Two weeks ago I flew out of Terminal 5 as part of the British Airways Team, filled with excitement and intrigue heading to Beijing for my first Olympic games. The scale of the airport proved to be a taste of things to come, as the recent expansion to cope with demand during the games made us feel like the only people arriving in Beijing.

As expected the first greeting (other than the strict visa checks) were the various TOP and domestic sponsors displaying their Olympic advertising. Being brutally honest it failed to really inspire or excite me, so it was not until arriving land side did we feel the full Olympic welcome from Beijing. This came in the form of two eight foot mascots bouncing towards us emblazoned with the Beijing 2008 logo. Whilst visitors queued up for photos, our guide was almost bursting with pride when he told us that we were not just in the presence of some inflatable cartoons, but we were standing next to BeiBei and YingYing two of the five Official Olympic Mascots. Having always been a little dismissive of mascots, except perhaps when they amusingly play rugby at the Guinness Premiership Final, I started to be amazed by the clamour to meet the eight foot cartoons. The Beijing Organising Committee of the Olympic Games named the five mascots BeiBei, JingJing, HuanHaun, YingYing, NiNi which when the words are put together translate to “Welcome to Beijing” and they were living up to their name. In fact it proved to be pretty hard to avoid them out and about in Beijing, as they appeared on every other form of communication about the games. So whilst some brands like Visa wanted to own the welcome to Beijing with information booths and guides, it was only the Olympic organisers themselves that really stood out welcoming visitors, a key opportunity lost for sponsors.

During my time in Beijing it was fascinating to see an entire city turn its attention to making sure the games are a complete success. Everyone we met wanted to help us, the taxi drivers trying their hardest to make sure we all went in the right direction (despite it being a nail biting experience) and even the underground was lined with volunteers, part of the army of helpers all over the city that guided visitors around Beijing and the games. Whilst it was obvious that this was Beijing with its make-up on I was impressed by their staging of the games, even if we felt uneasy thinking about how it all has been made possible. London has a considerable challenge to follow Beijing but I believe we will deliver a memorable Olympics and certainly deliver the party atmosphere, which was sorely lacking in Beijing.

One of the objectives of the trip was to have a look at how each of the Olympic sponsors used their association with the Games. Whilst there is too much to list as expected the most prominent use was outdoor advertising and there is no doubt the competition for the premium sites was hotly contested. However what was disappointing was the creative execution which was relatively poor and many campaigns looked like they had simply added the Beijing 2008 logo to existing campaigns. Another potential loss of value was that some of the key sites were taken by the IOC to thank all their Worldwide partners, domestic partners and suppliers. Whilst this gives brands guaranteed ad space, I doubt if any brand will see any return from being part of a list of sponsors. Had the IOC split each of these sites up amongst the partners it could have given each of the brands access to some of the most sought after advertising opportunities.

One of the other major sponsor activities was the large scale product showcasing on the Olympic Green around the now famous Bird’s Nest stadium. As reported in the media, sponsors originally believed this area would be filled with thousands of visitors and with an area six times the size of the Athens Games sponsors eyed this as a valuable opportunity. Whilst not all sponsors were present those that were invested heavily in substantial buildings for showcasing, ready to accept up to 18,000 people a day.

Unfortunately security precautions limited numbers during my time at the games and I sensed the sponsors’ areas were well below capacity. Whilst all the showcases where delivered to a very high quality on the whole they did not actually do anything to really enhance my experience of the games as they did not fulfil any real need by a visitor. That said it did give sponsors like Coke and Adidas a good opportunity to demonstrate their heritage and long term relationship with the games. I doubt this will be replicated on the same scale at London 2012 but what is clear is that whoever uses this space must make sure the activity is compelling and relevant to visitors’ experience at the games. Lots of lessons learnt and I now can’t wait until London 2012.

By Roberto Colandangelo on August 29th, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, China, London 2012, Olympics

No comments

As a response to a fan video from Tiger Woods PGA TOUR 08, Tiger Woods and EA SPORTS demonstrate that the “glitch” Levinator25 thought he found in the game, is not a glitch at all.  This is a classic example of taking time to understand your online audience and getting digital marketing right - as the 1.5 million people that have so far viewed the clip can testify.

