With London 2012 in mind, this led me to consider what else captured the unique geography and zeitgeist of London, and what immediately sprang to mind was Ian Dury’s brilliant rendition of ‘The Bus Driver’s Prayer’. Being of a certain vintage, I was lucky enough to see Dury perform it several times live, but as I expect most of you will be unfamiliar with it, it’s the Lord’s Prayer as - perhaps - recited by a London Bus Driver, and it goes like this:
Our Father, who art in Hendon, Harrow Road be thy name. Thy Kingston come, thy Wimbledon, in Erith as it is in Hendon. Give us this day, our Berkhamsted, and forgive us our Westminsters, as we forgive those that Westminster against us. Lead us not into Temple Station, and deliver us from Ealing, for thine is the Kingston, the Purley and Crawley, for Iver and Iver, Crouch End.
It would be nice to think that it could be worked into London 2012 in some way: as part of an ‘Essential London’ album perhaps - or maybe in the Opening Ceremony? After all, a London bus famously featured in London 2012’s section of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games Closing Ceremony…
Great excitement and a few sore heads this morning, but the feeling of pride in the agency and in the quality of our work far outweighs the hangovers.
Now in their 16th year, the Hollis Sponsorship Awards are a stalwart of the industry and, over the years, we have notched up a grand total of 26 Hollis awards. But, this latest award is our proudest as it is testament to the fact that 2009 was our best year yet.
It was our 25th anniversary; a year of celebration but, more importantly, of change. Against a background of economic crisis, the year started out with some uncertainties. But we decided to embrace change wholeheartedly - in the way we thought and the way we creatively activated. And it worked. Last year we had nine new business wins as the market place recognised our industry leading position. Most importantly, we put digital at the heart of our thinking, whilst drawing on some of the best thinking from our fellow Engine companies.
The result was that we produced some exciting, creative and quality work for our clients and it was pleasing to see that one of our clients, Betfair, won the Hollis Award for the best use of PR in a Sponsorship Campaign for its Fan v Fan Ashes Campaign.
Of course the truth is that behind great campaigns and a great company is one thing - great staff. Have a look at the short film to hear about 2009 from our people in their own words.
With the general election looming ever closer, the media is crammed full of stories discussing the wonderful world of politics. Whilst I’d be the first to admit skimming through this section in the paper to get to the sport and celeb pages, an article by Daniel Finkelstein in today’s Times caught my attention.
Finkelstein discusses the concept of the brand, using author Martin Lindstrom’s example of the curved Coca-Cola bottle as one of the most recognisable and best-loved icons, to the point that it can be considered “smashable”. If dropped on the ground, and smashed into a hundred pieces you would still be able to recognise what it is from any one of those pieces.
He goes on to explain that “consumers purchase the product as much for what it says about them, and how it makes them feel, as for what it does. The product is much more than functional; it is part of their identity.”
This idea isn’t new in itself, and I’m sure we can all bring to mind a couple of brands that, for us, fall into this category. However, the twist that took this down a new angle for me was Finkelstein’s application of the concept to the Conservative party. We’re all aware of the photos of David Cameron cycling through London and visiting local schools and we understand that public perception is crucial in the popularity polls, but surely in this case we don’t “purchase” based on how this makes us feel? Isn’t it policies on the NHS, education and taxes that decide who gets out vote?
Think again, according to research by the BBC it appears that we absorb far more about the character and broad messages of our political parties than the individual policies they promote. All the more important then that the parties remain true to their brand positioning as any deviation from this could have a bigger impact on voters than they might realise.
Just goes to demonstrate once again, the power of the brand and it’s personality over our decision making in all areas of life. Thanks @Dannythefink – I’ll definitely be keeping a closer eye on the positioning of our political parties ahead of the election, whilst challenging the norm to see if one or two actual policies creep through.
If, like me, you were unable to keep your eyes open until 4am on Monday morning, you likely watched the highlights of this year’s Oscars online the following day. Unfortunately, for the advertisers that paid around the $1m-per-slot mark to gain a highly coveted slice of the limelight, this means you missed out on the commercial gaps.
It’s always quite amusing to survey friends and colleagues on their recollection of product placement on screen - the latter especially given that they work within marketing and are arguably more watchful of brand presence within entertainment platforms. If you mark this against the reality (superbly documented by Brand Channel’s Brand Cameo database), I have found that by and large people’s recall is probably less than 5% of the actual brands exposed on screen.
To make things interesting, those clever Brand Cameo folks have taken the brands present in this year’s Oscar contenders for Best Picture and plotted them on a matrix: pitching memorable versus instantly forgettable, against those that provided significant profit versus those that did not.
Hopefully, they won’t mind me reproducing it in full here:
(c) BrandChannel.com 2010
Now for the really interesting bit. Of those featuring in the most memorable segmentation, both Günther’s in District 9 and RDA that featured in Cameron’s epic Avatar were actually fictional brands.
Having written previously on how events, rights-holders and entertainment platforms are increasingly feeling the need to get a ‘brand stamp of approval’ on their project (even if they have to make one up), I am now more convinced than ever that we all now require a brand presence within our entertainment to validate its grounding in reality.
Though in the case of both District 9 and Avatar, paradoxically the branding was exercised to validate their grounding in un-reality. I guess given their sci-fi nature, it seems to make more sense to create a fictional unknown brand, thereby emphasizing the futuristic setting. But nonetheless, Günther’s and RDA still fall firmly on the ‘memorable’ side of scale - despite their non-existence in our reality.
