One of the biggest sponsorship deals in the world this year took place last week when Pepsi announced a $50m global endorsement deal with pop superstar Beyoncé.

As part of the deal, Beyoncé will appear in a number of ads, including one following her hotly anticipated halftime show at the Super Bowl in February. Beyoncé’s image will also appear on a limited-edition run of Pepsi cans, the first time since Michael Jackson’s image adorned packs in 1984.

Pepsi will also contribute a multi-million dollar Creative Development Fund for the co-creation of relevant consumer content, though any idea as to what this entails as of yet is unclear, and from some quotes it appears this “might well have no explicit connection to Pepsi products.”

Beyoncé is naturally upbeat. Well, she would be wouldn’t she? She claims the deal “allows me to work with a lifestyle brand with no compromise and without sacrificing my creativity.” Quite a bold statement from an artist whose previous work with Pepsi included dressing up as a Roman Gladiator, singing “We Will Rock You” alongside Pink and Britney Spears, to Emperor Iglesias.

Pepsi are similarly buoyant, with their President saying the partnership is “great for music fans”. He adds “The global relationship gives Beyoncé multiple outlets to tap into in order to express her creativity, and will attract new consumers to both brands with great new experiences and content.” I wasn’t aware Beyoncé was particularly struggling to find outlets to express her creativity or attract new consumers, but clearly Pepsi feel that’s what they can offer her.

The problem, however, is that once you get past the sound-bites and platitudes, under scrutiny the deal doesn’t seem to make sense for Pepsi for two main reasons.

It’s an outdated approach

 Pepsi are essentially buying Beyoncé’s vast fan base and distribution network. Nothing new in the music game, and no different to what they’ve historically done. The problem is the world has moved on since 1984. Viewing consumers as a homogenous mass market, believing they will drink more Pepsi as a result of their worship of a global music icon is answering a new challenge with an old solution.

The increasingly fragmented communications landscape we now inhabit means marketers need to meet the demand for greater personalisation of brand messages, through increasingly creative and radical solutions. With the advances in technology witnessed over the last decade alone, this opportunity exists like at no other time in history. Yet Pepsi have chosen the easy way out.

It’s easy to understand why, of course. Pepsi is a brand experiencing serious problems, in the US in particular, having given up second place in the Cola rankings to Diet Coke.

Much of this can, of course, be attributed to macro pressures, but you can’t help feel this deal is a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived failure of the hotly-debated Pepsi Refresh project.

Pepsi Refresh was an honest attempt to do something bold and different that capitalised on a world that is becoming increasingly social, both in terms of media consumption and consumers’ expectations of brands to be more socially responsible – The Social Era, as we call it at Synergy.

The mistake Pepsi made, however, was to gamble too much of the house on the campaign, reducing commitments in other areas, such as Super Bowl advertising – so much so that it significantly affected the bottom line in a tough economic climate.

The standard response to failure is to return to what you know best. It’s worked before, why won’t it work again? Great businesses, however, respond to big challenges by taking risks and revolutionising their approach, not returning to the comfort zone of ‘tried and tested’.

It’s not authentically connected to a strong brand proposition

The Pepsi brand has been through a host of changes over the course of the last decade, so much so that it’s hard to understand what the flagship brand even stands for anymore. When compared with the refreshing and culturally impactful “Choice of a New Generation”, Pepsi feels like it’s struggling to find a unique voice in the rapidly changing modern world.

Pepsi’s current brand positioning is ‘Live for Now’. How spending $50million on a popstar who was been on Pepsi’s roster for almost a decade reflects that position, however, is beyond me. This isn’t to say Beyoncé isn’t culturally relevant and she is very much of the now; what’s missing is how that makes Pepsi culturally relevant.

It’s hard to understand what Pepsi’s authentic role is within music through this deal, beyond cold hard cash to make up for diminishing record label promotional budgets. Pepsi execs claim “Consumers are seeking a much greater authenticity in marketing from the brands they love.” I fully agree, and the most important consideration in identifying and activating any sponsorship should always be to establish an authentic role for your brand. However, actions speak louder than words and simply stating the relationship is all about authenticity, creativity and collaboration will instantly fall flat should Pepsi not be able to live up to those promises.

It was all so much easier in 1984.

By Paul Whitehead on December 17th, 2012

Tags: Advertising, American football, Brand marketing, Branded content, Celebrity, Default, Music, Social Media, Sponsorship, Sponsorship consultants, Synergy

No comments

The biggest story of the Games so far, away from the field of play, is undoubtedly the number of empty seats at Olympic venues.

Official figures revealed yesterday show the extent of the problem, with around 60,000 Olympic seats a day – more than one in 10 sold – left empty. The initial response from LOCOG was somewhat baffling with Lord Coe claiming venues were “stuffed to the gunnels”.

Images tweeted by those inside the venues revealed a much different story with swathes of empty seats, even at marquee events such as the Swimming finals – just one of the many ways social media is impacting these Games. Initial ire was misguidedly placed firmly at the door of the sponsors, with Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt MP, fuelling the conjecture. Unsurprisingly, the media were happy to add petrol to the fire, despite their complicity.

