It was predictable that the Olympic bandwagons would soon start rolling and there’s one catching fire right now as a result of our gold fever. Clearly we’ve got it very right at an Elite funding level but it’s at the grassroots that we need to galvanise the nation and the current cause célèbre is how to get more sport played in schools.

Downing Street started it with a call for teachers to spend more time on PE; Boris carried it on reminiscing on his schooldays and the media have driven it with a campaign fervour not seen since berating politicians’ expenses.

A snapshot of this week’s press sums it up. The Sun was out the blocks fast with its ‘Support Sport in our Schools’ while The Telegraph Group has opted for ‘Keep the Flame Alive’ – a drive to specifically improve sport in schools through volunteering in sports clubs.

Brands too are getting in on the act, with a whole range of initiatives targeted at all ages and abilities. We are already seeing a mixture of Olympic sponsors and general UK sport / governing body sponsors looking to build on the after-glow at both a local and national level.

This bandwagon has a point. Australia enjoyed a similar sporting buzz after Sydney 2000, but a glance at the current medal table and the soon-to-be-glimpsed sight of their Sports Minister rowing in Team GB kit is all the evidence you need that they didn’t get it right in the aftermath of their Games.

Listening to the political parties in the media over the last few days, we’re already in danger of this becoming a political football and a mash-up of hundreds of well-intentioned but ultimately tactical schemes with slightly differing objectives, as the battle for share of voice begins.

So here’s my plea: Tessa Jowell has already asked for a party-neutral 10-year solution, but I think it should go further – why not a moratorium between politicians, media, sponsors and governing bodies – all working together on a common goal / scheme for organised sport in schools? This unprecedented, singular focus could ensure that Team GB’s success on the field doesn’t just inspire the next generation but embeds sport as part of their daily routine.

The Games have produced role models from all walks of life, athletes that ‘the people’ can aspire to – we’ve got medallists of all ages, genders, ethnicities and social groups. There will never be a better opportunity to harness the power of sport to do social good.

The lead needs to come from Parliament, then Fleet Street and boardrooms to draw all parties together – making this a reality is a process beset with pitfalls, but that alignment, in my mind, would be the real human legacy of London 2012.

By Dominic Curran on August 10th, 2012

Tags: Athletics, Default, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship

No comments

When I was eight years old, my Dad took me on my first museum outing – the Imperial War Museum in London – and a day climbing over and into tanks and cannons was as close to boyhood nirvana as it got. Ever since then, I’ve had a borderline obsession with museums.

From dinosaurs to ancient rocks to scrolls – you show it, I’ll walk round it (although given half a chance I’ll still climb on it). Social media sites like Facebook are as close to a personal museum as you can get, you curate your own life and share it with the world. So Intel’s taken a clever but natural next step for natural egoists like me by creating the ‘Museum of Me’.

It’s really an advert for Intel’s Core i5 processor but wrapped up in an involving way. It’s simple – you give permission for it to lift directly from your Facebook page and it then takes you on a virtual tour of a museum dedicated to you using photos, video and comments already on your page.

After moving through a mixture of gallery rooms dedicated to yourself with virtual people looking on, it culminates in a montage shot of your profile picture made up from all the shots on your page.

OK, being honest, I found parts of it a tad creepy due to the entirely random nature of it. For example an ex featured prominently throughout while my wife didn’t get a look in. In addition, I thought their opening line of ‘this exhibition is a journey of visualisation that explores who I am’ mixed with the emotive music tries to take it to a depth lost on me. But overall I thought as an interactive advert that taps into the core fundamentals of social media (narcissism) it was a very clever piece of work.

It’s simple, requiring minimal input for decent reward; it’s highly sharable and it works on a principle of a brand encouraging rather than dictating user behaviour. Most importantly, it fundamentally showcases Intel’s tagline perfectly –‘Visibly Smart’ and has over half a million likes so far.

Given a choice, I’d probably still rather climb over a tank but as a Museum I can visit in 30 seconds from my laptop it works.