As I said in my earlier blog ‘Sponsorship’s need for a more creative approach to digital marketing’, “users want ownable and original content with a talkability factor” - and this video from EA SPORTS has that in abundance. 

You’ve only to look at the comments on YouTube to see what a positive effect this video has on even the toughest audience - as YellowOnline says “LOL, I don’t like EA these days (”Quantity not quality”), but this is a brilliant ad.”

I’m sure every brand would like such positive comments from both current and past customers.

By Malph Minns on August 28th, 2008

Tags: Brand marketing, Digital marketing, Golf, Sponsorship, Tiger Woods

No comments

Before Beijing 2008 began I wrote a post speculating about what the legacies of Beijing might be for the Olympics, for London 2012, and for brands. Now that the Olympic flag has been handed to London 2012, what initial conclusions can we draw?

1. From a UK perspective, Beijing was the latest in a long line of single-issue Games - but the issue wasn’t, in the end, China. It was, of course, Team GB’s brilliant performance. This has created numerous legacies, all of which can be filed under ‘Feelgood Factor’. Right now, we feel good about Team GB, London 2012 and The Olympics. Of course it’s too early to say, using one of Boris Johnson’s many wonderful new soundbites, that “Olympo-scepticism” has been totally blown away, but I think we can say with some confidence that thanks to ‘The Great Haul of China’ it will be a minority sentiment from now on.

2. The Olympic brand survived the China crisis. Concerns about regime policy and authoritarian stage-management never went away, but were ultimately overshadowed by a technically superb Games which delivered both breathtaking spectacle and an array of legendary performances. The most important performance of the lot in a global context? My vote goes to Usain Bolt. Not just for what he did, in the event which above all defines the Games, but for what he didn’t do: three of the previous five Olympic 100 metre champions tested positive for drugs. Usain prefers chicken nuggets.

3. The London 2012 brand evolved significantly. Beijing 2008 grafted two new elements into London 2012’s DNA: Team GB and, by very different means and in his own unique way, Boris Johnson (and since you ask, I’m a huge fan of both). Finally, do you know anyone who doesn’t like the new London 2012 logo featuring Union jack colours?

4. And what of the brand marketing contest around Beijing 2008 in the UK? To my mind there were three clear winners: adidas, via their kit sponsorship of Team GB; Powerade, the only Team GB sponsor to commit to a brand campaign throughout the Games, as my colleague Sara vividly described in her post a few weeks ago; and British Airways, who skilfully leveraged Team GB’s homecoming

By Tim Crow on August 27th, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, Brand marketing, China, Default, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Sponsorship consultancy, Sponsorship consultants, Team GB, Vancouver 2010

1 comment

There appears to be confusion within WPP about the value to brands of sponsoring London 2012. Announcing WPP’s results on Friday, WPP CEO Sir Martin Sorrell said that “The winners as a result of Beijing are the seven [London 2012 sponsors]…They have done a good deal”. However Lesa Ukman, chairman of WPP-owned IEG, a US sponsorship consultancy, was quoted in Sunday’s Independent that London 2012 sponsorship is “impossible to justify” and “absurd”. Come on WPP, make your minds up…

By Tim Crow on August 26th, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, London 2012 sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship, Olympics, Sponsorship consultancy

No comments

The government has rejected claims it will not be able to raise enough cash from private firms to fund Britain’s 2012 Olympic athletes.

Olympics Minister Tessa Jowell has said she is “confident” the £79m needed to plug a funding gap will be found.

But there are fears the credit crunch and more attractive sponsorship options - such as backing individual athletes - will deter many firms.

And one sponsorship consultant dubbed the government’s plans “confused”.

Click here to read the full article, courtesy of BBC News.

By Synergy on August 22nd, 2008

Tags: Press Clipping

No comments

I have mixed feelings about Culture Secretary Andy Burnham’s announcement that post-Beijing, the Government will be launching a new initiative, called ‘Medal Hopes’, in a bid to raise £79 million from private sector sponsorship, plug a hole in the 2012 Olympic sports funding plan, and ensure athletes do not suffer funding cuts as they train for the London Games.