Public sentiment has naturally followed suit, with sponsors on the end of some fierce criticism. However, the guilty parties have slowly been revealed as the “Olympic Family” – in a nutshell, officials and the media.

Former IOC Marketing Chief Michael Payne shed further light on the situation, explaining these “floating spectators” are common at every Olympics, and that this is a long-established non-story.

Where they’ve floated to, however, remains a mystery. It certainly isn’t between Olympic events, as the swathes of empty seats have been visible across all venues, throughout the day, every day.

For those who have made the effort to travel to the venues, there’s always the opportunity to tout your tickets, as Sky News revealed when they captured a representative of the Azerbaijani government doing just that at the ExCel.

This is anything but a non-story, and will undoubtedly be a bone of contention once judgement is finally passed on whether London 2012 delivered on its promise to Inspire a Generation.

The IOC and LOCOG somehow failed to foresee what a contentious issue this would be for the British public; an audience that has an insatiable appetite for attending live sport. We’ll travel to the ends of the Earth, and pay through our noses, to watch our teams and athletes compete.

When the greatest sporting event in the world lands on our doorstep, it’s only natural we want to make the most of it. Which is why the continuous shots of empty seats, as a result of faceless administrators and a complicit media, leaves such a sour taste, and is undermining LOCOG’s claim that London would truly be a people’s Games.

One of the prime objectives of every Olympics should be to maximise attendance at each and every venue. Not only as it gives something back to the people of the host nation, but because it improves the atmosphere within venues which inspires athletes to do amazing things. It makes for a greater presentation of broadcast sport, creates a more memorable image of the Games from which sponsors can communicate their brand messages, and it also focuses both traditional and social media’s attention on the sport itself, which is all anyone really wants.

LOCOG are, to their credit, scrambling to find a short-term solution to satisfy the public demand. However, in the midst of all this, they’ve hung their sponsors out to dry, many of which have had to release public statements to defend their use of tickets. It would have been good to see LOCOG return some value to sponsors by using their marketing programmes and channels to reallocate tickets clawed back, but I can’t imagine there’ll be much sympathy for the sponsors, despite their significant contribution to funding the Games.

How this affects the IOC’s approach to future Games, and Rio 2016 in particular, remains to be seen. Maybe we should accept this is the way it’s always been and always will be, or just maybe this could be a watershed moment that motivates the IOC to place greater importance on the needs and wants of those who ultimately pay for Games.

By Paul Whitehead on August 2nd, 2012

Tags: Default, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship, Olympics, Public relations

1 comment

The last week in sport has been jam-packed with enough controversy to keep talkSPORT listeners quarrelling until 2018; be it the News of the World’s revelations about the Pakistan Cricket team, Monty’s baffling decision to omit Paul Casey from the European Ryder Cup team (with revelations about his & Tiger’s private lives still hanging uncomfortably in the air), Bloodgate Doctor Wendy Chapman being cleared of deception, the continuing debate over the sex of Caster Semenya, or the world first of Michael Schumacher actually admitting fault following his attempt to make Reubens Barrichello a permanent feature of the Hungaroring.

Despite this, the one thing that really appealed to me (for all the right reasons) was the start of Channel 4’s programming dedicated to the London 2012 Paralympic Games, brought to life with two new shows: Inside Incredible Athletes, and That Paralympic Show. The launch naturally coincided with the landmark of two years to go to the opening of the Paralympic Games, and while I can’t remember a thing that happened for the equivalent mark for the London 2012 Olympic Games, I’m now going to be regularly tuning in to Channel 4’s coverage.

There was surprise when the Beeb didn’t win the rights to the Paralympics but I was personally delighted by LOCOG’s foresight. I think it’s often overlooked that Channel 4 is a public-service broadcaster, and I was confident they would bring a more piercing lens on the Paralympics and Paralympians, in light of their heritage of innovative programming. I still look back with fond memories of their coverage of NFL, Football Italia, Sumo and Kabbadi (OK, not so much Kabbadi), and TransWorldSport was a regular staple for me on Saturday mornings.

The programmes themselves were a great mix of scientific insight, personality and humour. ‘Inside Incredible Athletes’ got under their skin of Paralympians using scientific tests and state-of-the-art scanning technology to create ‘biomechanical portraits’, in other words, the Science behind their disability. ‘That Paralympic Show’, with its magazine format, focused much more on the personalities of the athletes, their stories, their sports, and included humorous features such as ‘Pimp my Chair’ – An idea that wouldn’t have made the Beeb’s cutting room floor.

Employing T4 stalwart Rick Edwards to front programming alongside renowned Paralympian Ade Adepitan was a good choice, and a great way to widen the appeal of the Paralympics to a younger audience, an important job in light of viewing figures for the Games themselves which historically tend to be watched, in the majority, by the over 50’s. It doesn’t end there though, and Channel 4 has commendably launched a £500,000 initiative to identify and train new on-screen talent with disabilities to play a leading role in the coverage of the London 2012 Olympics. The broadcaster is aiming for 50% of its presenting team covering the Games to be disabled.