By Dominic Curran on June 17th, 2011

Tags: Advertising, Art & Design, community, Default, Design, Facebook, Media, Online communities, Public relations, Social Media, Synergy, Synergy Loves, The Arts, Viral Marketing

No comments

Two weeks ago we decided to open up to the world a debate we’d started here at Synergy: what is the greatest sports marketing innovation of modern times?

It’s a debate that seems to have captured your imagination as much as ours, creating a raft of comments by global industry figures from brands, rights-holders, the media and more. We’ve even been privileged to have our old friends Patrick Nally and Michael Payne, both leading contenders on our initial list and in the subsequent debate, offer their thoughts.

So, two weeks on, we thought it was time to round up the comments to date.

The View From The Brands

Ralf Hussmann, Global Sports Marketing Director at BMW turned the argument on its head, arguing that most of the innovations listed mainly pour more cash into the pockets of rights holders, selected athletes (and dare I say it, the odd agency). Instead, Ralf argued for the evolution of sport over the last fifty years via sports platforms, teams, rights-holders, broadcasters and sponsors to bring the audiences and fans closer to the games they follow. As Ralf summarises “…sports is – besides competition – entertainment and that’s what people want. Only because of this sustainable interest sport works well as a marketing tool.”

With perhaps a hint of bias, but also some justification, Nike EMEA Comms Director Charlie Brooks supported our original Air Jordan suggestion as well as Ronaldinho’s Nike ‘crossbar’ viral, marking the moment when brands moved from TV ads played online to dedicated viral content strategies; and in the same vein Betfair’s Leo Thompson argued for the creation of Betfair itself given its revolutionary effect on sports betting and the fight against corruption – although to be fair, Leo also nodded in the direction of the Palmer-McCormack handshake and Patrick Nally’s creation of the first FIFA sponsor package.

For Lee Bailey of Guinness it’s the creation of the Super Bowl, which continues to hold the US in thrall in contrast to, notably, the decline of the FA Cup; Tim Ellerton of Heineken backed the formation of the UEFA Champions League (‘…It transformed European football as we know it…the game has changed from winning trophies to getting into the top 4′); while Simon Banoub of Opta backed Twenty20 Cricket (‘…as a game changer I can’t think of anything more significant’).

The View From The Media

Guardian Sports Editor Ian Prior was torn between Nike’s Air Jordan launch and the Palmer-McCormack handshake: ‘IMG set the template for the athlete as corporate entity…You could argue that Air Jordan took that idea to its logical conclusion, except that it created the super athlete as global brand icon and principal driver of product sales.’

Ashling O’Connor from The Times was in the vanguard of several contributors who have nominated Kerry Packer’s World Series of Cricket in 1977: ‘Changed the way cricket is played…and created the template for broadcasters to negotiate exclusive rights…Without it would we have had Sky and the Premier League? A total game changer in every way.’

Roger Blitz of the Financial Times suggested, in the shape of Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali, the first modern superstar to have created his own brand: ‘…the greatest sports marketing phenomenon of all time [and] he did it all himself, through his own narrative.’

David Owen, Inside The Games columnist and former FT sports editor ighlighted Chris Brasher’s role in pioneering marathons and the rise of ambush marketing  (‘…whoever masterminded the first successful ambush must have been a sports marketeer of genius’) but ultimately opted for the Palmer-McCormack handshake: ‘The start of the industrialisation of sports marketing’.

But for Wall Street Journal columnist and Platform magazine editor Richard Gillis it has to be ’…Dassler-Nally and the creation of the rights package for the 1978 World Cup. Virtually every rights holder’s commercial structure, from the IOC down, is still based on it.’

The View From the Rights Holders

Michael Payne, former IOC Marketing Director who features on our initial list for his role in helping to create the IOC TOP programme, nominated four innovations: Patrick Nally and FIFA; Mark McCormack and athletes; the advent of the dedicated sports channel; and ‘the introduction of ‘brand discipline into sports marketing – pioneered by IOC to build further value (slight self interest here).’

Paul Vaughan, Business Director of the RFU, argued the case for media innovations, in particular internet streaming of sport: ‘Every major broadcaster simulcasts on these channels now…to supplement ‘normal’ broadcast delivery.’

