Synergy

Author archive for ‘Tim Crow’

Spieth & McIlroy’s Google Spikes Are Growing, But Tiger Still Rules – For Now

TW RM JS

I’m a big fan of the beta feature in Google Trends which enables you to compare search volumes since 2004 for just about anything, and often use it to add additional insights to our work. (Warning: if, like me, you’re into data, it’s pretty addictive). Recently, it’s also provided a really interesting angle on the end of the Tiger Woods era in golf, and what looks like the beginning of a new era marked by the rivalry between Rory McIlroy and Jordan Spieth.

For most of his career, Tiger has been the world’s most Googled golfer, as shown by this chart, also shown below, comparing his search volumes since 2004 to those of his nearest rivals – although the most notable feature is of course the huge spike in December 2009 marking Tiger’s disgrace.

Tiger chart 1

You can also see that in the last couple of years the gap between Tiger and his rivals has closed. I’ll come back to that shortly.

Google Trends also enables us to compare how searches for Tiger compare to megastars in other sports. Here he is compared to Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo and LeBron James for example.

Tiger v Messi etc

So Tiger may have ruled golf, but both before and after his fall his Google search volumes didn’t compare to the biggest stars in bigger sports – if you play around with other big names you get similar results.

But back to the main point. How is Tiger’s apparently inexorable decline in form and the simultaneous rise of Rory McIlroy and Jordan Spieth reflected in recent Google search volumes? Does Tiger still rule, or is the new McIlroy-Spieth era evident on Google as well as the golf course?

This chart, also seen below, shows how it played out in 2014.

TW v Rory Spieth 2014

Despite making only seven appearances during the year owing to injury, Tiger was still comfortably the most-searched of the three players on average in 2014, with his biggest spikes both coming from the two majors he appeared in: a missed cut at the US PGA and a 69th place at The Open.

Rory’s average in 2014 was around half that of Tiger, and like Tiger his biggest spikes also came at The Open and the US PGA, but obviously for very different reasons as Rory won both tournaments. His other big spike came in May, caused by his break-up with Caroline Wozniacki and subsequent win at the BMW PGA Championship.

In contrast Jordan Spieth wasn’t really a factor in 2014, except – in a sign of things to come – for a spike for his second place finish on debut at The Masters, where he also outscored McIlroy by seven shots when they played together in the second round.

Fast forward to 2015 and it has of course been Spieth’s year so far, with wins in both majors, The Masters back in April and the US Open earlier this month, which the chart below and here clearly shows.

Tiger Rory Spieth last 90 days

(Interesting that Spieth’s Masters win generated a much higher spike than his US Open win. This could be for all kinds of reasons, but I suspect the two biggest are the novelty factor of Spieth’s debut major win and the Masters being a bigger deal worldwide than the US Open, as this chart shows.)

What’s also clear is that, driven unquestionably by the media, there is as much interest in Tiger’s poor performances as there is in a great performance by Spieth or McIlroy. For example, Tiger’s missed cut at this year’s US Open generated almost as much search interest as Spieth’s win, and Tiger’s missed cut at last year’s US PGA generated more search interest than McIlroy’s win. Which is why Tiger’s average search volumes are still the highest – although Spieth especially is closing the gap.

So, for now at least, Tiger still rules golf on Google. But not in a good way – and probably not for much longer.

Let’s see whose spikes are biggest at the next major – the biggest of them all – The Open at St Andrew’s.

By on June 29th, 2015

Tags: Default, Digital marketing, Digital sponsorship consultants, Digital sponsorship strategy, Golf, Golf sponsorship, Golf sponsorship consultants, Social media sponsorship consultants, Social media sponsorship strategy, Sponsorship consultants, Tiger Woods

No comments

“Sponsorship rights need re-booting for the social media era”

In the latest edition of the Telegraph’s Business of Sport special features, Synergy CEO Tim Crow advises brands to be wary of how digital sponsorship assets are currently sold, and calls for rights holders to re-think their approach to integrating sponsors into their digital and social media.

Click here to read the article.

