To me, it's a marketing message to the younger generation of recruits and students. Look at how it was released, where it was released, and what is in the video. It was released on twitter, which is a media more popular in younger generations. Ripping off the PowerCat was an attempt at saying "This isn't your parents K-State anymore". Using a video format, instead of an article with pictures is targeting towards younger generations with shorter attention spans and the youtube/TikTok generation. It's creating a buzz, both good and bad, and getting people talking, which increases visibility to a program that may have gotten stale among younger generations used to seeing the same thing. There is generally more buy into a program when people can relate to it being "theirs" and making changes makes the younger crowd feel like it's different for their generation. Think about it this way, when you were of driving age, would you rather have your older siblings hand me down car, or a different car that wasn't already in the family? It's like getting something that is unique to yourself that no one else has had, and it makes it feel more special. The Millennials defending it are even more reason to why this is working, because they are taking ownership of it as their program (although maybe a bit too far).wild@nite wrote: ↑November 13th, 2019, 3:33 pmImo, I think the video is part of people's issue. Why post that video ripping the Powercat off of a helmet? How in the heck did they think people would take that? I guess people statewide are talking KState football, so..... ??? Even the sportstalk Ying Yang's in KC we're discussing it yesterday.
I'm over it. Go kick the ever living crap out of WVU Saturday. This topic has ran its course for me. Moving on when I hit submit....
It was also for merchandising and apparel sales, which Millennials are the largest purchasers. The results have already shown that this worked as sales have been positive.
https://www.emarketer.com/content/mille ... enerations
They also didn't go a different direction and introduce a new logo, instead using something from the past in an attempt to keep some happy by not throwing out a complete overhaul like an Oregon style change. They also used a helmet that was only worn a single year, and the most recent non PowerCat helmet, and not others that were worn many years, so it appears they didn't want to try and bring up too much bad history. Limiting it to a single game also was a way of limiting the negative feedback. The flipped the color scheme to try and separate it from that history a bit though. They knew there would negative feedback, but were trying to limit the impact of that. No one is going to stop buying tickets or stop donating because of a change in 1 game. It's not going to affect the larger donors past a mild aggravation. And any of them that understand the goal behind it are going to put up with it for a game and move on. If they tried a new logo, or to rebrand it permanently, then the pitch forks would be out, and they knew that.
It appears to me, that this wasn't done on a whim, and there is a bigger intent here then just changing things for the sake of changing things. There were intentions behind the how, what and when. Marketing affects everyone differently, so expecting everyone to agree is impossible. Hopefully, it pays off with recruiting, fan buy in, attendance, whatever. It will be impossible to tell a 1 to 1 correlation as there are so many other factors, so we may never know if it worked, but for the cost of a single game, it seems like a low cost to benefit opportunity.