Like most Brits, I’ve rejoiced in the brilliant performances of Team GB in Beijing, applauded the fact that increased public sector funding of our Olympic sports has been a major factor in these performances, and welcome any initiative to attempt to ensure that what we’ve seen in Beijing 2008 is repeated in London 2012 – and, let’s not forget, Vancouver 2010.

I have no doubt that ‘Medal Hopes’ is well-intentioned. But based on Mr Burnham’s comments about what the scheme will be offering prospective sponsors, I do have serious doubts about the scheme’s viability, potential value to sponsors and, as such, whether it can realistically generate £79m. To explain why, let me concentrate on what Mr Burnham is reported to have said.

“This will be the only official route for an association with the team preparing for 2012.”

I’m assuming Mr Burnham has been misquoted here. If this is how ‘Medal Hopes’ is going to be positioned to the private sector, confusion will inevitably follow, because there are already three well-established routes for sponsors into an association with our Olympic teams and athletes, all of them official:

·           Sponsor London 2012, which confers a number of rights, but in particular is the only way a brand can become an official sponsor of Team GB.

·           Sponsor one of the National Governing Bodies of an Olympic sport. This confers no rights to Team GB or London 2012, but is clearly in the same territory, and there are already many of these deals in place.

·           Sponsor individual athletes. Again this confers no rights to Team GB or London 2012, but is in the same territory and is a much-used tactic.

A related and massively important issue here of course, is that ‘Medal Hopes’ must be seen as complementary, not competitive, to these three existing revenue streams, all of which provide vital funding for London 2012, Team GB and the athletes.

“This Olympics has gripped people in a way I have never seen before. Everyone wants a piece of it. [Medal Hopes] is about saying to business – ‘get on board, join the effort’ - contribute regionally, nationally or whatever level you can.

A laudable rallying cry, but one which misses the essential point about how Olympic sponsorship is sold, and why it’s so valuable.

In relation to sponsorship, everyone cannot have a piece of The Olympics. It’s a premium asset, sold only to one brand in each category. They, and only they, are allowed to associate themselves directly with the Olympics. And these rights are fiercely protected by the Olympic authorities and worldwide legislation, which makes any attempt by non-sponsors to associate themselves with the Olympics punishable by law. This includes the UK, where as one of its commitments to IOC in return for winning the right to stage London 2012, the UK Government enacted new legislation expressly designed to prevent non-sponsors from passing themselves off as Olympic sponsors.

So, Mr Burnham’s rallying cry will no doubt have excited the private sector about Olympic sponsorship. But how will they react when they discover that, however much they want a piece of the Olympics or Team GB sponsorship pie, it’s not available to them unless a) they’re not a competitor of an existing sponsor, and b) they have the significant resources required to become a sponsor?

“The offer is an association with the athletes preparing for the Olympic Games.”

Exactly what ‘the offer’ is Mr Burnham didn’t make clear, and it’s possible to envisage non-sponsorship scenarios where businesses could be matched with the less well-known athletes – for example as employers. But as I’ve covered above, this wouldn’t come with a piece of The Olympics or Team GB attached. And in the case of our new Olympic heroes, many already have individual sponsorships in place, offers from new sponsors will already be flooding in and being signed, and the market value of all of them will now be out of reach of most businesses.

“There is also the possibility of naming rights of some of the Olympic venues (post Games) and this is something that needs to be explored with other stakeholders.”

I agree with Mr Burnham that this is a potentially significant source of revenue. Venue naming rights agreements can be worth tens of millions of pounds and more.  But there are two problems with this proposed solution.

First, BOA Chairman Lord Moynihan has already raised the issue that naming rights to the Olympic venues can only be sold by arrangement with the BOA if the rights are to include use of the word ‘Olympic’, which reverts to BOA ownership in the UK after 2012. Second, and most importantly, these proposed venue sponsorships would not start until 2013 at the earliest, and in these straitened times I find it hard to believe there is a potential sponsor out there who would be prepared to start paying for a sponsorship until it starts. But DCMS need to raise the athletes’ £79 million well before 2012, starting now.

