The Ducks marketing department isn’t completely daft. They know this is a marketing opportunity, but it seems like their hands are tied. If they support the video, they run the risk of losing the license to the Duck. Not supporting the video has earned them a bunch of criticism – but it’s criticism from Ducks fans who, let’s be honest, will continue to be Ducks fans even if the university never officially supports the video.

I actually think the university is in a win-win situation here. They’re getting free marketing anyway, since the video has gone viral, and by declining to officially sanction it, they don’t run the risk of offending any of their stakeholders. I agree that they could expend a little bit more effort to explore their options for actually supporting the video without offending anyone, but there’s not much motivation to do that.

Sometimes, even if an organization likes something, they have to take action against it to protect their brand.

By the way, it would be epic if the marching band did their rendition of “I Love My Ducks” pregame or halftime.

Yes, the AD is worried about breaking their written-on-a-napkin agreement with Disney regarding the Duck. But Nike is the straw stirring the drink here.

You have probably noticed the almost 100% shift away from “officially licensed” Duck-based paraphernalia. This is related to sub-agreements from #1, where Disney basically said “OK, you can sell all the Donald-ish stuff you want, but you can’t sell it outside the state.” Not exactly an attitude that fits well with the global approach the dept has been pursuing since Joey went on the side of that skyscraper in NYC.

There’s a reason you don’t see Donald coming out of the current “O” logo. Since you can’t sell it outside the state, you can’t market it online. If you can’t market it online, in 2009, you essentially can’t market it period.

Since “Robo-Duck” died a well-deserved and painful death, the AD’s attitude regarding ANY mascot has been to limit its exposure as much as possible.

Sure, let Donald roam the sidelines, but any other use of the mascot in anything resembling an official or sanctioned capacity is strictly limited.

Since the authors of the YouTube clip were kinda-sorta associated with the U, they HAD to request approval before using the Duck costume (said approval isn’t likely to have been granted). Sucks to be them, sure, but the attempt to quash this was pretty heavy-handed. I don’t, however, believe it was in any way intentional.

But Nike doesn’t have any corporate interest in driving traffic to Disney.com. That’s just wack.

Remember the old Oregon Track logo, with the Afro-duck? I miss him.

Are there any other teams with animals as their mascots that involve said animal less in their logos, on their uniforms, and in their marketing materials than Oregon?