The newly-appointed head of Olympic legacy, Margaret Ford, interviewed in yesterday’s Evening Standard, signalled a potential u-turn in the proposed use of some of the London 2012 facilities post-Games.

This may not be a bad thing…

At the 117th International Olympic Committee Session in Singapore in 2005, as part of our winning bid to host the Games, Lord Coe stated that it was London’s intention ‘To stage an inspirational Games that capture the imagination of young people around the world and leave a lasting legacy’ and indeed this has been carried through to become one of the 10 strategic pillars of London 2012.

The question is, will we as a host nation succeed where so many before us have struggled?

One only has to visit former Olympic sites to see how hard it is to leave something that really makes a difference to the live of those around us. But it is not impossible…

We have the best opportunity we have ever had to permanently regenerate an area of London, place sport at its heart and inspire people for generations to come.

It’s an opportunity that we should wholeheartedly embrace and not shy away from, and as one of the masterminds behind the regeneration of the former Millennium Dome through its sale to the entertainment empire AEG, Lady Ford is the ideal person to lead the charge.

She has already stated that the 80,000-seat Olympic Stadium may now not be reduced in size to 25,000 seats, but left as an iconic structure that could be used to host games, given a successful World Cup 2018 bid. And isn’t it good to be so positive about the future for a change?

When it comes to regeneration and legacy, visionary confidence is what we need – in abundance.

By Philip Patterson on June 26th, 2009

Tags: London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship, Olympics, grass roots sport

No comments

New York, the city which pioneered the naming rights deal with Times Square, is innovating again.

The city’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority has agreed a 20-year, $4m deal with Barclays, giving Barclays the right to brand a nexus of subway stations in the Atlantic Yards development in downtown Brooklyn.

Evidently, Barclays’ rationale for the deal is that this is also the site of the Barclays Centre - a new sports and entertainment destination which will be home to the New Jersey Nets, which Barclays are naming for a reported $400m over 20 years.

It will be interesting to see if this will start a new chapter in naming rights, which in the shape of sports stadium deals became a multi-billion dollar industry in the US from the 1970s onwards, and is now a mainstream marketing technique worldwide.

Time will tell. But judging by initial consumer reaction to the Barclays deal on the New York Times messageboard, the pioneers will have to navigate a lot of rough road.

By Tim Crow on June 25th, 2009

Tags: Default, Naming Rights

1 comment

Against the background of the latest F1 power struggle, Scott Garrett comments on F1 sponsorship contracts.

Click here to read the article from Marketing.

By Synergy on June 24th, 2009

Tags: Press Clipping

No comments

Launching a sponsorship is a vitally important moment for a brand: first impressions count - they only happen once. AON has shown that they get this.    

The company’s openness and candour about the background and rationale behind the Manchester United sponsorship, in particular the various briefings given by their senior people to a raft of media, including fan blogs, has been a masterclass of its type, proactively seeding key messages, addressing multiple stakeholder groups, and demonstrating a business transparency that, although regularly cited as a modern pre-requisite, is a custom more honoured in the breach than the observance.

On which point I was interested to see that, unlike the other five Champions League sponsors, Ford opted to say absolutely nothing about having recently extended its long-running sponsorship, choosing instead to let UEFA slip it into last Monday’s announcement about the Champions League’s six sponsors for the 2009-2012 cycle.

Whilst Ford undoubtedly had its reasons for adopting this approach, to me it was the wrong call for two reasons.

1. It runs totally counter to Ford’s current positioning around the deal. The Ford UK website, for example, currently states (my italics):

‘For 17 years, Ford has been the UEFA Champions League’s biggest fan and a proud sponsor of Europe’s premier football competition.’ 

2. At a time when Ford is more embattled and scrutinised than at any time in its history, surely it would have made far more sense to have taken a leaf out of AON’s book and been absolutely transparent about the Champions League deal and its brand and business rationale? Put it this way: why not take this approach?

First outcome: a call by the GMB, on behalf of Ford’s workforce, for Ford to reveal the rationale and terms of the Champions League deal.

QED.

By Tim Crow on June 24th, 2009

Tags: Default, Employee engagement, Football Sponsorship, Public relations

No comments

Girls playing cricket. It’s certainly sparked some debate at Synergy HQ this last week or so.