Was this a missed opportunity for ‘real’ brands? Would South African-born Nando’s or thoroughly American N.A.S.A. have offered anything more? Would the producers have allowed it? Would the brand managers have wanted to association? And would the brand messages have been more - or less - memorable as a result?
I would love to know what goes in to thinking up these fictional companies. Do production execs or screenwriters work in a name that states a subtle (or not-so-subtle) socio-political message to fit with the film’s thematic development? As one District 9 viewer pointed out in a fan forum, sometimes the connotations have more meaning than at first it might appear:
‘Why were the South Africans patrons of a restaurant named Günther’s? Günther is the name of a king of Burgundy and means “warrior” or “soldier.” In effect, the South African blacks had a white warrior to thank for their sustenance.’
Either which way, we are entering an era where commercialism of movies - on and off screen - may fast become the life-blood of the industry; if, in fact we are not there already. How many years before an esteemed member of the Hollywood glitterati stands before the Academy audience and announces, ‘And the Academy Award for Best Product Placement goes to….‘?
Judging by the above, this year it should have gone to a brand that doesn’t even exist.
If this year’s Oscar-winning animated short film Logorama is anything to go by, it won’t be long. For those who have not yet had the pleasure of this little piece, the entire premise is the over-branded commercialisation of modern-day America on film. Watch the trailer below, and try to count the brand logos. There are over 2,500 in the full piece. Utter genius.
When people find out I work in sponsorship, I always get asked two things:
Do you have any decent tickets?
Do you have any decent gossip?
There was a time when I had plenty of the latter and little of the former. Unfortunately these days my gossip is about as revealing as a Tiger Woods press conference. The reasons for this are twofold due to changes that have happened over the last few years.
Firstly, the lines between sportsman and celebrity have blurred. Any star worth their salt should now be able to change their first name to ‘Brand’ and sound believable – think Brand Beckham, Brand Murray, Brand Schumacher. Could you ever imagine Brand Botham or Best?
The worlds of sport and entertainment celebrity, or ‘Sportainment’ as it’s naturally called in America, are now firmly linked and in more then a few cases by marriage (or separation). This means you become a front page story rather then a back page one, especially if it’s for the wrong reasons.
Secondly, and this is the significant recent change, with the rapid rise of digital and social media our appetite for instant news and our ability to create it has never been so strong.
After Tiger’s conference (streamed live on YouTube), we didn’t need to wait for the papers’ reaction the next day to gauge public opinion - in just the hour after there were over 93,000 tweets about it.
The headlines of Mr Cole, Terry and Woods show us that the sports stars haven’t really changed – in fact the only surprise is that Tiger kept it quiet so long. The change is that now they are considered fair game by both a salivating media and an unforgiving public able to influence and drive the agenda. This means there few secrets that don’t come out eventually – or in other words not a good time to be straying from home.
Oh and before you ask – no I don’t have any tickets to the World Cup, Wimbledon or The FA Cup Final. No change there then.
Those little red mittens came to symbolise the 2010 Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver. At $10 a pair, with half going towards Canadian athletes (though I’m not sure by which specific route), they were the must-have item for those attending the Games.
As I left the BA lounge for the flight back from Vancouver last week, I fell into step behind a group of passengers who were debating the success of the mittens and what London 2012 should produce that might perform a similarly symbolic role. One of them thought it a good idea to produce a specially commissioned football shirt. I thought at the time that this was a silly idea; on reflection I think it would be borderline catastrophic. Here’s why.
The mittens performed a number of roles, some obvious and others less so, but all of which were entirely relevant to the occasion: they kept your hands wrapped in fleecy warmth; they branded the Games as they featured in their deep red multitudes in TV coverage of every Olympic event; and they allowed viewers to show their appreciation and applause for competitors as they clapped their mitten-clad hands together or held them to the sky.
I’m led to believe that the mitten is also a traditional Eskimo garment, which has positive cultural overtones relating to the native population; and they also supported a worthy cause, looked great and were priced accessibly.
Contrast these benefits with the message that a football shirt would send. It would reinforce (mostly) ill-founded foreign views of British sports fans as an ill-mannered rabble; its symbolic function is to divide us into tribes rather than unite us in support; it is unlikely to be cheap to buy; and it sure as hell won’t protect us from our weather.
I think the right souvenir garment - London’s version of Vancouver’s red mittens - is a stellar idea, but what should it be? Suggestions on a postcard please (or in the comment box below) as to what we might produce for London 2012.
In his characteristically forthright style, Mark lambasts the sponsorship industry in general and a number of people in particular for predicting that Tiger Woods’ travails would not damage his image and endorsement deals:
‘Then there was the scandalous inability of an array of experts to predict correctly the impact of Woods’ misdeeds on his sponsorship deals…If ever we needed proof that most pundits in the world of sports sponsorship and celebrity endorsements are buffoons, here it was, in spades. This is one thing they are supposed to know about, and they managed to be 100% incorrect in the assessments. Not just wrong, but dead wrong.’
‘Tiger’s move will play well in the media. It also makes it easier for his sponsors to quit - or to stay. Most will quit: Nike will stay.’
Time has of course proved me right. I’m not sure whether Mark is on Twitter - and if you want to follow me Mark, you’ll find me there as @synergytim, along with numerous other Synergists - but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he had Synergy in mind when he said ‘most’ - ie not all - pundits called the Tiger situation wrong!
Find us on Google maps