I was at St Pancras last week and, before getting on Eurostar, I thought I would have a nose around the London 2012 merchandise shop which is now open at the station.  I was witness to a customer who wanted to buy three items but, because he didn’t have a Visa card, he couldn’t pay for them.  The sales assistant, in the nicest-possible way, told him that he could only pay by Visa because Visa is a sponsor of the London Olympics and has an exclusive agreement to be the only method of payment for all things Olympic.

The customer was deeply unhappy.  He returned his three items to the shelf and stomped out in a distinctly frosty mood.

I was left wondering what this incident had achieved for Visa?  One very unhappy customer, certainly, and one whom I bet will never willingly use a Visa card in the future.  As far as ‘brand love’ goes, there was none -  ‘brand hate’  would be a more appropriate term.

And it won’t be the only such incident because I’m willing to bet that potential ticket purchasers in London and around the UK are suddenly realising that they need a Visa card to buy tickets.  Applications are probably coming in thick and fast and Visa must be smiling.  But will they still be smiling once the Olympics have finished?  That’s the big question.

I’m an Olympics nut and, as such, some time ago I applied for and got a Visa card in order to be ready and able.  Will I use it beyond the Olympics?  Probably not.  Will I love the brand more because it is associated with the Olympics?  I might.

I don’t think customers will fully understand the reasons behind Visa’s exclusivity at The Olympics and there will be resentment at being made to use their card.  Visa’s is a TOP Sponsorship deal, meaning it was negotiated by the IOC and no doubt the exclusivity clause meant that the price could be increased.  Don’t be surprised to see such exclusive use clauses disappear in the future as brands realise that customers denied choice are not happy, returning customers.

By Karen Earl on February 23rd, 2011

Tags: London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship, Olympics, Sponsorship

1 comment

Before England’s ill-fated 2010 World Cup campaign, the Football Association took a gamble.  It turned down Nationwide’s ‘money on the table offer’ to renew its sponsorship of the England team, gambling on the fact that the deal would be worth more following a successful outing in South Africa.

Alas, we all know what happened – or, rather, what didn’t happen on the pitch.  As a result, the FA has struggled to find a new sponsor for the team.  Expected any day now is the news that Vauxhall will be the team’s new sponsor.  The finances probably won’t be revealed, but it’s expected that £5million per annum will be there or thereabouts.

£5million per annum is also the amount being sought by the English Cricket Board for sponsorship of England Test match cricket following the news that npower, sponsors since 2001, have declined to pay a 25% hike on their existing contract, despite enjoying the enormous additional interest generated when England won the Ashes at the Oval in 2005 (see below).

The ECB has taken the same gamble as the FA – that England would win.  The stunning Ashes victory down under has paid off – so far.

Now all the ECB has to do is capitalise on the nation’s euphoria and the growing belief that England can go on to become the best cricket team in the world over the next 4 years.  That’s the timescale of the next sponsorship contract, in which there will be two home Ashes series, in 2013 and 2015.

So, what type of brands will the ECB be reaching out to?  Immediate thoughts gravitate towards an essentially British brand, popular with the predominantly male audience which favours Test cricket.  Or, perhaps, a largely unknown brand (like Cornhill was when it became Test match sponsor in 1978) wishing to establish itself in the UK marketplace and, to a lesser extent, in Test match-playing countries through overseas television coverage.

Several brand categories are off limits, however.  Brit Insurance sponsors the England team and this precludes any other B2B insurance brand.  Likewise, the England team already has deals with Marston’s (but a lager brand would be OK), Jaguar, Buxton and FTI (making the likes of PwC, KPMG and Accenture off limits).  Retail banking is out as well because of NatWest’s long and on-going association with English cricket.

The ECB is inviting ‘expressions of interest’ from any brands interested in the proposition.

Interestingly, the Board may find that international brands may take up the invitation.  Test match cricket in England would be a good vehicle for an Indian, Middle East or Far East brand wanting to establish itself in the UK market.  Indian groups such as Reliance and Tata may be interested for one or more of their brands.  Indeed, a Tata brand – Jaguar – is already involved with the England Team.

With the sums being sought, the ECB may find itself eyeing foreign investment.  But how will England cricket supporters react if Test matches in this country are sponsored by, say, RelianceMart?  Sounds daft, but it just might happen.

