I am a huge fan of college football. I wear it on my sleeve, often literally. So on Thursday nights and Saturdays, plus the occasional Friday and Wednesday in September through January you can either find me in the small town of Blacksburg, VA or glued to a television set. I love the whole presentation of college football, the intense rivalries, the amount of optimism surrounding each team and the commentary from the announcers. Most of the time it is great to hear the professional’s opinion and sometimes is even sparks a thought. (Whoever said watching sports was a mindless activity?)
Last week during a heated contest between LSU and Arkansas, the announcers were discussing front-runners for the Heisman Trophy. If you are not familiar with college football then you may not know that Tim Tebow QB for Florida and Darren McFadden HB for Arkansas are the two top to candidates for this award that is given to college football’s most outstanding player. Both players are offensive players, who are in point scoring positions. Eventually talk turned to Glenn Dorsey DT for LSU. Dorsey is a defensive player who is not known for putting points on the board, but for putting fear in opposing quarterback’s hearts. So, I was surprised when the announcers pointed out that Dorsey likely didn’t stand a chance of winning the Heisman because his contributions were not quantifiable. Really?! Could it really be true that the only measure of a players worth is how many rushing/passing yards they have or how many touchdowns they score? It appears that, at least to the Heisman voting committee this is the case. In fact, only three times in the 72 year history of the award has the trophy been given to a player in a non-scoring position.
True, the way you win football games is having more points than the other team at the end of the game, so I don’t underestimate the importance of scoring points, but scoring points alone does not win football games (just ask Nebraska). You must also prevent the opposing team from scoring. So I began thinking about how to quantify the impact that Glenn Dorsey and other defensive players like him have on the game. First, you could look at points allowed while the player is on the field, number of times the quarterback is hurried, sacked or intercepted. Especially, any change in the average of opposing players, so if a running back averages over 100 yards per game and the opposing defense holds him to under 50. There could also be intangibles, like the number of times the offense changes the play in order to run away from the defensive player, or the impact that a sack has on fan involvement or team momentum. Statistical departments at the college and television stations measure most, if not all of these things, so it was sad to hear that Dorsey would not be considered based on a lack of quantification.
It got me thinking about the world of advertising and quantification. Are we always looking at the right measures? It seems like sales and revenue are the touchdowns of advertising measurement. Sure increasing sales, at least in the short-term, is considered a win, but what about the other impact of the advertising program. Shouldn’t we also look at the effect the advertising has on the perceived momentum of the company, or the way it changes the relationship with competitors, or even the way it gets people talking about the company. Obviously all of these things are often measured, but are they given the proper weight? Just because communications may not have an immediate and direct relationship to the bottom line does not mean they are not accomplishing Herculean tasks, which quite likely provide stronger long-term results. Perhaps measurement will benefit from a more holistic and global perspective to effectiveness.
Southern Planner 