By on June 24th, 2015

Tags: Content marketing consultants, Content marketing strategy, Digital sponsorship consultants, Digital sponsorship strategy, Facebook, Press Clipping, Social media sponsorship consultants, Social media sponsorship strategy, Sponsorship consultants, Sponsorship effectiveness, Sponsorship measurement, Sponsorship valuation, Twitter

No comments

Why The Premier League Killed Title Sponsorship – And Now Needs A Purpose Beyond Profit

Barclays1

I wasn’t surprised by the Premier League’s decision to discontinue title sponsorship when the current Barclays deal ends next season. The League’s TV riches and the bigger clubs’ sponsorship earning power and ambitions made it a question of when, not if, this would happen.

As I wrote on Twitter back in February when the Premier League’s new £5.1 billion domestic TV deals were announced:

It’s difficult to conclude the new TV deal won’t influence the clubs’ expectations of the percentage increase achievable [from a new title sponsorship] versus the current Barclays sponsorship…given the huge gap between Premier League TV and title sponsor revenue, maybe the PL title sponsorship’s days are numbered.

And so it proved. Here’s why.

The gap between current Premier League TV revenue and title sponsorship revenue is already enormous. Last season, the twenty Premier League clubs shared over £1.6 billion of centrally-generated revenue: 94.6% of this was TV money. Of the other 5.4% (just under £88 million), £40 million was from the Barclays title sponsorship — just 2.5% of total centrally-generated revenue. A pretty low percentage. When the increased domestic TV revenue — 67% up on the current contract — kicks in in 2016–17, along with new and inevitably increased international TV revenue (currently worth £2.2 billion but expected to rise to £2.9 billion), the title sponsorship money will look even more like a drop in the ocean.

And that would still have been the case even if the Premier League had been able to satisfy the clubs’ expectations and find a brand willing to substantially increase the £40 million per year title sponsorship paid by Barclays, which always looked unlikely, and which as we now know didn’t happen.

The other key financial factor in the Premier League’s decision is the bigger clubs’ ever-increasing sponsorship earning power and ambitions.

Barclays2

Led by Manchester United, the bigger Premier League clubs are now routinely generating nine-figure sums from their shirt sponsorships, and achieving double-digit increases when they renew or replace sponsors. They’re also aggressively marketing their secondary sponsorship packages, and looking to diversify and increase their sponsorship from other sources, such as stadium sponsorship and (pioneered by Manchester United with enormous success) training kit sponsorship and regional sponsorships.

This has also impacted on their view of the Premier League title sponsorship’s value.

The clubs keep 100% of the sponsorship income they generate individually, whereas they share equally (i.e. 5% each) the title sponsorship money generated at the centre. As with the TV money, the growth in their individual revenue streams has also outpaced their share of the title sponsorship deal and made it look increasingly minor. £2 million per club from Barclays is a drop in the ocean for the bigger clubs and now looks like small beer even to the others compared to the TV money.

The bigger clubs can also justifiably argue that they can sell the substantial collateral that they have to release to Barclays (perimeter ads, match sponsorships, player appearances, digital and data rights and the like) for much more money than that they receive as their share of the Barclays deal.

And in a related point, the category exclusivity that is part of the Barclays deal and prevents all of the clubs from selling sponsorship to Barclays’ competitors has also become increasingly unattractive.

Bottom line: the Premier League has outgrown title sponsorship — given its finances and earning power, it simply doesn’t need title sponsorship any more.

And moving beyond title sponsorship creates new marketing opportunities for the Premier League.

Barclays3

It opens up the ‘hero brand’ model used so successfully by the likes of the NFL and NBA to market and differentiate their brands without the dilution of a title sponsorship. A Premier League brand free of title sponsorship has the potential to be more flexible and attractive to consumers, more attractive to potential licensing and merchandising partners, and much more attractive to potential sponsorship partners — although whether the clubs are prepared to release enough inventory and categories to allow the League to expand its very limited roster of secondary sponsors remains to be seen.

But for all its riches and all its new post-title sponsorship opportunities, there’s one thing above all that the Premier League must do for itself and its brand: to re-define, and then communicate and live by, what the League’s values are and what it stands for.

