The main thing I noticed about Johnson's article was how a lot of what she talked about seemed to tie in with the collaboration of sports teams and media conglomerates and advertisers. She gives the example of how much each network pays for rights to broadcast sports. The more sport-centered a network is (like ESPN) the more they end up paying. But they are reimbursed by the heavy demand in advertising for these networks because of the fact that sports are widely accepted and watched in America. Since the new media platforms have been developed (like youtube, mobile, laptops, etc.) other than television, networks have discovered more ways to make money from advertisers. Johnson writes about CBS partnering with Pontiac to sponsor the CBS Sports NCAA Tournament Channel on YouTube. Now, the car line is associated with the signified messages that are implied with NCAA.
Advertisers often associate themselves with certain characteristics by sponsoring teams. In this way, whatever view one has of the team, that view is transferred to the sponsoring brand as well. My discussion question is this: Do you believe that when a team or celebrity does something immoral that it reflects on the brand? Can you think of examples of this?
Leave a comment