One year from now, the world’s biggest football tournament kicks off in Brazil. Okay, so football may not be coming home (and won’t be doing so for the foreseeable future), but in 2014 it’s going to spend the summer at its flamboyant South American penpal’s place.

Ahead of the inevitable slew of campaigns from FIFA sponsors, partners of the competing national teams, World Cup ambushers and those brands simply exploiting the global obsession with all things ball-kicky, we thought it an appropriate time to put the question to the floor: what’s the best football commercial of all time?

There’s almost inevitably a knee-jerk shortlist this question generates, with the words “Nike Airport” passing most people’s lips in our office, but I’m keen that we think deeper to see whether this TVC really does stand head and shoulders above the rest of the field. It might be an official sponsor like Visa (FIFA) or Carlsberg (England), a connected ambush play from Pepsi, or just a brilliant use of football’s innate humour and connection to the national psyche (potentially totally unrelated to a tournament such as the World Cup), like John Smith’s Peter Kay Have It ad.

Of course, defining the best inevitably draws attention to the worst examples: the shoddy nemeses that help highlight everything that’s right about the really good executions. These polar opposites demonstrate that it’s not as easy as putting a ball, a fan or a famous player into a scenario to relevantly connect with an audience – after all, football fans are a cynical lot, aren’t they?

Here’s an initial taster of some of the best and worst ads out there – the would-be champions versus the relegation candidates, if you like.

Three of the Best:

Official Sponsor: Coca-Cola Rivalidades

Tournament Ambush: Nike Take it to the Next Level

Using Football: John Smith’s Have It

Three of the Worst:

Official Sponsor: Mars Work Rest Play Your Part for England

Ambush: Pringles Pringooooals

Using Football: TJ Hughes Wayne Rooney’s Brother

So, what do you think? Send us your Top and Bottom 3 examples of football TVCs, either by dropping their YouTube links in the comments section below, or by tweeting them to @yonnex101, using the hashtags #BestFootyAds or #WorstFootyAds, respectively.

Again, they don’t necessarily need to be World Cup-related: what about the big partnership launches (Vauxhall and England), Champions League executions (like Mastercard or Heineken), or just amazing examples of footballers or the sport itself being used to help turn fans into customers…for better or for worse. And don’t be restricted to UK examples – some of the best examples of creativity have come from emerging markets, for whom the passion for the sport is equally as strong.

We’ll publish the walls of fame and shame here, on July 13 – one year to go before the 2014 FIFA World Cup Final is played.

Who makes your starting XI, and which brand’s behaviour has put them on the transfer list? All will be revealed…

By Jonathan Izzard on June 12th, 2013

Tags: Advertising ,Ambush campaign ,Ambush Marketing ,Brand marketing ,Brazil 2014 ,Broadcast sponsorship ,Default ,Football ,Football Sponsorship ,Sponsorship ,World Cup ,World Cup Sponsorship ,YouTube

1 commentTweet

by Bruno Scartozzoni and Guilherme Guimarães

Alongside the 2014 FIFA World Cup, Neymar has been the biggest news in Brazilian football in the last few years, and one of the hottest topics in Brazilian advertising and marketing too. And now, with his move from Santos to FC Barcelona, his stage has moved from Brazil to Europe and, maybe, the world.

Neymar is part of a generation of Brazilian players that, despite some very talented names, lacks the quality of Romário, Ronaldo, Rivaldo and Ronaldinho. He is still too young to already be considered part of this pantheon, but Brazilians hope he will get there soon.

On the other hand, Neymar is already a phenomenon in Brazilian brand marketing. It’s almost impossible to turn the TV on in Brazil and not encounter him. He’s everywhere, in every category: Nike, Panasonic, Unilever, Volkswagen, Santander and six other brands currently count on Neymar’s image to drive their brand and business in Brazil. And now, according to his new management, his next target is international budgets.