Currently it positions itself only as being ‘all about the football’. And when you ask people what the Premier League stands for, great football is absolutely one of the two things they generally say.

But the other is (and not in a good way) money — lots of money.

That’s not a sustainable position.

If the Premier League is to truly become a ‘hero brand’, it needs a purpose and values beyond football and profit.

And if the FIFA scandal teaches us anything, it’s surely that football needs a purpose and values beyond football and profit now more than ever.

By on June 8th, 2015

Tags: Barclays Premier League, Football Sponsorship, NFL, Sponsorship consultants

No comments

Changing the Game for Women’s Sport

Although consensus on London 2012’s tangible legacies in the UK remains elusive, arguably the most high profile and certainly the most sustained legacy is the momentum behind greater recognition for women’s sport, created by the medal success of the Team GB women and their starring role at the Games.

It was clear before London 2012 that momentum was already building, with the public furore at the omission of women from the 2011 BBC Sports Personality of the Year shortlist a clear signal of things to come.

England women's rugby team celebrate world cup triumph

Now, post Games, nowhere is the legacy in the UK more evident than in the competition between the BBC, BT Sport and Sky to out-behave each other as champions of women’s sport.

BT and Sky both have dedicated editorial platforms and sportswomen of the year awards. BT Sport broadcasts Women’s Super League football and the BBC has ramped up its coverage of England women’s international football, in particular the most recent England v Germany friendly, which also out-sold – for the first time ever – the previous month’s men’s international.

And what a difference a few years has made to the BBC Sports Personality of the Year, with the 2014 Team of the Year award presented to the World Cup-winning England women’s rugby team.

But these are the exceptions that prove the rule, as consistently demonstrated by a long-running Women In Sport campaign, that women’s sport in the UK is overwhelmingly the poor relation to men’s, in terms of both media coverage and, as a result, sponsorship.

The transformative financial effect that media coverage can have can be clearly seen in women’s tennis. Billie-Jean King’s pioneering work in creating the WTA, and above all the dual men’s and women’s format of many major tennis events – in particular the Grand Slams – has kept women’s tennis and its stars in the spotlight, and as a result the money, for years. Other women’s sports, lacking the media spotlight, are playing catch-up, and the gap is growing.

Bridging it will not happen overnight, but in time, increased media visibility will come and will inevitably drive increased commercial viability for brands looking to sponsor women’s sport.

However, media coverage is only part of any viability equation for brands.

New behaviours will also be required. The inconvenient but undeniable truth is that much of the brand money invested through sponsorship in women’s sports is connected to sex appeal – what one might call the ‘Kournikova factor’.

It’s easy for brands to get quick wins by adding to the purses of the planet’s most glamorous stars – after all, sex sells, right? But sponsors that genuinely care about the advancement of women’s sport will look to celebrate women as athletes, not pin-ups, and to lead the way in promoting an attitudinal change.

Like a Girl

This is something that has been confronted by the brand Always, with its highly creative and engaging #LikeAGirl campaign. Based on the simple question of what it means to do something (such as run, throw or fight) ‘like a girl’, and demonstrating quite how loaded this phrase has really become, the campaign challenges both genders’ thinking, acting as an apt reminder of the effects adolescence has on both girls’ and boys’ perceptions of themselves and others.

And, as well as new behaviours, brands interested in using sport to market to women will also need to navigate two major and related disconnects between theory and reality in this space.

The first is the assumption that a higher profile for women’s sport will automatically drive greater women’s participation in sport. This is unproven. Famously, for example, after London 2012, sports participation in the UK actually decreased across all groups, including women.

Which leads on to the second disconnect. The fact is that many women, for a variety of reasons, are not sports fans. As such, another widely held assumption, that using women’s sport to promote exercise amongst women will be effective at scale, is also unproven.

This Girl Can

The new Sport England ‘This Girl Can’ campaign recognises this, attempting to drive attitudinal change to sport amongst women by confronting the fear of being judged, a key barrier for many women.

At Synergy, our understanding of these disconnects has led to successful campaigns for clients, proving that brands can make a difference if their activity is grounded in the appropriate insights.

