The Green Bay Packers Have a Favre-Sized Image Problem

After 17 seasons, two Super Bowls, one championship team, and just about every passing record worth having, iconic Green Bay Packers quarterback Brett Favre is hanging it up.

But Favre's retirement leaves much more than a void on the depth chart, it leaves a mess of the Green Bay Packer's brand.

And it is not like you couldn't see it coming.

Sports marketing, in the past 20 years (arguably since Michael Jordan), has strategically shifted its focus from team marketing to player marketing. 

On its surface, the reasons behind this move are clear: Player hype puts "seats in seats" as they say in the business. It leads to big dollar sponsorships (which are good for both team revenue/positioning as well as the player's bank roll). It draws media attention: sports news types know their audience loves a good drama. It means big money in jerseys, caps, jackets, and other lucrative merchandising opportunities. And finally, as U.S. sports leagues go global, bringing in Yao Ming and Ichiro Suzuki opens the door to new (and very profitable) markets in Asia. Modern sports video games sell on player star power, not team pride.

But the biggest driver in the last 10 years has been the growth of fantasy sports. Especially fantasy football. If you were under the impression that this was the sole domain of bored, young to middle-aged men, you are very mistaken. Fantasy sports are big business. And they are all player-driven.

All that said, this seismic shift in the marketing of sports is not without risk.

The Green Bay Packers had it pretty good with Brett Favre. He never tried to run a parking cop down with his Lexus (Randy Moss). He never ran a dog fighting organization (Michael Vick). And he never was caught up in a murder investigation (Ray Lewis).

But all of the "off-field" risks aside—as well as the obvious risks that a player's on-field performance could be a bust—the biggest problem is what happens to the team’s brand (and its financial performance) when a player leaves.

The Bulls found out when Michael Jordan left. The Cowboys found out when Aikman and Smith left. The Twins found out when Puckett and Hrbek left.

After all this time, you would think the billionaires that run these teams would have figured out a better answer.

The key question is this: Should "X's and O's" be the only consideration when making playing time decisions? Should an Aaron Rogers (Favre's heir-apparent) be given more time to "introduce himself" and build an image with Green Bay fans even before Brett Favre decides to call it quits? Does it make financial sense and brand sense for the Packers to make this transition earlier?

While this might sound apocryphal to sports purists, this is business. Certainly, I can understand the coach's argument of playing the best people you have for as long as you have them. But that old saw may not be a good business decision.

[As a quick aside, teams have done this before. Joe Montana was forced out of San Francisco to make way for Steve Young, and consequently, a much-extended marketing and team run.]

But when we get back to the core question—whether the marketing of players, and not teams, is necessarily the right strategy—it begs the bigger question: Is this "player-centric" switch worth it in the long run? Should teams begin the process of moving players more into the background and focusing on the team image itself? Is that better for the long-term brand (and financial health) of the organization?

A few teams have done it. (Or at least tried.) But once they land a big player, they tend to revert to the much easier player-marketing crutch.

Now that the player-marketing genie is out of the bottle, I am not sure he can be put back in.

And that's too bad for Green Bay. Favre's departure will hurt on and off the field.

Comments

[Graham Ruppel]

Have you ever been to a packer game? Wow, you really completely missed the mark on this idea of yours. It's not about Favre at all. He will be missed but the Green Bay Packers could sell out Lambeau Field to watch Aaron Rodgers throw passes for a 1/2 hour next week.

Packer fans aren't the same as Viking fans...not by a long shot.

[David Waters]

Jason,
You made a comment that "you would think the billionaires that run these teams would have figured out a better answer." That statement goes against this whole article. Green Bay is not owned by a billionaire; I am one of the thousands of people who own the Packers. Green Bay is the only team publicly owned, we are a team unlike any other in that sense. Nothing will happen to the Packers, we have been selling out games even when the team is in a slump, I have watched many of those losing seasons from the comfort of the bleachers in Lambeau Field even when the weather is -30, and they have all been sellouts. There is a waitlist over 70 years for seats, again, a team unlike any other. I do not think the Packers are Brett Favre's team, we are like what Minnesota is to the Wild, a team based around the fans and community. People want to go to a Packer game for reason's other than one player, even though he helped, he is not the main reason people make the trip to Lambeau. There is a history in the city and now Favre is just one addition to the wonderful tradition that is Green Bay.