Mentos, the confectionary brand, was the most recent to announce Neymar as its face in Brazil. They did it last week, at the same time he was signing the contract with Barcelona. Asked about the fact that the player was leaving Brazil, Henrique Veloso Romero, the company’s president, said that it didn’t matter where he’s living or playing, because Mentos is associating its brand with Neymar’s story.

Actually, Neymar’s story is part of a traditional Brazilian fairytale of the poor boy who becomes a global football star. The same thing happened to Pelé, Ronaldo and Ronaldinho, and all of them got the attention of Brazilian consumers. That’s the reason why the Brazilian media is doing 24/7 coverage of Neymar’s new life in Barcelona: the arrival at the airport, the clothes he is wearing, the Spanish fans, his girlfriend’s reactions, and so on. In this context his football skills appear to be secondary.

No one can question Neymar’s appeal to brands and consumers. He has a good story to tell, bags of charisma, and the skills to score goals and deal with the media at the same time. The problem is that so far no brand has found some white space within the ‘Neymar brand’ to communicate something unique and different. He is everywhere, but he is always doing the same kinds of testimonial and campaign.

Brand managers must consider that Neymar is an asset that carries some very characteristic values – goals, youth, irreverence, parties, beautiful women, trendy hairstyle, fairytale story etc. – but that these values can’t apply to every possible brand, category and strategy, especially when so many other brands are using him in the same way.

And there are alternatives! A recent survey asked Brazilians which values footballer and non-footballer athletes convey, and the results were very interesting. Football players are usually associated with popular values and a Brazilian spirit. On the other side, athletes outside of football are more associated with trust, intelligence, beauty, modernity, and dressing well. Of course Neymar is an exception and can bring many of these values with him, but this research proves that football and football players – in particular Neymar – are not always the answer to brands looking to work with sports in Brazil.

Note: Neymarketing is a term coined by our friend and partner Tim Crow.

Bruno and Guilherme are partners at Ativa Esporte, the Brazilian sports marketing consultancy which is Synergy’s partner in Brazil.

By Synergy on June 11th, 2013

Tags: Advertising ,Brand marketing ,Brazil ,Brazil 2014 ,Brazil 2014 Sponsorship ,Brazil 2014 Sponsorship Consultants ,Football ,Football Sponsorship ,Rio 2016 ,Rio 2016 Sponsorship ,Rio 2016 Sponsorship Consultants ,Sponsorship ,Sponsorship consultancy ,World Cup ,World Cup Sponsorship ,World Cup Sponsorship Consultants

No commentsTweet

What Happened?

Synergists have been keeping track on what was happening on and off the clay in Paris over the last few weeks, and whilst Rafa took his French Open win/loss record to an incomprehensible 59-1 (Robin Soderling must be a proud man), a few official sponsors also caught our attention.

Lacoste celebrated their 80^th anniversary during the tournament with some partnerships with a few similarly iconic French brands including Veuve Clicquot, Hermes and bakery Fauchon, creating some very special limited edition products that reinforced their French heritage.

Orange enhanced the viewing experience by providing 4G network coverage on the Philippe-Chatrier court and, for the first time, offered an exclusive ‘multi-court viewing’ smartphone and tablet package for customers, as well as continuing to provide the official tournament app and making NFC services available for visitors.

And, finally – perhaps inspired by BMW at London 2012 - Emirates, in their first year sponsoring the French Open, created a new branding opportunity (and talking point) by using replica versions of their planes to hide an aerial TV camera.

But my favourite French Open activation took place in the lead-up to the tournament, when BNP Paribas, who were celebrating 40 years of sponsoring Roland Garros, gave tennis fans the opportunity to use Twitter to train France’s No. 1 player, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga.

Three days before the tournament began, fans were able to drag and drop a tennis ball on to a virtual tennis court on the bank’s Tweet and Shoot website and these ‘shots’ were encoded into Twitter hashtags describing their location on the court along with Tweets of support for Tsonga. Then the Frenchman took to the court and his training session with an on-court ‘ball-machine Tweet-bot’ (my own description!) was streamed live online. A group of 40 VIP Twitter Trainers were also selected from BNP Paribas’ social media communities via a related competition. The winners were guaranteed to have their ‘tweet shots’ fired at Tsonga and invited to attend the session.