Bupa’s ‘My First Run’ campaign demonstrated how crucial the right female ambassador is (in this instance, Jo Whiley) to drive coverage, engagement and ultimately behaviour change, which in this case led to an estimated 23,000 women being inspired to take part in their first ever organised run.

Bupa first run

Similarly, Coke Zero’s ParkLives programme, which offers free, fun, family activities in local parks, has seen great success, with communications specifically avoiding the ‘s-word’ to ensure female participants are not put off by a direct association with ‘sport’.

So, there’s no doubt there is a big opportunity for brands here. That said, they must beware of thinking about it solely in the context of sponsoring Women’s Sport – capital W, capital S. For us, the biggest opportunity lies in driving attitudinal and behaviour change in the context of women in sport and in women’s relationship with sport in its broadest sense: in building trust, providing inspiration, and creating the environment in which women can express themselves, and audiences and participants can connect without prejudice or agenda.

Tim’s blog comes from Synergy’s Now, New & Next sponsorship outlook for 2015, which can be viewed in full here.

By on March 10th, 2015

Tags: Female Sport, Sponsorship, Sport, Synergy, Women's Football, Women's Rugby, Women's Sport, Women's Tennis

No comments

Corporate Japan Gets Behind Tokyo 2020 Olympic Sponsorship

Tokyo 2020

It’s been quite a week on the sponsorship front for Tokyo 2020, which announced three new Tier One sponsors – Canon, NEC and Fujitsu – in 48 hours. Here’s a quick take on the implications for Tokyo 2020 and Olympic sponsorship.

1. Tokyo 2020 already has five Tier 1 sponsors – NTT  and Asahi having signed up last month – putting it level with Rio 2016, which has however been marketing its domestic packages since 2009 whereas Tokyo has been in the market only since 2013. So it looks like Tokyo’s pace of sponsor acquisition is going to be more in line with London 2012 than with Rio 2016: as I’ve written previously, Rio 2016 has consistently lagged behind London 2012 in deal volume.

2. Early indications that Tokyo 2020 looks like living up to its bid promise of being a safe bet will no doubt prompt a collective sigh of relief at the IOC, given both Rio 2016′s well-publicised problems and the recent audit that revealed Pyeongchang 2018′s sponsorship and finances are in crisis. (Related point: Rio 2016 is yet to publish its accounts, in striking contrast to London 2012, which published annual financial statements. One to watch.)

3. Assuming that Tokyo 2020 is achieving its $128m Tier 1 sponsorship pricing, it has already surpassed the $568m Tier 1 revenue total projected in its candidature files, and is well on its way to surpassing its $958m total revenue projection. However, as I wrote back in September 2013 when Tokyo won the 2020 Games, these revenue projections were extremely cautious, and I continue to expect Tokyo to achieve sales of well over $1 billion, and perhaps as much as $2 billion if Japan’s economy remains stable. Remember however that these figures will include VIK, which Tokyo 2020 estimated would be 34% of sponsorship revenue, an unusually low VIK figure for a modern Games – London’s VIK figure was just under 55%.

4. Category boundaries are a key negotiating point in any sponsorship, but particularly in the Olympics, which always produces more than its fair share of obscure designations owing to the crowded dynamics of the Olympic sponsorship landscape. The latest batch of Tokyo 2020 sponsors continues proudly in this tradition – ‘Data Centre Hardware Provider’, ‘Specialist Public Equipment & Software Provider’ and so on – and a related curiosity is that none of the latest categories featured in Tokyo’s candidature file projections of what its Tier 1 categories would be, proving once again that bid books are more honoured in the breach than in the observance. Finally on categories, if I was a Panasonic shareholder I’d want to know why Panasonic’s new 2016-2024 TOP sponsorship agreement left the camera category open to Canon for Tokyo 2020, something that Canon is clearly already enjoying given its mischievous reference to ‘sharing the emotion’ in its Tokyo 2020 media releasePanasonic’s long-running Olympic tagline being ‘Sharing The Passion’.