ICC World Twenty 20 Champions

After Paul Collingwood’s England crashed out of the ICC World Twenty20 in the Super Eights it was left to Charlotte Edwards’ mighty World Champions to claim yet another world title. Having watched a masterful display by Claire Taylor, 76 not out, in Friday’s semi-final against some rather butch Aussies I was right behind our girls to bring some winning ways back into the dressing room at Lord’s.

I arrived at the home of cricket yesterday bright and early, 9.35am to be precise. Thinking I’d get a prime position in the Warner stand. Wishful thinking - the stand was packed out! We managed to squeeze in somewhere up the back as the two teams came out for the national anthems.

I won’t lie, there were murmurs of what type of game was about to be played and could it ever live up to the excitement of the men’s game. A subject that had been hotly debated in the office last Friday. What followed was a masterful display of swing bowling by man of the match Katherine Brunt and fielding Jonty Rhodes would have been proud of. In fact one diving stop in the outfield caused the pin-striped suit next to me to jump up in admiration and recognition.

The atmosphere was actually electric (and that’s not just rhetoric) as the England attack ripped through a lukewarm Kiwi side. With 86 to win, our girls kept their heads and chipped away at the runs. Claire Taylor, later crowned player of the tournament, ensured England’s emphatic win and another World title. Now a little birdy told me this is apparently the first England team to have won a world title on home soil since 1966, so you’re in great company ladies.

I’d had my doubts on whether women’s cricket was something I could really get into, but watching an England team yesterday - highly skilled, full of camaraderie and actually winning - made me hugely proud. Well done ladies, I salute you. Now if you could go and show those boys a thing or two…

By Caroline Ayling on June 22nd, 2009

Tags: Cricket, Default, ICC World Twenty20

No comments

Seriously. Sounds simple? Well sometimes it is the smallest gestures that have the greatest impact.

I blog, Tweet and share on Facebook most of the cool stuff I come across on a daily basis. According to Rupert Murdoch, this makes me a ’digital native’, but whatever label you want to apply, today it totally paid off.

As a long-term fan of the Jack Wills brand, my support of the British fashion label has, over the years, transcended both online and offline platforms - along with a lot of my closest friends. We shop with Jack, we party with Jack, and when we do, we tell people about it.

Take the annual Varsity Polo tournament at Windsor (JW’s sole, perfectly conceived sponsorship property): we’ll not only attend the event, but with a desire to soak up every last drop of JW goodness that can be squeezed from the day, we’ll also make sure we hit the renowned pre- and post- parties. Each of these supporting social events is a prime opportunity for JW product sampling, mobile shop units and giveaways - all wrapped up in a perfectly ‘fabulously British’ parcel of fun that completely encapsulates the brand’s personality.

But it doesn’t end there. Like us, each attendee (usually residing firmly within the 16-24 age bracket and thus 100% digitally native) will tweet, blog, share links, upload photos and update statuses continuously in the run up to and aftermath of each fully branded event - therefore spreading the word to their like-minded friends and colleagues, all of whom sit slap bang in the middle of the JW target demographic. They in turn will add Jack as a friend on Facebook, become a fan of the JW page and follow their every update on Twitter… and so it goes on.

However, little did I know until yesterday just how savvy the JW marketing team could be. Evidently all too aware of their mini ready-made army of (free) brand advocates online, they have decided to recognise and reward those who share the JW love.

Having over 2,000 followers on Twitter, they follow themselves only 21 (to date) - including, as of yesterday, me. This in itself (for an avid brand fan) is pretty cool in the Twitter-verse as it’s a stamp of approval from a brand you love - especially if you’re one of few. But, hey presto, at 8am this morning a special delivery package arrived at my door… a surprise thank you gift from the JW team no less. Complete with a handwritten note (-’Just to say thanks for being a fan! Keep the word up… Love Jack x’-), I had been sent a whole collection of JW goodies for doing no more than shouting about the things I love.

What is so clever about this smart move from them, is that not only I am now pretty much a fan for life (or at least, the foreseeable future), but they know that I will make sure everyone knows about it. For them, a minimal outlay has cemented the loyalty of one particularly vociferous fan, knowing that I would return the favour ten-fold in brand advocacy for them.

Naturally I did: by 9am I had updated my Facebook status and Twitter feed accordingly.  By 10am I had three messages from other JW fans asking how I managed to get presents from Jack. After sharing by my own blog post on the subject via Facebook at lunchtime, Jack Wills picked it up, shared it on their Facebook feed, and in literally minutes 19 people had said they ‘liked’ it, 14 people had commented on it and my blog traffic (relatively) sky-rocketed with over 200 page views.