Why We Love It

Here at Synergy, we always say that best practice sponsorship puts the fans first, and BNP Paribas gave tennis lovers the chance to directly get closer to the best player in France in an innovative and fun way, whilst reinforcing the message that they have been supporting Roland Garros for 40 years.

Although providing fans with the opportunity to send motivational messages via social media isn’t a new idea (and Nike have recently given England fans this opportunity during the launch of their new shirt), this activation, through the combination of the training session and the Tweets of support, gave supporters the chance to feel like they were actively helping Tsonga’s attempt to end the 30-year wait for a French winner at Roland Garros.

I also think that whilst some ‘tradigital’ activation ideas can feel a bit forced or clunky, this use of social media (in a similar way to an award-winning Doritos Dodgeball Facebook campaign in 2010) provided a really clear opportunity for the participants and also an interesting challenge for Tsonga, as well as producing some nice live and post-event content (the fourth ‘P’).

This unique training session and the messages of support couldn’t quite get Jo-Wilfried over the line, though, as he lost to David Ferrer in the semi-final. Now let’s move from the 30 year French wait and onto the 77 year British one at SW19!

By Matt Kiernan on June 11th, 2013

Tags: Advertising ,Andy Murray ,BMW ,Consultancy ,Social Media ,Sponsorship ,Sponsorship Activation ,Synergy ,Synergy Loves ,Tennis ,Twitter

No commentsTweet

Tough Mudder events are hardcore, 12 mile-long obstacle courses designed by the Special Forces to test all-round strength, stamina, mental grit and camaraderie. The event website professes Tough Mudder to be “the toughest event on the planet”.

Sounds pretty scary. So what would inspire a group of six Synergists to take it on…?

This year, Synergy is supporting the Duchenne Children’s Trust to find a cure for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy – a cruel and crippling disease which leaves little boys in a wheelchair by age 12, and with a life expectancy just in the late teens or early 20s. There is currently no cure for the disease, but recent developments have offered hope that one can be found within the next ten years. Without fundraising though, there is no way to turn this from potential to reality.

This is where the Synergy Tough Mudders came in. We took on the challenge with the goal of raising funds for the Duchenne Children’s Trust – and notching up an unforgettable achievement at the same time. With our busy jobs and lives, however, fundraising ever so slightly took priority over training. So, when Saturday 8th June – our allotted Tough Mudder date – rolled around, we were a little bit nervous about our chances over the notorious 12 mile course.

Pre-event build-up didn’t help assuage our fears. Tough Mudder is a phenomenal feat of branding – the hype around the challenges and its fearsome fiery logo inspire foreboding in participants well in advance of the event start. As an MC led us in group chanting of the Tough Mudder rules (gems such as “do not whine – kids whine”) before we crossed the start line, fear reached a peak.

The event itself was a curiously wonderful combination of fun and fright. We were running the Hampshire course, which was set amongst beautiful rolling countryside under cloudless blue skies. However, no sooner had we stopped to admire the scenery, one of the 21 terrifying obstacles would loom on the horizon.

Tough Mudder is truly a test of mental grit and group camaraderie. Without mental grit, who would be brave enough to throw themselves into a dark and freezing ice bath? Or slide through icy water while dodging electric shocks? But more than my (fairly limited, it must be said) inner steel, what I was truly grateful for were my team mates. Without them I certainly couldn’t have scaled this dastardly half pipe (on the second go – having slid all the way back down on the first attempt) or made my way across the gecko wall – a tricky climbing wall suspended high above deep, icy water.