Former ECB Commercial Director Terry Blake put the case for Twenty20 cricket – invented, of course, by the ECB in 2003 - pointing to the fact that within 5 years it had ‘created a new global fan base [for cricket] and…three very different and highly valued formats.’

And John Feehan, Six Nations & Lions CEO, echoed the views of Michael and others in backing the Palmer-McCormack handshake.

The View From Academe

Be sure to check out Professor Simon Chadwick’s guest blog where he nominates Red Bull’s multi-faceted sports marketing strategy.

What’s next?

So where do you stand? Let us know your thoughts in the comments box below or at the original blog, and if you think we’ve missed anything, what you believe we should add to the final long list before the big vote which starts next month.

Your votes will then decide the top ten and critically your number one innovation of the last fifty years.

And in the next week look out for more high-profile industry figures having their say on the debate via Synergy’s YouTube channel.

By Dominic Curran on November 24th, 2010

Tags: Ambush campaign, Barclays Premier League, Betfair, Brand marketing, Branded content, ECB, Indian Premier League, New Product Development, Olympic sponsorship, Sponsorship, Sport, UEFA Champions League, Viral Marketing, What's the Greatest Sports Marketing Innovation?, World Cup, YouTube

No comments

A few weeks ago, Tim Crow and I found ourselves sat in the back of a car on a stationary motorway for five hours. A lot of filling time by anyone’s standards, but we turned to one debate which actually not only filled the five hours, but is still going - what is the greatest modern sports marketing innovation?

This is not about the biggest financial deals but decisions made off the field that were genuine game changers in the wider sports marketplace. We brought the debate back to Synergy and found the more we’ve all discussed it, the more we’ve argued and the more we’ve argued, the more we’ve enjoyed it. So we thought it was only fair to open the debate up.

The format is simple:

a) We’ve listed below our initial thoughts – once you’ve read them, let us know if you think we’ve made any glaring omissions or if you disagree with any of our choices in the comments section.

b) In December we’ll then publish the full list including your suggestions, with a voting mechanic alongside giving you the chance to vote for what you think is the greatest modern sports marketing innovation.

c) The vote will determine the Top Ten, which we’ll announce in January.

It wouldn’t be a real debate without some house rules though, so here they are – short and simple:

1. It must have been a genuine game-changer

2. It must have impacted primarily on the marketing and financial side rather than on the field of play

3. We’re talking global impact

4. Keep it within the last 50 years

OK? So, here are our thought starters, in chronological order:

1960 – a promising American golfer called Arnold Palmer shook hands over a representation deal with his friend and Yale law grad, Mark McCormack. This handshake was the start of IMG and birth of modern sports marketing.

1968 – After the NFL and AFL merged in 1966 the first two championship games between the two winners were called, snappily, the NFL-AFL World Championship. KC Chiefs owner Lamar Hunt then came up with the term Super Bowl for the game after seeing his grandson playing with a Super Ball, (a densely elasticated ball) and a global phenomenon was born.

1976 – already prevalent abroad, Kettering Town became the first British football club to have a sponsor on its shirt – the deal may only have lasted four games but it changed the rules in the UK. The forward thinking brand? Kettering Tyres.

1978 – Horst Dassler and Patrick Nally created a sponsorship model for world events starting with The FIFA World Cup that other rights holders have followed ever since.

1978 – Bernie Ecclestone became chief executive of the Formula One Constructors Association (FOCA) which culminated in Ecclestone securing the right for FOCA to negotiate television contracts turning F1 into the global financial phenomenon it is today.

1979 – Jack Nicklaus argues successfully for the inclusion of European (rather than just British) players in the Ryder Cup, transforming a struggling, one-sided tournament into what is today probably the most significant global event in golf.

1981 – the first major PPV boxing match between Sugar Ray Leonard and Thomas Hearns was screened by Viacom Cablevision, the event sold over 50% of its subscribers for the fight and a new form of sports viewing was born.

1984 – Nike, a struggling sports shoe company, signed rookie Michael Jordan and created the first shoe named after a player – The Air Jordan.