Offline, I’ve also told pretty much everyone I know.

For Jack Wills, engaging with their audience using the platforms that will give them the biggest share of voice is absolutely key. But what did surprise me is how they strive to show their fans how much they are valued - turning their online advocacy into currency for tangible, offline rewards. Cute, surprising recognition for those who love them best will, in the long run, grow their business exponentially.

No Jack, thank YOU.

By Lucie Bartlett on June 19th, 2009

Tags: Brand marketing, Experiential marketing, Fashion, Sponsorship

No comments

As a longtime admirer of the deal, I was really pleased to see O2 pick up both the Leading-Edge and Brand Extension awards for The O2 at last week’s Marketing Society Awards for Excellence. Overdue industry recognition for one of the truly great sponsorships, which has been a triumph of conception and execution. 

Many aspects of The O2 are familiar. The visionary, genuine partnership between sponsor and rights owner AEG; the consequent transformation of the derided Millennium Dome (against all precedent) into a world-leading entertainment venue; the integration of the asset into O2’s overall marketing strategy; and its key role in driving customer retention via priority ticket access and brand experience.

However, there are two less well-known aspects of The O2 deal that I like above all.  

First, the fact that it was the antithesis of the ‘Chairman’s whim’ decision-making which - despite what detractors of sponsorship would have you believe - has been the exception rather than the rule for many years. The O2 marketers had to make and remake the concept to their - unsurprisingly - highly sceptical Board three times before it was finally approved.

Second, that it’s delivered - and demonstrated that it has delivered - genuine, significant brand and business ROI in spades.

An econometric model developed to look at impact on customer loyalty [showed] an immediate but lasting impact on churn amongst the whole customer base…Without taking into account [acquisitions], the model has calculated a ROI of 26:1 by the end of 2008. Within 5 years we expect to achieve an ROI of 80:1.

(source: O2/VCCP Marketing Society Award submission paper) 

By Tim Crow on June 15th, 2009

Tags: Default, Naming Rights, Sponsorship

No comments

Tim Crow comments in The Times on the marketing implications of Cristiano Ronaldo’s transfer from Manchester United to Real Madrid.

Click here to read the article.

By Synergy on June 12th, 2009

Tags: Press Clipping

No comments

Ever thought about naming a star? How about owning a nice plot of land on the dark side of the Moon? Fancy sponsoring a three-toed sloth in Costa Rica?

As PT Barnum famously never said, “There’s a sucker born every minute” – applying Newton’s Third Law (he’ll now be spinning in his Westminster Abbey sarcophagus) would suggest an equal and opposite reaction. After all, you only know you’re a mark once you’ve been conned, right? Therefore every sap needs a swindler, and in today’s society, there always seems to be someone out there ready to sell you something:

a) That isn’t theirs to flog

b) The customer can never really own

c) With strong virtual but low actual value

So it’s nice to see a company turning the tables on the snake oil salesmen and scammers: why buy something that’s worth nothing, when you can use something that costs nothing?

The company in question is Intel, whose 2009 ATL campaign, set to roll out over the next three years, sees the technology giant using the sign-off “Sponsors of Tomorrow”. I mean, who’s going to monetise ‘Tomorrow’…Annie?

It’s interesting that Intel should be using the collective plural ‘sponsors’ here, a move, in line with the content of their ATL, to both humanise the company and express the broad range of areas across which it – I mean ‘they’ – work.

Neatly turning things on their head, the campaign is less ‘Intel Inside’, and more ‘Inside Intel’. The execution below might aim at geek-chic, but it also emphasises who makes up the company, not just what the company makes.

You’ll notice that even the brand-defining/ubiquitous/maddeningly annoying Intel ‘chimes’ are now performed in the new ads by company employees (okay, the actors portraying company employees), reminding us of a company’s most important asset – its people.

As “Sponsors of Tomorrow”, the casual perspective of Intel being just a sticker on your PC may have had its chips.

By Jonathan Izzard on June 12th, 2009

Tags: Advertising, Ambush campaign, Brand marketing, Branded content, Digital marketing, Employee engagement, Media, New Product Development, Sales promotion, Sponsorship, Viral Marketing

No comments

Formula One faces interesting times. The governing body of motorsport, the FIA, is attempting to impose a number of conditions on the sport, which many competing teams reject. Among the proposed changes are a huge reduction in operating costs administered in the form of a budget cap: for the teams to resist this seems to the uninitiated to be financially irresponsible at best; massively out of touch with the prevailing economic conditions, at worst. 