Having genuinely struggled to overcome several of the obstacles, I was personally absolutely elated when we emerged through another round of electroshock therapy to cross the finish line. As we flopped on the grass and gratefully accepted our finishers’ pint of Strongbow from the event sponsor, there was a palpable sense of collective pride in our group effort. We’d coaxed each other through tunnels, carried team mates up hills in fireman’s lifts and provided much-needed leg-ups over walls – team bonding if it ever existed!

Most of all, we were pleased to have rewarded the faith of everyone who sponsored us to help us over the line. We’ve raised over £4,000 and counting, and it’s still not too late to donate here. Tough (yes) and muddy (very) our Saturday may have been, but we were all agreed on what a brilliant day it was – the sense of achievement and pride in our fundraising made it all feel more than worthwhile.

Where do we sign up for next year…?!

By Jessica Enoch on June 10th, 2013

Tags: Charity ,Synergy

No commentsTweet

London currently has the most expensive public transport system in the world and with maintenance and expansion work needed across the network, commuter costs are set to rise over the coming years.

As a result of the constraints on public sector funding, Transport for London (TfL) has looked to maximise its non-fare revenue in recent years in a bid to reduce additional costs to the public. This has led to a significant increase in the use of commercial sponsorship to fund transport projects. It is reported that in 2009/10, TfL received sponsorship income of £1.5 million, which rose to over £10 million in 2012/13, with the addition of sponsorship deals with Barclays and Emirates.

In truth the success of both of those landmark deals is still up for debate. The Emirates cable cars or ‘Emirates Air Line’ is estimated to be losing up to £50,000 a week as it fails to be seen as any more than a tourist attraction by London’s commuters. Boris Barclays Bikes have proved more successful in uptake – their problem lies in simply getting the public to refer to them as Barclays Bikes, which, for an outlay of almost £5 million per year, would have been at the top of their list of objectives. The value for both sponsors it seems, is in the brand awareness and prestige that comes with being associated with transport in the Capital.

However, a proposal published by The Conservative Party group that sits on the London Assembly entitled “Untapped resource: bearing down on fares through sponsorship”, has suggested that this funding model could be taken further, recommending the renaming (or rebranding) of Tube stations, trains and even entire bus and Underground lines. It is estimated that up to £136m per annum could be raised by such a system – enough to freeze fares for a full year, whilst £204m would cap prices for three years.

The story has been picked up by the majority of news outlets across the Capital, with many quick to condemn the commercialisation of public transport. Sponsorship clearly creates an opportunity to bring in some much needed extra investment for new infrastructure, but is littered with potential ‘ethical and reputational risks’ to TfL.

TfL should not see themselves as any different to a traditional rights holder. They must protect their brand by aligning themselves with the right companies, ensuring that they do not over-commercialize and distort their brand, which despite a lack of credible alternatives, still has a strong identity with a rich and colourful heritage.

Naming rights deals can be controversial at the best of times, lending themselves more favourably to ‘new build’ properties which are not subject to the nostalgic sentiment of their ageing counterparts. Naming rights should absolutely be considered for new transport ventures across London in the future as we have seen in Dubai, where £300 million was raised for their new metro system for the branding of stations across the network. Fifteen 10 year sponsorship deals have now been signed with firms such as Emirates and First Gulf Bank.

I do, however, still believe that there is real opportunity to consider a handful of deals across the current network; Virgin Euston for example, has been cited as an opportunity, with the train brand running lines out of Euston station. This is a path that has been explored elsewhere in the world. The Madrid Metro initially signed a 3 month deal with Samsung to rename the Puerta del Sol station “Sol Galaxy Note” to promote the launch of their new mobile phone. A subsequent deal has since been announced with Vodafone in which an entire line and the Sol station will carry the Vodafone branding. Station signs and all maps will be re-printed as “Sol Vodafone” and “Line 2 Vodafone”. One early response from TfL on the report is that they feel that the costs of changing signs and maps will significantly outweigh the funds received from corporate sponsors, so it will be of some encouragement that this has been done elsewhere.