5. Judging by Tokyo’s early success there will be many hotly-contested Tokyo 2020 sponsorship tenders, but arguably the most competitive will be for Tokyo’s automotive sponsorship, given the fiercely competitive Japanese auto marketplace, which grew 3.5% in 2014, and the numerous domestic and international brands operating in Japan. Only time will tell which brand emerges victorious, but candidates are sure to include Nissan, already heavily invested in the Olympics worldwide including in particular Rio 2016, and Japanese market leader Toyota, which made an untypically public and embarrassingly unfulfilled declaration that it intended to be Tokyo’s 2020′s first sponsor just before Tokyo’s final bid presentation. Watch this space…

By on February 19th, 2015

Tags: IOC, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Pyeonchang 2018, Rio 2016, Rio 2016 Sponsorship, Rio 2016 Sponsorship Consultants, Sponsorship, Sponsorship consultants, Tokyo 2020

No comments

The 5 Key Olympic Sponsorship Implications of the IOC’s Agenda 2020

Bach

Earlier this week the IOC approved the 40 recommendations in new IOC President Thomas Bach’s Olympic Agenda 2020, the ‘strategic roadmap for the future of the Olympic Movement’. Although the overall implications have been extensively covered elsewhere – check out in particular this excellent piece by David Owen – no-one has yet looked in detail at the key implications for Olympic sponsorship. So, here’s my view.

1. Buyability: Bach puts clear water between the IOC and FIFA

The Agenda 2020 white paper was published a few days after FIFA once again descended into chaos. Although this was coincidental, it emphasised both how open the Agenda 2020 process was, and how clearly it was designed to make the IOC and the Olympics fit for the future – both in stark contrast to FIFA. The key word here is buyability. Agenda 2020 is not only re-assuring for existing Olympic sponsors: it also makes the IOC and the Olympics far more buyable than FIFA and the World Cup – the IOC’s primary competition for potential global sponsors. In Agenda 2020, President Bach has put an ocean of buyability between himself and FIFA.

2. Partnership: actions speak louder than words

In our experience, most rights holders genuinely want to create partnerships with sponsors, but all too often find it tough to make it happen. In this respect it was very good to see how integrated IOC TOPs were in Agenda 2020, with representatives on several of the working groups. How often have you seen a rights holder embark on a process as far reaching as Agenda 2020 with its sponsors embedded in the development and execution of the recommendations? The IOC has created a new gold standard.

3. The IOC’s youth strategy is still in a mess

The average age of an Olympics consumer – as defined by broadcast TV, the Olympics’ primary distribution channel and revenue source – is now over fifty and rising. This is now a crisis for the IOC, which must find a way to engage with younger audiences to ensure its future and to retain and attract sponsors, and is thus a key theme of Agenda 2020. And the plain fact is that Agenda 2020 revealed that the IOC youth strategy is a long-running mess. The Youth Olympic Games – the Rogge-era IOC’s ill-conceived attempt to solve the problem – has demonstrably failed in its current format, and the total re-boot approved in Agenda 2020 was long overdue. The new Olympic Channel – of which more below – is key to solving the problem. But above all it was good to see Agenda 2020 acknowledge the need that it needs strategic partners from outside the Olympic Movement, and to involve its sponsors far more, in its youth marketing strategy.

4. The Olympic Channel is all about content, not distribution

The newly-approved Olympic Channel should have been launched years ago, but wasn’t for fear of damaging the IOC’s cash cow, its broadcasters, particularly in the US. But now it is here, it is to be welcomed. It’s a vital enabler in enabling the IOC to to take the Olympics to digital-first younger audiences. But this is not about what screens it lands on, but what lands on the screens. When the Olympic channel was first mooted I advocated strongly that the IOC should look to co-create content with its sponsors, and it was good to see that this featured (albeit with the usual IOC caveats about branding) in Agenda 2020. Above all, I hope that the IOC takes an enlightened approach to its content strategy, way beyond the archive and Olympic sports coverage. How about, for example, a strand dedicated to eSports, the Millennial gaming phenomenon, with an Olympic theme?

