If, like me, you were unable to keep your eyes open until 4am on Monday morning, you likely watched the highlights of 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.

However, the chances are far greater that you will have seen those brands who advertised in the Best Picture nominated movies. Fenton’s Creamery ice cream in Disney’s Up? BMW and Taco Bell in American Football drama The Blind Side? American Airlines, Hilton Hotels or Chrysler in Up In The Air? Ringing any bells?

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.

By Lucie Bartlett on March 9th, 2010

Tags: Advertising , American football , Brand marketing , Film , Product placement

No comments

When people find out I work in sponsorship, I always get asked two things:

1. Do you have any decent tickets?
2. 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.

Sports stars and clubs themselves are in on the act - basketball player, Shaquille O’Neal has a whopping 2.8 million twitter followers, while Barcelona FC has 1.3 million Facebook friends – but the real control lies with the person on the street.

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.

By Dominic Curran on March 2nd, 2010

Tags: Andy Murray , David Beckham , FA Cup , Facebook , Public relations , Sponsorship , Tiger Woods , YouTube

No comments

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.

By Scott Garrett on March 2nd, 2010

Tags: Advertising , Football , London 2012 , Olympics , Vancouver 2010 , Winter Olympics

No comments

Having just returned from two weeks at the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games, I’m still catching up with my UK reading. So it was that I turned last night to the February 10 edition of Marketing magazine, and an article on sponsorship by one of my favourite columnists, Mark Ritson, on which I really have to comment. Here’s why.

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.’

I’m not about to defend the industry, or the people Mark names and shames. What I am here to do is point out that Synergy did call the Tiger situation correctly. On December 12 last year, the day after  Tiger announced he was taking an indefinite break from golf, I made the following post on Twitter:

‘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!

By Tim Crow on February 25th, 2010

Tags: Golf , Sponsorship , Sponsorship consultancy , Synergy , Tiger Woods

1 comment

I’ve been with Synergy clients and colleagues here in Vancouver for over a week now taking in the 2010 Olympic Winter Games. This is the seventh Games I’ve attended, and as always it’s been a fascinating experience, but this time with a heightened sense of importance and uniqueness, because we’ll be applying the insights we develop here for our clients to their London 2012 sponsorship strategies.

With this in mind, here are a just a few examples of how the Olympics has played out here in Vancouver and Canada, with some thoughts on the associated implications for London 2012.

1. The Weather

This has of course been a major theme in the Vancouver 2010 story, both around the world and here in Canada, with the effects of one of the warmest winters ever in BC impacting heavily on the events in Whistler and Cypress Mountain. But it’s been less of an issue here than you might expect, because so many major events – in particular ice hockey, of which more later – are being staged in indoor venues in the Vancouver metropolitan area.

Whilst the weather is of course a much less critical factor in the summer Games than in the winter edition, there’s no doubt that a wet summer in two years’ time – and let’s face it, a wet summer is hardly a rare event in the UK – would have a major effect on the overall image and experience of London 2012.

2. Olympic Scepticism

Vancouverite scepticism is not getting in the way of the party, but it’s always there in the background. Games-time has brought with it a huge surge of excitement and celebration, but there is a palpable undercurrent of scepticism about the effects and benefits of the Olympics here. It’s characterised by what Vancouverites would be the first to admit is their opinionated mindset, and framed by Canada’s proud tradition of free speech. I’ve experienced it every day, face-to-face, in the news and in social media, across a wide spectrum of topics, such as Government policy, the economy, tax, house prices, and travel disruption.

Recognise any similarities with the UK?

3. The Opening Ceremony

Fuelled by a tidal wave of rumours and a surprising lack of leaks from inside the dress rehearsals, last week everybody here was talking about the opening ceremony, in particular who would perform (apart from Rush, most of the rumours I heard turned out to be true) and who would light the Olympic flame (who else could it have been but Wayne Gretzky). The post-ceremony debate was equally fascinating. Whilst the consensus was “brilliant show” (and it was – the minor technical problems did not detract at all) there was also a significant debate about to what extent the ceremony truly represented Canada.