It is perhaps unfortunate that the potential for naming rights alone have stolen the headlines. There are several other opportunities for brands within TfL’s current offering which naturally lend themselves to sponsorship – all of which are likely to be less controversial (and costly). Sponsorship of Oyster Cards for example, are ripe for a partnership with a bank or payment card company, whilst free or subsidized travel at certain times can help to improve sentiment towards a brand, as Diageo showed through their sponsorship of travel on New Year’s Eve. The sponsorship of individual trains and buses could be another potent opportunity for a brand to not only increase awareness but also to improve the overall customer experience, as Ikea have shown in Japan (albeit temporarily).

We recently wrote a blog about ‘Win4’ – a new model of sponsorship in which the brand, rights holder, customer and property infrastructure all benefit, and we believe that if TfL continues to pursue a sponsorship-led strategy, deals which follow this model may ultimately be seen as being more credible and successful.

TfL is a powerful brand with a heritage that many brands in the private sector would be envious of. As custodians of this brand, they must not lose sight of the role that the customer plays. It is easy to be blinded by the large sums that come with corporate sponsorship – particularly at a time when Government funding is being cut – but TfL must ensure that deals not only provide benefit to the consumer but also that they do not devalue the TfL brand.

Whilst a raft of naming right deals may not be the answer, both TfL and the Government should be commended for exploring the wider possibilities that sponsorship offers – not only for increasing revenue, but also for its potential to improve the customer – or commuter – experience.

By Tom Whiteside on June 4th, 2013

Tags: Advertising ,Brand marketing ,Branded content ,Consultancy ,Default ,Naming Rights ,Politics ,Public relations ,Sponsorship ,Sponsorship Activation ,Sponsorship consultancy ,Synergy

No commentsTweet

Having recently visited the Roy Lichtenstein retrospective at the Tate Modern, I was surprised to see little presence, let alone any creative activation, on the part of global exhibition sponsor Bank of America Merrill Lynch. And a quick Google following my visit suggested that the sponsorship asset was indeed used for little more than brand awareness, through title sponsor designation and niche experiences for high-value target consumers.

This was a surprise; such an exciting international exhibition of work from an artist known for the interplay of his art with the world of advertising seemed to me to represent a very promising sponsorship platform. Yet Bank of America Merrill Lynch have used the sponsorship for little more than basic badging – a missed opportunity, in my opinion, and a state of affairs that led to a less than enthusiastic reception from the media. Clearly though, the sponsorship does play some sort of vital role for the brand, even if it’s not one that involves the sort of creative content and two-way dialogue that we believe is integral to great sponsorship.

Instead, the sponsorship forms a central plank of the bank’s CSR policy, with the Lichtenstein exhibition website attesting that “the arts and culture platform is a key component of the company’s integrated corporate responsibility strategy”.

This, to me, is the heart of the matter: art sponsors – that is to say those sponsoring the visual arts, a category that includes art galleries, museums, exhibitions, or just visual artists themselves – on the whole use their sponsorships for a CSR play; a box-ticking exercise rather than for more consumer-facing creative activations. Straightforward hospitality and internal comms also play a key role in many art sponsors’ plans; for example, Ernst & Young used their sponsorship of last year’s British Design exhibition at the V+A Museum to host events linked to the exhibition for their clients, business contacts and employees and their families. Ernst & Young employees throughout the UK were also given free access to the exhibition.

There are some valid reasons for the less consumer-facing nature of art sponsorship campaigns – for example, there is a lack of large-scale branding opportunities within galleries (certainly nowhere near the options available in sporting arenas), which may limit the potential for sponsor activity, especially as works of art may be shrouded in particular regulations restricting their use in certain contexts. However, this can’t fully explain the lack of activation – the Olympics don’t provide in-stadia branding opportunities for sponsors (with some notable exceptions), but there are plenty of examples of sponsors leveraging their association with the Games creatively.