1985 – Horst Dassler, Juergen Lenz and Michael Payne (pictured) create the TOP (The Olympic Partners) concept – the building block of the most lucrative sponsorship format in the world.

1992 – The English First Division clubs resigned en-masse from the Football League and formed the Premier League (with the considerable help of Sky TV) which is now the most watched and most lucrative football league in the world with the format copied across the globe.

1995 – The first ever Extreme Games (later changed to X Games) was held with the backing of ESPN – it catapulted fringe sports into the mainstream, bringing with it vast corporate investment.

2003 – The ECB introduced the world to Twenty20 Cricket via the Twenty20 Cup between counties, the mould breaking game has gone on to be adopted across the globe with IPL changing the financial face of the sport.

Now it’s over to you - let us know what you think (good, bad and ugly) and we hope you enjoy the debate as much as we have.

By Dominic Curran on November 5th, 2010

Tags: American football, Barclays Premier League, Brand marketing, ECB, Football Sponsorship, Formula 1, New Product Development, NFL, Olympic sponsorship, PR, Public relations, Ryder Cup, Sponsorship, UEFA Champions League, What's the Greatest Sports Marketing Innovation?, World Cup

54 comments

I love a new kit launch – a staple diet of sports PR. The usual sign of success is a spread of moody-looking photos of players in their new kit across the next day’s sports media. Every once in a while a kit launch comes along that’s big enough to become a story in it’s own right – think England FIFA World Cup launch using Kassabian.

And then there’s yesterday’s Welsh Rugby team kit launch.

The launch fell firmly into the latter category – it became a story in it’s own right and claimed a greater share of coverage then you would ever expect on front and back pages. So far so good, until you look at why.

The launch featured a 100ft poster of Gavin Henson wearing the new kit outside the Millennium Stadium – the same Mr Henson who hasn’t featured for Wales for 18 months but has just announced his inclusion in this year’s Strictly Come Dancing line-up.

The current Welsh players at the launch were not exactly brimming with joy at the use of the Henson image as the centre piece. “Is this an insult to current Welsh players?” tweeted centre Jamie Roberts (although it was quickly re-tracted) while past players kept the ball rolling – “totally laughable” said former skipper Mervyn Davies, “a misjudgement” said Gareth Edwards.

The question we’ve been debating in the office this afternoon is whether the reaction is good or bad news. We often to talk about the importance of brands establishing credibility within a sport - an initial look through Welsh rugby message boards would suggest that credbility is not something associated with Henson and rugby at the moment.

On the other hand there’s no denying that it’s big news - the exact intention when Henson was used - and more than fulfilling the objective of the launch. Everyone in Wales and beyond is now well aware of the new shirt (and their new jersey sponsor Admiral) and although the reactions among the players and fans may question the credibility of Henson, the fact they are even debating it means it’s likely to help long term sales.

By Dominic Curran on September 9th, 2010

Tags: Default, PR, Public relations, Rugby, Sponsorship, Sport

2 comments

Last year not many national newspapers made big money – in fact some lost a lot of it set against declining circulations. One paper however, The Metro, made its seventh successive year of profit.

In fact, last year the paper, which has a circulation of 1.3 million distributed free across 16 cities, had more display advertising than any other UK generalist (114,647 single column centimetres compared to 94,875ccms at The Sun for the statisticians among you).  

So with much talk about the demise of newspapers  how is it that The Metro turns in a profit year after year without charging a cover price and are there any clues of the newspaper of the future (on and offline) in this?

Looking in from the outside, the success would seem to boil down to two simple reasons.

Firstly – content. The Metro knows its audience and it’s not trying to be anything more then what it is – a quick commute read.

No in-depth articles, no weighty columnists and little analysis – just a bite sized chunk of news meant to last as long as your tube/bus/train journey or if you like an offline version for an online audience – or what they refer to as ‘City Clickers’. This amalgamation of easy news comes with probable lower overhead costs from staf size to news gathering.  

Secondly – a closer relationship between commercial and editorial or a breakdown of the old ‘church and state’ mentality.