By Karen Earl on January 11th, 2011

Tags: Ashes, Cricket, ECB, Football, Sponsorship, Sport

1 comment

Mud-slinging is not an event at the Delhi Commonwealth Games in September, but it just as well might be.

It appears all is not well in Delhi.

On August 16 organisers said the venues would be ready by August 25th. That was yesterday. Has there been confirmation? I’m still looking.

Members of the Organising Committee have been suspended for alleged corruption or, in other words, fingers in the till. Indian Railways, the event’s largest sponsor, is withholding a payment of $30million because they say the money is going to “outside parties”, not to the Games themselves.

One of those “outside parties” is reported to be the international sports marketing company, Sports Marketing and Management (SMAM), but its MD, Mike Bushell, says he hasn’t been paid anything and is claiming a minimum of $12million in compensation. FastTrack has also been dragged into the mire but, interestingly, both companies have been defended by the Commonwealth Games Federation (CGF) suggesting a serious divide between CGF (the Governing Body) and the local Organising Committee (OC).

Even the Queen has been dragged in, reportedly being in a “cold fury” about the allegations which reflect upon the Queen’s Baton Relay which she launched in London last October.

Undeniably, it’s all a bit of a mess, but as you read the many attempts to gloss over the difficulties and paint a brighter picture, you can’t help hoping that once the Games start, all these grimey stories will fade into the background.

Because, even though the Commonwealth Games may not carry the same kudos as major global events such as the Olympic Games or the FIFA World Cup, they do bring out the inevitable national fervour in those Commonwealth countries that participate. And, in the case of many of those countries (our own home nations to name but four), medals are a possibility precisely because other, stronger countries cannot take part.

We may not be stuck to the TV, computers and other digital devices in quite the same numbers as we will be when the Olympic Games come to London, but a large proportion of the nation will enjoy the events, the competition, the personal endeavour stories and, above all else, the success stories.

Because this is what the Olympics, the World Cup and, yes, the Commonwealth Games all have in common – the sense of excitement and achievement; the admiration of those many athletes who spend hours training for their one moment of glory. And it’s our sense of patriotism – we love it when our country wins.

So, even if some in Glasgow have been watching with some horror at the goings-on in Delhi and secretly wondering why they spent so much money and effort in securing the Commonwealth Games for 2014, I suggest they can relax in the knowledge that it will all come out right on the Opening Ceremony night and they will bring the flag back to Glasgow after the Closing Ceremony with eager anticipation for the next four years.

All the Glasgow Organising Committee has to do is ensure that the Games are well-organised, that there’s not a whiff of scandal and – oh did we mention this before? – that there are no security breaches.  If there’s one of those in Delhi, that would be a much more serious issue to get over.  Fingers crossed there won’t be.

By Karen Earl on August 26th, 2010

Tags: Commonwealth Games, Default, Glasgow 2014, London 2012, Olympics, World Cup

1 comment

Already Marketing’s Sponsorship Agency of the Year for 2009, Synergy added another coveted gong last night when we won the Hollis Sponsorship Consultancy of the Year award.

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.

By Karen Earl on March 10th, 2010

Tags: Default, Sponsorship, Sponsorship consultancy, Synergy

1 comment

It is good to see AON CMO Philip B Clement quoted in Marketing Week as saying that that the company’s sponsorship of Manchester United will “inform everything we do”.  AON, as we all know by now, are taking over from AIG at the end of the 2010/2011 season as Manchester United’s shirt sponsor. 

What is irritating is to read Marketing Week’s Russell Parsons, in the same piece, write that AON’s decision comes “at a time when many brands are questioning the wisdom of long-term sponsorship deals as the global economic downturn puts the spotlight on what return on investment sponsorship can bring”.

It’s irritating because it just isn’t true.  Which brands?  Which long-term sponsorship deals?  If anything over the past few months there have been more announcements of brands recognising the value of sponsorship by announcing further or new investments.

However, I was pleased that Mr Parsons shoots himself in the foot in the next paragraph when he quotes Mr Clement as saying that the sponsorship is an efficient and effective way of building the AON brand globally, and that the company would have to spend significantly more on media to match the exposure the deal will bring the brand over the four years of the deal – quite apart from its other benefits.