Back to art, though, and sponsorship activation may also be limited by the fact that the art world contains less well-known talent than the sporting equivalent. It’s true that the use of ambassadors can really elevate a simple content idea (as demonstrated by one of my favourite videos from last year), and yet whilst very famous living artists, such as Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst, do exist, it can be hard to find these icons – at least on such a large scale – in the world of art. And one can’t quite escape the sense that the art audience is somehow seen as more highbrow than that of sport or other forms of entertainment, and therefore less receptive to content that amplifies sponsorship beyond the museum or gallery itself.

Nevertheless, for a number of reasons, the paucity of creative sponsorship activation in the art world feels like a missed opportunity. Whilst it’s true that a disproportionately high number of arts sponsors are financial institutions of one form or another, with B2B responsibilities that limit their interest in large-scale consumer-facing sponsorship activations, one might argue that leveraging their sponsorships more widely could help repair the reputational damage spread fairly indiscriminately across their sector in recent years. It’s understandable that the experience of BP, for example – a company not in the finance sector but with problems of its own – might make sponsors scared to put their heads above the parapet and shout about their sponsorships too loudly.

And yet I remain convinced that the ability of sponsorship to create dialogue with consumers and provide credibility for sponsors to activate at ‘art’s roots’, makes it a very powerful tool, both for companies aiming to win back consumers’ hearts and minds, or those that simply want the chance to talk to consumers around an area that they care about. The number of people visiting galleries is steadily increasing, with 47.9% of the UK population visiting a museum or gallery in 2011 – making art a truly mass platform. The reasons for this increase are manifold, but due in part to the fact that several UK museums offer free access.

And the engagement is there too, with the Arts Council finding that over half of the online population (53%) have used the internet to engage with the arts and cultural sector.

With this platform for engagement as well as significant white space for active sponsors, art represents a potentially great platform for all sorts of brands to really show that they are doing good, not just say it. And while these stats relate to the UK, the global nature of some of the visual arts (such as touring exhibitions) provides a great activation platform for the sponsoring companies who are, for the most part, truly global brands.

That’s not to say that no brands at all are activating creatively in the art space. In fact, BP, mentioned earlier, have maintained their involvement in the art world (renewing partnerships with the BP Portrait Award, British Museum, Royal Opera House and the Tate for five years at the end of 2011) and are now in the 24^th year of support for the Portrait Award. One strand of their activation is the BP Portrait Award: Next Generation, a project opening up free opportunities for 14–19-year-olds to engage with portraiture. It allows these young people to meet artists and experiment with the medium themselves. Of course, this is still CSR, but on a broader scale than just the sponsorship of the exhibition itself.

UBS, another prominent art sponsor, display their extensive global art collection online so that its benefits are shared beyond the employees that work in the offices where the pieces hang. ABSOLUT also host their art collection online, as well in a museum in Stockholm. And Ballantine’s whiskey are another brand with a long heritage in art; two years ago, Synergy worked with them to create the Ballantine’s 12 Art of BEYOND bar.

So whilst I’m not claiming to have covered the spectrum of all art sponsorship activation, it still feels as if there’s an opportunity up for grabs for exciting consumer-facing campaigns by sponsors of the visual arts. The key ingredients – audience volume and engagement, an inherently creative platform and white space in the sector – are all in place, ripe for creative sponsors to make their mark.

Watch this space.

By Jessica Enoch on May 30th, 2013

Tags: Art & Design ,Default ,Sponsorship ,Sponsorship Activation

2 commentsTweet

Microsoft have had a big week. Tuesday saw the global unveil of the Xbox One – for the uninitiated, the successor to the company’s Xbox 360, and natural rival to Sony’s forthcoming Playstation 4. Following the PS4 launch back in February, Microsoft went to town to differentiate this event from Sony’s: no glitchy web-streaming, less heavy company preamble before the big reveal and, rather critically, an actual working version of the Xbox One in the room, to allow the geeks to get their gawk on.