As for the sponsors of Channel 4’s Paralympics coverage, BT & Sainsbury’s both have an unrivalled opportunity to change the way consumers perceive their organisations. While there is the obvious benefit of a two year broadcast sponsorship to drive awareness of their association (something the BBC could never offer), both brands have the chance to truly integrate the Paralympics into their brand marketing over the next two years and beyond, and steal considerable thunder from the Olympic sponsor family. Taking inspiration from Channel 4’s initiatives would be a good start.

It’s also good to see two brands with strong British heritage sponsoring an event born on these shores as the Stoke Mandeville Games in 1948. BT & Sainsbury’s can speak to the majority of the UK population and if they fulfil commitments to ‘make a lasting difference to attitudes towards disability in the UK and create opportunities for change in disabled people’s lives’, then they will have contributed to a ‘real’ legacy. In my opinion, that’s much more powerful than the legacy claims of LOCOG’s swollen band of Sustainability partners – a prize to anyone who can name them all without Googling.

How they deliver on these promises remains to be seen, but I hope they aren’t afraid to use Paralympians to front their wider brand and product marketing campaigns. Both brands need to be bold and I’d urge them to consider an OFCOM stat I’m firmly attached to: ‘69% of able bodied people said they would not be put off buying a product advertised by a ‘severely’ (visibly) disabled person’. I hope through their combined efforts by 2012 this will increase to at least 80% of the UK population.

BT, whose credentials within Paralympic sport are well established after years of support for the Paralympic World Cup, already have a suite of ambassadors from which to front their efforts. Sainsbury’s made their first step this week, with the signing of Ellie Simmonds to front their Active Kids programme, on the back of a record breaking IPC Swimming Championships for Paralympics GB.

If both brands work in tandem with Channel 4, there’s a real chance that by 2012 the UK public will recognise just as many Paralympic athletes as Olympic ones. When considering Paralympics GB is by far the most successful Team we have in UK sport (102 medals in Beijing), and that this will be the first time they’ve performed on home soil since 1948, I only hope that thousands of us are cheering them on by name and showing our appreciation of their achievements as world-class athletes, as we will with Team GB.

So if you, like me, are tired of getting lost in the barrage of sleaze, politics, and ego that shows no sign of abating in the wider sporting world, definitely make the effort to follow Channel 4’s Paralympic coverage from now until 2012.

By Paul Whitehead on September 1st, 2010

Tags: BBC, Brand marketing, Broadcast sponsorship, London 2012, Olympic sponsorship, Olympics, Team GB

2 comments

While football fans brace themselves for yet another drawn-out summer of incredulous transfer speculation, credit has to go to Portuguese bank Banco Espirito Santo for capitalising on the ongoing Cristiano Ronaldo ‘will he? won’t he?’ saga.

In an advertising campaign destined to further anger Sir Alex Ferguson, the ever on-the-ball Football365’s Mediawatch, has spotted the Manchester United star grinning away above the slogan ‘Where will I be in three years? I don’t know, but my money will be here.’

While you have to admire the sheer audacity of Ronaldo (he really doesn’t care who he upsets does he?), it made me think; why don’t more brands use transfers and the transfer window in particular as an opportunity to speak to a captive football audience?

Whereas most footballers will be sunning themselves on the beaches of Europe or the Caribbean this summer, the majority of football fans will still be glued to Sky Sports News round-the-clock coverage or scanning The Sun on a daily basis for stories of their best player stating his undying allegiance to their club, before moving for an undisclosed record fee the next day. If you want loyalty, buy a dog as they say!

So while the football season is now officially over, our desire for unabated news of even the most trivial detail related to our club’s dealings in the transfer market knows no bounds.

The relevance and potential of this territory is something that US brands capitalised upon years ago. The furore that surrounds the build up to the drafts of the NFL, NBA, MLB and even the NHL is all supported by an array of brands looking to tap into the fevered interest in off-season activity.

Seasoned rumour mongers Real Madrid were also more than aware of the benefits they could deliver to their own commercial partners when they signed David Beckham in the 2003 transfer window. On arrival in Madrid, Beckham was driven from the airport to his medical check-up, to sign his contract, to his official presentation all in a brand new Audi.

The impact was so great that Jesus Gasanz, the president of Audi in Spain said: “The international exposure our company received in that brief period was so immense that our three-year investment in the club was repaid — and several times over — right there.”

Yet despite this supporting evidence the majority of football sponsors still appear to go into hibernation over the summer months, once the seasons over and the window is open. It all seems like a missed opportunity to me.

But don’t take my word for it, just ask Jesus himself!

By Paul Whitehead on June 8th, 2009

Tags: Advertising, David Beckham, Football, Football Sponsorship, Manchester United, Media, NFL, Sponsorship

No comments