5. Sponsors’ activation footprints should remain discretionary, not mandatory

The most potentially controversial sponsorship-specific Agenda 2020 recommendation was to introduce a programme designed to increase local activation by TOPs. This is a longstanding issue in Olympic circles. Understandably, every NOC wants TOPs to activate at scale in their country, and becomes frustrated if they don’t. Equally understandably, and quite rightly, TOPs want to control the geographic footprint of their activation programmes and align them to their business priorities. This must continue, and as such in my view TOPs should resist the IOC suggestion of contractual obligations. Meanwhile, the new marketing capability programme for NOCs – to be run, interestingly, by P&G – promises to ease, if not remove, the issue.

Further reading:

Olympic Agenda 2020 Recommendations

Olympic Agenda 2020 Context and Background

 

By on December 11th, 2014

Tags: Default, IOC, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Rio 2016, Rio 2016 Sponsorship, Rio 2016 Sponsorship Consultants, Socialympics, Sponsorship, Sponsorship consultants, Tokyo 2020, World Cup, World Cup Sponsorship, World Cup Sponsorship Consultants

No comments

Maxwell, Manchester, Glasgow: My Commonwealth Games Memories

I couldn’t have been more excited for Glasgow 2014. Over the years I’ve been fortunate to spend a lot of time working for clients in Glasgow. It’s a special, special place, and I very quickly grew to love it and it’s people. I had no doubt that Glasgow would stage a great Games, and that the city and it’s people will be stars of the show.

This is the third edition of the Commonwealth Games in the UK that I’ve worked on: the first two created some vivid, and highly contrasting, memories.

In 1986 I was working at the Mirror Group, and became part of the team responsible for delivering the Mirror’s last-minute sponsorship of the Edinburgh Commonwealth Games. The Mirror sponsorship positioned Mirror owner Robert Maxwell and the Mirror Group as coming to the rescue of the Games, which was already in a financial crisis subsequently compounded by a boycott by over half of the Commonwealth countries in protest at the UK’s links with apartheid South Africa. It’s difficult to argue that the promotional and organisational momentum Maxwell brought to the Games saved it from humiliation. But the reality was that it was an aggressive takeover – arguably the biggest ambush marketing job in history – which was, like most things at the Mirror, a vehicle for Maxwell backed by empty financial promises.

Maxwell

This is the definitive article on Maxwell and Edinburgh ’86, by Brian Oliver, extracted from his forthcoming book on the Commonwealth Games. Some of the stories in there may sound incredible, but I can assure you that they’re true – I was there for most of them, and more besides (such as the time he invaded the track during the Opening Ceremony). Working for Maxwell on Edinburgh ’86 was often chaotic and surreal, but it taught me very valuable lessons about sponsorship – both how to do it and how not to do it – which I still use today.

Fast forward sixteen years  to Manchester 2002, a very different Games and Games experience, but with, for me at least, one similarity to Edinburgh ’86; another sponsorship of the Commonwealth Games by a media company, in this case the Guardian Media Group (GMG). But it could not have been more different to the Mirror’s.

By this time I was at Synergy (or Karen Earl Sponsorship as it was then known) and we advised and led the delivery of GMG’s Manchester 2002 sponsorship, which was an award-winning success. GMG’s print and digital media provided vital support and promotion for the Games; showcased GMG’s diverse media titles; demonstrated GMG’s commitment to and historic links with Manchester; and also provided a highly successful internal platform to build GMG employee pride and engagement, an area in which Synergy continues to specialise today.

And of course, unlike Edinburgh 1986, Manchester 2002 was hailed by all as a huge success, in particular in showcasing and accelerating Manchester’s transformation, delivering tangible legacies, and confounding the sceptics by showing the world that the UK could successfully stage a major multi-sport event – in many ways paving the way for London’s successful bid for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Fast forward to Glasgow 2014, which Synergy has been working on for SSE, the Games’ first Tier One sponsor, since last year. You can find out all about the SSE Glasgow 2014 sponsorship here and here,  and get involved with the SSE GoGlasgow campaign here by tweeting your support for one of the home nations teams by using either #GoEngland, #GoNI, #GoScotland or #GoWales.