It’s extremely early days in this new battle for front room supremacy, although worth noting that the Xbox One has been positioned not merely as a games machine, but rather a bridge between TV, DVR, home cinema, streamed content and wireless communications, such as Skype. The verdict from the media was largely positive – although social sentiment amongst web users was slightly less so, with the look of the new machine being unflatteringly compared to that of a vintage VHS player.

As a side note, it was interesting to see the ailing Sony’s share price jump almost immediately by nearly 10%, although there are suspicions that this bore greater relation to the company’s proposed restructuring of its entertainment divisions than solely a reflection of shareholder negativity around Microsoft’s new venture.

But Microsoft’s new bag of tricks wasn’t the main thing that struck me whilst watching the presentations unravel on Tuesday; the news that slipped quietly into the party amidst the fanboy fanfare was the fact that the company had also signed a $400m, 5-year partnership with the NFL.

Hot on the heels of a similar (albeit inevitably less lucrative) deal with MLS, the agreement at first appears to be a means of bringing to life the Xbox One’s broad functionality – as a user, one can employ the device’s voice controls to flip between live TV footage, exclusive second screen content (again, delivered through Microsoft’s SmartGlass™ tech) and even get real-time updates on related touchpoints such as one’s fantasy league team – but, in fact it’s more than that.

What we are seeing with this agreement is a new type of sponsorship that is designed (whether by rightsholder or brand) to deliver reciprocal value not only to themselves and the fans (the now well-trodden ‘win-win-win’ approach), but also the sport itself: effectively delivering a win-win-win-win (or ‘Win⁴’) strategy. Whilst we’ve frequently seen brands activating at a sport’s grassroots, the involvement of a sponsor to advance a sport in such a top-down manner is genuinely radical. In the case of the Microsoft-NFL deal, the ‘Win⁴’ strategy plays out fairly clearly across the four stakeholder groups:

The Rightsholder: the deal not only delivers cold, hard cash (and plenty of it), but also includes a healthy amount of VIK. Software and server space to keep things ticking behind the scenes? This isn’t the half of it. Through the sponsorship, all teams and coaches will be provided with the Microsoft technology (via branded Surface tablets) to deliver real-time analysis on the play-by-play throughout the game – effectively becoming a brand, beyond sportswear or equipment suppliers, with the capability of adding value on the field of play itself. As a new weapon in the coaching arsenal for its teams, there’s little doubt that the NFL would be seen to sniff at this inclusion of sponsor technology.

The Sport: the tech Microsoft is putting in to the hands of the luminaries of the NFL can undoubtedly help make a case that the brand – in partnership with the rightsholder – is providing a benefit to the sport in general; faster tactical analysis and more visual feedback for players could transform the impact of those on the sidelines, with the traditional playbook becoming a living entity for coaches.

The Brand: well, aside from a selling point for its new hardware or content for its existing platforms, this deal is interesting because it takes what is typically a B2B supplier model and turns it on its head. Or, rather, inside-out. This is no ‘invisible technology’ sell; it’s not just about showcasing a seamless behind the scenes story to the IT Crowd – this is about consumer kit visibly used on the hallowed field of play by some of the biggest names in arguably the biggest game on the planet. With the purpose of delivering a genuine edge.

The Fans: aside from the aforementioned benefits for early adopters of the Xbox One, riches are likely to spread across the entire Microsoft real estate – on-demand content, stats and access through hardware such as Surface tablets or Xbox Live, alongside complementary second-screen offerings across the full tablet/smartphone universe through Microsoft’s SmartGlass apps. And which fan would consider new tactical assets for the benefit of their coaching team a bad thing? Making fans the ultimate beneficiary through their love of the sport is no mean feat for a sponsor such as this.

So, is this the start of a new suite of Win⁴ technology sponsorships? Well, perhaps, but one might argue that it’s already happening.

T-Mobile signed a similar multi-year, multi-million dollar deal with Major League Baseball (MLB) in 2013, which has seen a number of very similar benefits delivered across this most iconic of American sports. MLB secured a huge cash investment, including the installation of WiFi across every ground – a huge selling point for the rightsholder and value offer for attending fans; the deal has also provided the brand with video and statistical content that it is well-placed to deliver to its consumers not attending matches – including a free subscription to MLB’s $19.99 MLB At Bat mobile app.