“It is a pretty good bet for a US firm looking for a global presence”, Mr Clement says.  You bet it is.  It’s done a great job for AIG.  It’s just a pity that the brand was unable to capitalise on the benefits delivered through the sponsorship because the company fell foul of the global economic conditions – a situation which, if we were to believe media reports, can be laid squarely at the feet of the MU sponsorship. 

I would love to have been a fly on the wall within AIG when the marketers were undoubtedly arguing that the MU sponsorship deal was one thing that was worth saving from the ashes.  Shame for the AIG brand they didn’t win the argument.  AIG’s loss will be AON’s gain. And Manchester United haven’t done too badly either – the deal is reportedly worth an extra £6 million to them annually.

By Karen Earl on June 10th, 2009

Tags: Default, Football Sponsorship, Manchester United, Sponsorship

No comments

When we started out as Karen Earl Sponsorship in 1984 we had little idea what the future held, nor did we realise just how far sponsorship would develop as a global marketing phenomenon.

What a ride it has been. So many wonderful clients and sponsorships, so many great friends and memories. Lots of hard work too of course, but always great fun – and is still. I’m so proud of our work, our people, and the unique reputation we’ve built.

Looking ahead, we’ve never been in better shape. We have the most talented and committed group of people in our history, and a client list that’s unrivalled in the industry – and growing. Our international work has grown exponentially in the last few years. And as part of The Engine Group, we are ideally placed to continue to spearhead sponsorship’s unique role in modern marketing.

Easy to say, but let me explain.

We evolved into Synergy a year ago and moved into Engine’s new building just north of Oxford Circus. This meant that, as well as our three existing specialist units – Consultancy, Experiential and Communications – we were able to offer four new services: Branded Content, Digital, Employee Engagement and Sales Promotion. And all under one roof.

Our clients all tell us the same thing: they love it!

We now provide them with the broadest, most flexible and most relevant toolkit for 21st century sponsorship. Successful sponsorships are those which are truly integrated into brand marketing campaigns. Truly outstanding sponsorships are those which act as a catalyst for this integration using compelling ideas which both cut through the media clutter and effectively engage consumers.

We help our clients do that every day.

You can see numerous examples on our website. Two that immediately come to mind are the Guinness Premiership and the Powerade InnerGear campaign, each of which completed a clean sweep of the three major sponsorship awards in the last two years.

Our 25^th year makes this a landmark year for Synergy, but there’s going to be a lot more to shout about. We’ve already announced, for example, that we’re now working with Philips on their global Formula 1 sponsorship and with Betfair to develop their sponsorship strategy and portfolio. There are more announcements in the pipeline – watch this space.

Here’s to the next 25 years!

Karen Earl, Founder and Chairman of Synergy

Ed Kemp from Marketing spoke to Karen about the last 25 years – read his blog here

By Karen Earl on June 4th, 2009

Tags: Branded content, Communications, Consultancy, Digital marketing, Employee engagement, Experiential marketing, Guinness Premiership, Olympic sponsorship, Sales promotion, Sponsorship, Sponsorship consultancy, Synergy

2 comments

Obviously The O2 and its owners AEG think so and I hope they are right.  But what damage will be done to their reputation if Michael Jackson is a disappointment?

I, like millions of others, watched the lengthy ad on ITN at the weekend designed to stir up those of us who witnessed Michael Jackson’s finest performances and have remained fans ever since.

 It had the desired effect.  I was propelled to think about how I could get tickets to see the great man in July.

And then sense prevailed and, I’m afraid, a certain cynicism set in. 

Yes, he was fantastic.  But is he still?  Everything would suggest that he isn’t, but oh how I would love to be proved wrong.  But, imagine the disappointment if I go along to watch and he’s just not up to it.  (I had a similar secret dread about Tina Turner last week but happily she was everything she always has been and the show was simply the best).

Then my sponsorship and marketing brain got working.  Hadn’t Pepsi had an unfortunate relationship with Jackson some years back when it became an embarrassment to be associated with the performer?  Is AEG taking a similar risk?

How much must AEG have paid to get him to commit to ten performances?  Or, maybe, he’s so short of money and desperate to rekindle his fans’ spending power that AEG’s outlay wasn’t as great as I first supposed.

Will he last for 10 performances?  What insurance does AEG have if he doesn’t?  Will punters get their money back if he can’t last the pace?  Would a  fallout damage AEG’s reputation?  The questions are endless and the risks are high.

