BRAND NEW U
Canadian Interuniversity Sport has a new name, but it will take more to lure sponsors,
CIS rebrands itself as U Sports, aims to capture attention of fans, marketers
How do you transform your sports organization from a staid governing body to a dynamic, engaging and lucrative sports property?
For the folks running university sport in Canada, it starts with a title change. They discontinued the name Canadian Interuniversity Sport on Thursday and unveiled a sleek new moniker: U Sports.
Officials say they needed a name that worked in both English and French, and that saved fans from memorizing yet another acronym. The brand makeover is part of a campaign that aims to reposition university athletics in Canada’s crowded sports marketplace. Rather than existing as NCAA Lite, U Sports offi- cials plan to market its schools and athletes, and convince consumers their product is worth watching. And sponsoring.
“We’ve been working really hard to get in front of corporate Canada,” says U Sports CEO Graham Brown. “They’re passionate about university sport. We just have to convince them that we’re a good opportunity for marketing (and) for promotion.”
Thursday’s move comes at a pivotal moment in U Sports’ history.
U Sports officials point out that the talent gap between Canadian universities and NCAA schools has narrowed. In August, Carleton University’s men’s basketball team went 6-0 in exhibition games against U.S. schools. And Thursday’s rebranding news conference featured Vaughn Martin, who went from Western University to a five-year career as an NFL defensive lineman.
But visibility has dwindled. Two years ago Sportsnet stopped broadcasting regular season university football, citing high production costs and low viewership. This fall U Sports and Rogers reached a deal to broadcast four regular season games on City TV, but the first matchup of that series drew just 18,000 viewers nationally.
Experts say it will take more than a brand makeover to engage viewers.
“The biggest challenge is less in the branding and more in the exposure,” says Anthony Zanfini, head of the Toronto-based marketing firm Ambit. “U Sports or CIS, it doesn’t help them win that battle. That battle is about the cost of producing television and the revenue broadcasters can make.”
Though Brown insisted U Sports wished not to mimic the U.S. college sports model, the spectre of the NCAA — which brought in more than $1 billion in revenue in 2014 — hangs over any discussion about commercializing amateur sport.
But as U Sports seeks to increase revenue, the NCAA’s critics argue that the business of college sport has undermined its mission on the field and in the classroom.
Two weeks ago the University of Michigan’s football team recorded a 78-0 over Rutgers, an overmatched New Jersey team whose move to the Big Ten hinged on money. The conference wanted to expand its lucrative TV network to the U.S. east coast, luring Rutgers with the prospect of annual $40 million payouts.
The Big Ten-Rutgers arrangement doesn’t help competitive balance, and adds hours of travel time to college athletes’ already-cramped schedules.
Canadian officials recognize deals like those are difficult to justify except as commercial ventures, but are confident that U Sports can boost revenue without sacrificing academics.
“In terms of revenue we’ll never get to where U.S. college football and men’s basketball are,” says McMaster athletic director and former Raptors GM Glen Grunwald. “We can always keep our values and put student-athletes first. We know that doesn’t happen in the NCAA in all places.”