On top of this, T-Mobile created their own product showcase ‘moment’, this time by replacing the old-school bullpen phone with their communications technology to deliver  once again an (admittedly more basic) edge for coaches and teams. To say that this is a technology designed to benefit the sport in the same way as Microsoft’s coaching applications is probably overstating, but the principle that the brand is facilitating (and potentially improving) coaching dialogue for teams is still valid, just less ground-breaking.

This is a massive investment for the service provider, with T-Mobile’s involvement not stopping here: following the media domination model for sport often seen in the US, the brand will be spending big to own baseball; as the official press release puts it “partnerships with national broadcast partners FOX, Turner, MLB Network, and ESPN. T-Mobile will be the Presenting Sponsor of ESPN’s Wednesday Night Baseball, including on-air, digital, and mobile sponsorship initiatives, in addition to features on ESPN’s Baseball Tonight. T-Mobile and Major League Baseball also will develop marquee media opportunities and marketing extensions at events throughout the year, as well as local sponsorships with select MLB Clubs.”

Moneyball indeed.

Speaking of which, SAP’s deal as Official Business Analytics Software Partner of the NBA has seen the company create a real-time statistics service, available for use by fans and team managers alike. Billy Beane may have just lost his edge.

So, can any brand hope to cut a deal like T-Mobile or Microsoft (assuming they can afford it)? Potentially, although the unique blend of B2B supply approach to deliver B2C benefits is definitely easier for brands such as these, whose business already spans both sides of the ‘B’ equation. This sets them apart from companies like Atos, whose B2B commitment to the IOC has kept the Olympic Games running seamlessly since 2001, but, as Jacques Rogge himself described the company, in the role of “the unsung hero”.

Outside of sport, Virgin Media have adopted what could be considered a similar approach with their sponsorship of WiFi on London Underground. Whilst the programme kicked off in time for the London Olympics last year with free WiFi at major travel hubs, it has gradually extended across more of the Tube network in 2013. That said, it’s another example of a ‘rightsholder’ (i.e. London Underground) delivering tangible benefits for its customer base through partnership with the right technology brand, with only O2 customers (who are notably excluded from access) left with reason to gripe. WiFi availability on the Underground is unlikely to lead to a better Tube service, which is where this falls short of Win⁴ territory, with its benefits focused on the brand, ‘fans’ (customers) and ‘rightsholder’ (London Underground), rather than transport as a whole.

The major question this raises is whether major rightsholders/events will be adopting this approach, with the hope of improving the sport as a whole. Are we going to see the otherwise glacial rate of change at FIFA thaw? Will UEFA again lead the way with innovations for the Champions League? Are we going to see Omega crack how to match on-field Olympic branding with genuine benefits for legions of fans at Rio 2016? Or, closer to home, is there a brand that could break the bank to bring the Win⁴ model to the Premier League and its fanbase? And is this as simple as goal-line technology?

Which brings us back to Microsoft. $400m is a lot of money to part with for a property that is still universally accepted as ‘America’s Game’; sure, the sport has fans outside of Stateside, but as a day-to-day incentive for engaging with Microsoft products or services, it’s hard to see that this travels well. Is it conceivable that the US company would engage the Premier League, and football, in the same way? What crumbs of content would be left after Sky Sports and BT have had their share? Can you imagine how many Surface tablets Paolo di Canio would get through in a season…?

In spite of these challenges, it’s clear that Win⁴ has a future in sponsorship, with rightsholders and fans demonstrating an appetite the right tech companies are more than capable of satisfying, to their mutual benefit and the betterment of the sport as a whole.

By Jonathan Izzard on May 24th, 2013

Tags: Advertising ,Brand marketing ,Default ,Football ,Rio 2016 ,Synergy

No commentsTweet