenue stream. A win-win, you might say until MillerCoors objected, after the fact, after the deal was agreed, after the billboards were up.
The university claims that the billboards might reach underage students who arent allowed to drink beer. But thats true of newspapers and campus magazines, true of radio ads, true of the posters in the windows at campus bars. The under-21 undergrads in the Urbana-Champaign metro area dont automatically avert their gaze if they encounter a beer ad in print or walk past a bar. Why should a billboard be different?
Lets think about all the people who a beer advertiser is targeting, in a college sponsorship agreement. There are students, faculty and other staff at the University, and others in the neighborhood who identify with the school. Some are underage, sure but in a campus the size of the U of I, most are of age. There are millions of alumni, and the parents and friends of students too; most of these too are of age. Billboards on nearby roads and highways are one of the most effective ways of reaching these markets.
The school has forbidden this ad campaign, forbidden this most critical part of the deal, because of some distaste for billboards, or beer, or both. But if they have such distaste, why did they agree to the advertising deal in the first place? And why do they have the pompous, offensive audacity to renege on the deal?
Its difficult to assign blame here. Is it a hostility to beer that we can attribute to anti-alcohol groups like MADD or the WCTU? If it were, they had no business approving a partial deal without billboards; thats pretty hypocritical, isnt it?
Is it a hostility to billboards, one that can be attributed to the anti-American highway beautification projects of the 1960s associated with Lady Byrd Johnson, who tried to destroy this entire branch of advertising by banning billboards outright on our nations highways?
Is it a hostility to capitalism, drawn from the peculiar modern tendency of the Left to endorse struggling little projects, but oppose success, oppose activities on a large scale? Tabletops yes, billboards no; it just looks too big for them. Capitalism cant be tolerated if its obvious, only if its not noticeable could that be it?
There are certainly grounds for limiting a licensing agreement. The university could have approved tabletops and posters, but not radio commercials and billboards, if they had wanted to. Lots of sponsorship agreements have tiers, setting the rate higher and higher as the product advertiser uses the name more and more. But the U of I didnt do that here. They saw dollar signs and jumped at the chance, then saw the billboards and jumped back.
I believe educators have a word for that. Its called cheating.
It reminds me of a particularly memorable episode of L.A. Law, many years ago. Corbin Bernson played an entertainment lawyer who represented sports figures and other such stars in contract negotiations, and one of his clients an athlete or TV star, I believe decided to demand a midterm renegotiation of his contract for more money, and to walk if they didnt agree. He had no grounds for it, no right to demand it; he just wanted to. The greed and irresponsibility was too much, even for Bernsons rather questionable character, and he blew up at his client. What is it about you people he screamed, that makes you think contracts dont apply to you?!
Thats the problem here. The University of Illinois signed a deal, accepted the money, then tried to walk it back, costing a lot of people a lot of money as a result. Is that the kind of lesson our nations colleges want to give their students?
The U of I has a rather impressive business school reputation. Their MBA program is usually rather highly rated in national rankings, placing highly in comparisons even with such stellar business schools as Northwestern Universitys and the University of Chicagos.
If the college wasnt happy with their choice, they could easily have decided not to renew at the end of their agreement, or to negotiate new limits at renewal time. But walking it back like this was dirty pool.
It doesnt speak well of a university, to see how severely they misunderstand the capitalist system, to see how prejudiced they are against the advertising medium, to see how irresponsible they are in their contract negotiations. Perhaps its time for them to put an asterisk by some of the degrees they offer not all of them, just the degrees in business, marketing, philosophy and law leading to a footnote:
Do as I say, not as I do.
Copyright 2014 John F. Di Leo
John F. Di Leo is a Chicago-based Customs broker and international trade compliance trainer. A typical Italian drinker of wine and liqueurs, he is not a partisan for beer, and has no connection to the U of I or the billboard industry. But he IS a partisan for capitalism, for the advertising industry, and for honesty in contract negotiations. And yes, he likes billboards!
Permission is hereby granted to share freely, provided it is uncut, and the IR URL and byline are included. Follow John F. Di Leo on Facebook or LinkedIn, or on Twitter at @johnfdileo.
Coors Light is a beer?
I think school officials and liberals in general see money as an entitlement. They want it and somebody provides it...free...with no strings or attachments.
When I worked for a professor who lived off grants he and his students saw the money as free. Suddenly, at the end of a grant they’d have to (resentfully) produce a paper. I remember the proff asking, “what was it they wanted us to prove?” Somehow, the data proved whatever the grant giver wanted proved. I’m pretty sure that’s how the Global Warming scam works too.
My son got his Masters in Urban Planning from UI, which kept him from having to deal with all the liberal political stuff; after two years in WI, he’s working in Phoenix and likes the attitude there, but not the hot summer.
“Coors Light is a beer?”
Thanks for your honest answer!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.