And, last but not least, my practical side took over and I was left thinking what a nightmare it must be for whoever is responsible for putting together the crisis communications plan.  Good luck to them I say. 

By Karen Earl on March 10th, 2009

Tags: ITV, Music, Public relations, Sponsorship, Television

4 comments

The newspapers have been a bit depressing of late, but this morning I was greeted with a couple of early telephone calls which brought a smile to my face;  a smile of incredulity, a touch of embarrassment and, above all, delight.

Apparently I’m listed in The Times Power 100 as one of the most influential people in British sport. 

What an honour!  Especially when you look at the exalted company with which I’m mixing.  One of my callers pointed out that I come higher in the list than Tiger Woods which, I can see, I’m going to have a hard time living down.

Other names below me include Andrew Flintoff, Steven Gerrard and Zara Phillips.  So,  I agree with the venerable Kevin Eason and Patrick Kidd (who put the list together) that there will many hours of disagreement and debate when Times readers plough through the 100 names.

Needless to say I buy The Times every day (maybe that had something to do with it) and I think its sports pages are excellent.  And, before you all ask, no, there were no backhanders.

What a great way to start our 25th year in business – as on May 27 Synergy (Karen Earl Sponsorship that was) celebrates this landmark.

Maybe Kevin and Patrick were awarding points for those still standing after all this time!

By Karen Earl on January 21st, 2009

Tags: Media, Sponsorship, Sponsorship consultancy, Sponsorship consultants

No comments

Traditionally, November is the sponsorship industry’s conference time of year.  Last week’s Future Sponsorship conference in Brussels is now well-established as a gathering of the great and the good in the industry and, as its name suggests, where the future is discussed.  This year was no different.

The first question on most people’s lips was “how will the sponsorship industry be affected by the credit crunch?”  

My answer was, and is, that the sponsorship industry will be affected, just like all other industries and it’s short sighted to pretend otherwise.  Budgets will be trimmed, cuts will be made and everyone will be squeezed in one way or another.

But the industry is far better placed than it was during the last major downturn in the 1990s.  Then, only some marketers were convinced that sponsorship worked.  As a consultancy, we were still busy educating companies on the benefits of sponsorship and showing them that it worked. 

Now, we spend little, if any, time persuading marketing directors that money will be effectively spent on sponsorship – they’re already convinced.  They have numerous examples for reference and it’s pleasing to note that they are considering sponsorship in their current and future strategies as a matter of course.

Increasingly, sponsorship is being asked to provide tangible business benefits.  And, thank goodness, it can, because now is the time when proof is needed that marketing expenditure can indeed put money on the bottom line.

A great deal of time is spent within the industry discussing precisely how that proof should be declared.  Unlike the advertising or PR industries, sponsorship has no universally-agreed evaluation system, arguing as it does that sponsorship’s success depends upon objectives set at the outset.  The difficulty (or, as many argue, the advantage) being that these objectives can be immensely varied and, therefore, results need to be individually tracked.  Thus a universal system is both impractical if not impossible.

I’ve always argued that sponsorship’s marketing advantage is its flexibility; the fact that it can solve a multitude of business challenges.

But I came away from Future Sponsorship thinking that it would be in the industry’s interest if it can make itself bullet-proof against accusations of non-accountability, especially in this economic downturn. 

By Karen Earl on December 2nd, 2008

Tags: Brand marketing, Public relations, Sponsorship, Sponsorship consultancy

No comments

Listening to the unassuming Dave Brailsford, the man in charge of British Cycling, at this week’s FT Sport Industry Summit, was electrifying.

No wonder the cyclists won so many medals in Beijing.

He told his story quietly but with such underlying passion and determination that the effect was mesmerising.

It underlined the vital role played by excellent coaches and back-up teams and how badly our athletes need them if they are to continue to succeed at the elite level in general and the Olympics in particular.

I think it was the word ‘determination’ that came across so emphatically.  He and his team were utterly determined to succeed and the strategy they embraced to achieve that goal was cold, ruthless and deadly.  If you didn’t make the grade you were out.  No hard feelings, no bitterness; that was the deal.

We need more Dave Brailsfords in all walks of life.  But, in the meantime, let’s just hope we can replicate him in all the other Olympic and Paralympic sports because that certainly would lead to more success at London 2012.

By Karen Earl on November 7th, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, Cycling, London 2012, Olympics, Team GB

No comments