To re-iterate, I have no doubt that ‘Medal Hopes’ is well-intentioned and I applaud any initiative designed to support our Olympic athletes. But I have equally no doubt that if ‘Medal Hopes’ is going to succeed, it needs to be both attractive to UK businesses and complementary to the activities of London 2012’s other stakeholders. For that to happen, when it is finally announced, it will need much more clarity - and, I suspect, a radical re-think in the meantime.

By Tim Crow on August 22nd, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, DCMS, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, London 2012 sponsorship consultants, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Olympics, Team GB, Vancouver 2010

No comments

With this week’s sad announcement that Jade Goody has developed cervical cancer, a rather cynical thought occurred to me that the timing and rather inappropriate way she was informed of the diagnosis was more of a Public Relations stunt than ‘the best way of informing her’ of the news.

Was that just me thinking that?

In this day and age where reality TV, celebrity relationships and the latest clothing/hairstyle/tattoos seem to grab the headlines, I start to wonder how far people will go to get some attention from the Public.

From the news that Peaches Geldof and Max Drummey of American rock band Chester French got married in Las Vegas to the tragic string of teenage suicides in Bridgend over the past few years. It is astounding how extreme some people’s actions are becoming to get the attention they feel they should have or often as a cry for help in an overcrowded time where it is hard to stand out in the crowd. According to sources Peaches and Max did not want ‘unnecessary publicity’ but decided to set out the facts after growing media attention. Yeah right!

But what will satisfy the hunger for approval, attention and celebrity that so many people secretly - or not so secretly - desire?

Look to our Olympic athletes currently filling the spotlight out in Beijing – the cyclers, rowers and sailors to name but a few of our medal winners. Their moments of stardom are a culmination of years of focused, hard work whilst they strive for sporting glory in a field that they excel in. This I applaud with all my heart as I admire and respect the sheer determination and time they put into achieving their Olympic goal, which often brings with it their place on the front or back pages.

However, the latest shouting match between Big Brother contestants or the recent hairstyle Agyness Deyn has adopted seem to capture the attention of so many of us but does not, in my view, deserve applause or that much attention. 

The dictionary definition of ‘celebrity’ is:
n. A person of distinction or renown
n. The state or quality of being widely honoured and acclaimed.

Surely we should be striving in our daily lives to achieve distinction and honour in our own strengths rather than searching for attention in a more superficial way. This way we may ultimately end up more fulfilled than the names which drift in and out of the media limelight from one day to the next.

By Dordie Brett on August 22nd, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, Cycling, Media, Olympics

No comments

Sarah Montague: “The government for 2012 still needs to raise £79 million from private companies to sponsor British athletes for the Olympics in 2012.  Now you wouldn’t think it would be hard given how well the British Team have done in Beijing.  But there have been problems raising money because, under current rules, whilst the headline sponsors of the whole Games get loads of publicity, the sponsors of teams and individuals don’t.”

Click here to listen to Tim Crow’s response, courtesy of BBC Radio 4 - Today Programme.

By Synergy on August 22nd, 2008

Tags: Press Clipping

No comments

Two paradoxes are central to the unique commercial value of all Olympics, but especially Beijing 2008.  The first is that the outwardly non-commercial Olympic brand essence is in fact highly commercial territory, being enormously emotive.  The second is that while the Olympics is overtly global, it’s also, for the host country, an intensely national experience.

Click here to read the full article, courtesy of Media.

By Synergy on August 21st, 2008

Tags: Press Clipping

No comments

Christine Ohuruogu complete her journey from sporting exile to the top of the Olympic podium when she won the 400 meteres in the Bird’s Nest Stadium yesterday.

However, the wild celebrations at her family home in Stratford, East London, a short jog from the site of the new Olympic stadium, were tempered by questions about her suitability to be the poster girl for the 2012 Games.

Click here to read the full article, courtesy of The Times.

By Synergy on August 20th, 2008

Tags: Press Clipping

No comments