All teams - along with any proposed new entrants - must have lodged entries to the 2010 Formula One World Championship before the end of May 2009. The existing F1 teams, under their trade body FOTA (Formula One Teams Association) initially entered en bloc, with a number of conditions attached to their entry, concerning both budgetary and regulatory issues. The FIA rejected the conditions and urged FOTA to reconsider. Under the pressure of negotiation, Williams and Force India, two existing teams, cracked. They resubmitted their entries to the FIA without conditions. FOTA promptly suspended them and stands firm. 

Complicating the debate is the fact that several new entries have been received and the FIA is due to announce which of these has been successful, and therefore the make-up of the 2010 grid, today (Friday 12th June).

There are four possible scenarios that I can see from the announcement today:

1. The 2010 grid will include Williams, Force India and up to 11 new teams. The FOTA entry will not be accepted and Ferrari, McLaren, BMW, Toyota, Brawn, Red Bull, Toro Rosso and Renault will no longer compete in Formula One (at least for 2010).

2. FOTA will split along manufacturer/independent lines, with Red Bull, Toro Rosso and Brawn joining Williams, Force India and up to eight new teams. Manufacturer teams will not enter, but may still supply engines to some teams.

3. FOTA will split along contractual lines. Some teams have separate contracts with the FIA binding them to compete until 2012. Ferrari is one of these. Under this scenario, these teams honour their contracts and join Williams, Force India and new teams sufficient to make up the proposed 13-team grid.

4. The FIA capitulates and allows the FOTA conditional bloc entry, adding only three new teams to make 13 in all. Favourites are USF1, Prodrive and Lola.

Any one of the first three scenarios will leave Formula One commercially stronger than it is currently. The fourth scenario would be a disaster.

Here’s why…

Scenario 1: FOTA stands strong but is rejected

Formula One teams compete under a budget cap and with some other FIA-led environmental conditions. This is socially responsible and therefore attractive both to fans and sponsors. Lots of new teams mean lots of unpredictability; unpredictability is what makes sport exciting. This generates viewership on TV and is therefore also good for sponsors. Lots of new teams combined with the reduced financial burden on existing teams means that there are new sponsorship opportunities that represent very good value. The FOTA teams may carry through their threat of forming a competitive series which - if successful - will double the potential sponsorship opportunities and bring the price of sponsorship down further.  Under this and each of the first three scenarios, the FIA re-asserts its authority and this promotes a stable environment, essential for commercial investment.

Scenario 2: FOTA splits and manufacturers leave F1

Formula One teams compete under a budget cap and with some other FIA-led environmental conditions. This is socially responsible and therefore attractive both to viewers and sponsors. The independent teams that help to give F1 its entrepreneurial character remain and are joined by new independent teams: suddenly it’s all about racing again and fans flock to the sport in greater numbers. Sponsors follow.

Manufacturers retain a presence in the sport via engine supply, giving technology and marketing benefits for them without the cost/profligacy of Formula One under the current model. Same points as above regarding new teams, new opportunities and the likely effect on the cost of sponsorship. Same point as above regarding the FIA promoting a stable environment for investment.

Scenario 3: FOTA splits and teams act independently

All the benefits of scenario two. Some manufacturers will remain in the sport. For those who believe that auto manufacturers like Ferrari and Mercedes add value to the credibility of F1, this may be the best scenario. But will manufacturers remain under sufferance? Ferrari is well known to oppose the FIA’s budget cap proposals and may suffer if these are forced upon it.

Scenario 4: FOTA stands strong and is accepted

More limited budget reductions over time, with many exclusions, will be a fudge and F1 will remain fiscally irresponsible and will struggle to attract new sponsors. Rejection of FIA-driven environmental initiatives will achieve the same effect. New teams will not be able to compete on either budgetary or technical grounds and an opportunity to refresh the sport with new blood will have been missed.

In summary, sponsors will benefit from any split, implosion or explosion announced on June 12th. They will not benefit from either the status quo or any lack of decisiveness on the part of the FIA - although if things runs true to form, lack of decisiveness is the last thing we should expect.

By Scott Garrett on June 12th, 2009

Tags: Default, Formula 1, Sponsorship

No comments