We’ll see exactly the same things happen in the UK around the London 2012 opening ceremony: indeed if anything, the pre-show rumours and the post-show debate will be even more intense.

4. Bad Luck, or Bad Games?

Although every Games has its problems, Vancouver 2010 has of course already had more than its fair share. They have ranged from the unfortunate to the tragic and – depending on your point of view – resulted from either misadventure or mismanagement. Inevitably this has become a major media theme worldwide, with the most strident criticism of IOC and VANOC coming from the UK, as well as some early – some would say too early – comments by UK journalists that this is ‘the worst Games ever.’

The Canadian media and Canadian consumers aren’t denying that there are problems – quite the reverse. But it’s hardly surprising that many have reacted furiously to some of the more extreme criticism from the UK. If London 2012 comes in for similar criticism from another country’s media, we’ll see exactly the same reaction in the UK.

5. In Canada, It’s All About Ice Hockey

Ice Hockey – just ‘Hockey’ here - is king in Canada. Think football in the UK, cricket in India or gridiron in the USA in terms of its dominant popularity. And so it follows that for Canada, this games is going to be defined by whether or not Canada wins the hockey gold medal. Of course, every Canadian success is going to be a cause for national celebration, as it was when Alex Bilodeau won Canada’s first-ever gold medal on home soil – an occasion I was lucky enough to witness at first hand – in the freestyle skiing moguls. But hockey is what really matters. So it was that on Tuesday night, after Canada beat Norway, the energy and noise in the streets and the bars of Vancouver went way up, to the levels we see in the UK when England play a big FIFA World Cup or UEFA Euro match.

Will London 2012 be different in the UK? Yes and no. We’ll see, I’m sure, huge support for all of Britain’s athletes, and national celebrations when a gold medal is won, particularly in the blue riband events. But although medal success will definitely be a key measure of how UK consumers judge the success of the Games, the focus will be spread across most of the Olympic sports rather than just one.

By Tim Crow on February 18th, 2010

Tags: London 2012 , Olympics , Vancouver 2010

No comments

Whilst browsing Twitter last night, I came across an interesting survey, via @mediaguardian, on journalists’ treatment of social media as a source. The US survey conducted by Cision and The George Washington University is based on responses from 371 journalists, almost half of which have spent over 20 years working in the industry. It reports that 56% of reporters and editors believe social media is important for reporting and producing their stories and cites blogs as the major source with networking sites like Twitter and Facebook in second place.

The inclusion of user generated content, from YouTube, to substantiate media reports has become an established practice - highlighted so evidently through the use of bystanders’ videos of the police assault on Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protest. However, the use of information taken from other social media sites seems to be moving things forward a stage.

Predictably, of the journalists that acknowledged using social media as a source, the vast majority (84%) admitted that they treat the information taken from these sites as more cautious and less reliable than traditional media. Whilst on first reading that might seem sensible, surely this depends on the context in which they are planning to use the information taken from the ‘source’.

I’m not sure that anyone that regularly contributes to blogs or social networking sites would propose that their daily tweets and posts be considered as ‘fact’. In contrast, I would suggest that the purpose of consulting social media should be to add colour to a report by drawing on different people’s opinions to shed light on any given subject, rather than providing the ‘facts’ themselves.

From my own experience in PR, I can happily admit to being a source for a journalist on more than one occasion via Twitter. From a combination of my own posts about the projects I’m working on and following a number of relevant journalists, I’ve managed to set up a number of stories in press. Rather than the content of posts being used as content, they instead highlighted a common interest and shared goal which made me the source. Certainly from my world, social media is becoming an increasingly effective and common way of communicating with journalists.

My advice to the 46% of journalists that don’t consider social media to be important in their line of work would be to give it a go. It won’t tread on the toes of your reliable, traditional sources, but it might just provide you with access to additional resources, colour and opinion than the ‘facts’ on their own could offer.

By Kelly Russell on February 16th, 2010

Tags: Blogging , Public relations , Social Media , YouTube

1 comment