Few barriers exist – your brand wants to wrap the paper? Not a problem. Sponsor whole sections? Sure thing. An advertorial in the house style? Editorial will even write it for you. In addition, there is a clear link between the offline and online products with commercial links across both.

The Metro gets away with it partly because it’s free. As a consumer, I don’t mind commercial spill-over into editorial, I see it as a decent trade off for getting a free read on my tube journey in.  

But it’s this blurring of the line that gives clues to the future for the wider industry. It’s no surprise that there are increasingly numbers of ex-journalists in the commercial teams at papers helping brands to run ‘integrated’ campaigns but it’s a difficult balancing act to maintain – editorial independence and powerful journalism versus commercial reality.

While it continues to vex established national newspapers (The Times Online recent move behind a paywall is an attempt to address it), The Metro has proved it knows its audience and although it may be a dangerous sign for in-depth, quality journalism you have to admire its ability to buck the trend.

By Dominic Curran on June 28th, 2010

Tags: Brand marketing, Communications, Digital marketing, Media, Paywall

No comments

Last week’s announcement by News International, that Times titles will become the first nationals to put content behind a subscription paywall in June this year – sister papers The Sun and News of the World will follow at a later date – marks a hugely significant change for the newspaper model as we know it. The monetising of an online model is something that newspaper proprietors have been wrestling with since they first realised that the internet wasn’t going away.

The problem is this: a digital world makes it virtually impossible to ringfence and monetise content that costs papers money to create. In addition this dilution of free content costs them potential advertising money. To rub it in, search engines such as Google are making plenty via PPC and advertising on their sites when people search for the content.

Rupert Murdoch started going on record a few years ago talking about a limited paywall on selected content. One of his papers, The Wall Street Journal, does it already with some success and he’s in discussions with Microsoft’s Bing to become an exclusive content supplier, blocking Google.

Two things then to consider – will it work and what impact might it have on us in the sponsorship industry.

So first off – will it work?

Given the decline of ad revenues and traditional circulations publishers are looking for something that will.

The real issue is that news is free – for example the BBC, whose charter currently restricts their ability to charge for online content, will always be a free source and skews the market.

However, move beyond news to detailed analysis, unique content, marquee journalists and specialist sectors (fashion, sport, business, culture etc) and people are more likely to pay for it and if they have to pay for the news to get this package they will – as the announcement by News International says -’quality journalism never matters so much as it does today’.

In effect, a Sky TV model for newspapers online – you really want the football but first you have to buy the basics. It’s a clever and bold step by News International but no one knows if it will be the long term solution to the online challenge – even if their competitors follow them.

The power of online content is around the creation and interaction of the very communities it’s aimed at. The new sites will undoubtedly go further then before in giving consumers the chance to interact but does this miss the point that consumers now have the power and desire to create their own communities – they’ve moved from passive to active.

Rather then locking their doors to them, media owners could have a more fruitful future by becoming a platform for these communities and therefore becoming joint creators of content with the very consumers advertisers are willing to pay a lot of money to target.

But what impact might it have on the sponsorship industry?

I see a short term and a long term answer. In the short term, sponsors used to placing unique content their sponsorships afford will find themselves either having to restrict their PR outlets or likely pay to get it placed – never a happy prospect.

But in the long term this change could offer real potential with brands and media owners working together towards a mutual goal. Brands really know how to target consumers while media owners know how to create compelling content.

A savvy sponsor could play this bridging role between the existing consumer communities and a media platform with a paywall. For example, a football sponsor could buy out the paywall themselves around a major event like the opening weekend of the season. The existing audience on the media platform will be absolutely on-target; after all they’ve been paying for this content up to this time.

Give this community, both existing and new, a chance to co-create content with you on a prestigious media platform and as a sponsor you’ll build genuine affinity.

However it pans out over the next year, it’s going to be about playing the game by new rules which makes it both daunting and full of opportunity.

By Dominic Curran on April 1st, 2010

Tags: Default, Media, Paywall, Public relations, Sponsorship, Sport

2 comments