SEE #Go

Every hashtagged tweet registered on SSE’s GoGlasgow Twitter leaderboard and generates extra funding for the stars of the future via the SSE Next Generation programme.

Go Glasgow!

By on July 23rd, 2014

Tags: Commonwealth Games, Default, Sponsorship, Sponsorship Activation, Sponsorship consultants, Synergy, Twitter

No comments

Passion points sell, 42% more often. Google it.

How often do we hear rights holders, brands and sponsorship agencies talk of ‘engaging consumers through their passion points’, or similar, to justify sponsorship investments? It has become the de facto rationale. But what substantiates that principle?

Synergy’s Tom Gladstone wrote that back in 2011 in this great post on how to use sponsorship to create meaningful emotional engagement, and then as now I couldn’t agree more. I can’t count the times I’ve heard or read sponsorship practitioners talk about passion points as a de facto rationale, but rarely heard it supported by the fact-based evidence of effectiveness that CMOs would require as standard.

That’s one of many reasons why at Synergy we focus so much on effectiveness driven by innovation, and why, if you’re in the sponsorship business, Google’s new research on why consumers strongly prefer passion point based marketing is worth your time.

Google snapshot

Here’s the stat that sums it all up (my highlights): 

Consumers choose the brands that engage them on their passions and interests 42% more often than they do those that simply urge them to buy the product being advertised.

But there’s a warning too (again, my highlights):

Consumers are hungry to live their passions. The brands that can satisfy that appetite will reap the rewards. To do that, they’ll need to keep their focus firmly on their brand’s core and how it relates to their consumers’ passions. 

Wise words. After all, how often do you see sponsorship campaigns that invoke passion, but not only lack passion but also, crucially, any meaningful link to the brand?

Discuss, dispassionately – as Unofficial Partner would and indeed has said, on the same subject.

By on July 2nd, 2014

Tags: Advertising, Brand marketing, Default, Innovation, Sponsorship, Sponsorship consultants, Synergy

No comments

Five Real Time Marketing Lessons From #Suarez

So, the World Cup has just had what you might call its first Oreo moment, in the shape of Luis Suarez’s alleged bite mark on Giorgio Chiellini, the subsequent social media explosion (there were two million tweets mentioning Suarez in the hour after the game), and numerous brands’ social media attempts to exploit the opportunity. Given all the pre-tournament buzz about Brazil 2014 being the first real-time World Cup and the readiness of brands to leverage moments like Suarez’s bite real time, it’s interesting to take a look at what actually happened. Here are five things I noticed in the 24 hours since the incident.

1. Despite the significant number of brands who attempted to leverage #Suarez, very few achieved mass levels of engagement. Here are the two most successful I’ve come across so far.

(Translation: Hi Luis Suarez, if you are still hungry, come take a bite out of a Big Mac).

I doubt that either of them will win any awards for creativity, or humour, any time soon. There are more creative, and much funnier executions out there. This, by Bud Light, for example.

But look at the number of re-tweets compared to McDonald’s and Nando’s, and most importantly the time it took to publish the tweet after the event. Bud Light, like most, didn’t react quickly enough. McDonald’s and Nando’s did. And in real time, above all, speed wins.

See also Evander Holyfield. Fast (over an hour quicker than Bud Light), relevant and funny.

 

2. Talking of funny, there was some absolutely brilliant stuff out there created by outliers, but none of it went big because they didn’t have the distribution skills or the platforms.

For brands, crowd-sourcing from outliers is an untapped opportunity in real time.

3. By far the majority of the brands that did try to gatecrash the party were non-sponsors. Search for Suarez on Twitter, or check out the innumerable lists of Suarez executions that are flying around in the media, and you’ll see what I mean.

Bye bye Bavaria et al. Ambush marketing has gone social and real-time.

4. Of the sponsors, McDonald’s was the big winner, but most of the sponsors didn’t play, in all likelihood because they couldn’t come up with something good enough fast enough that was relevant to their brands. All those brand World Cup war-rooms would have been an interesting place to be last night. But I noticed several of the bigger brands buying Suarez as a term on Twitter.

If you can’t think your way in, buy your way in. Fair enough, but nowhere near as good as becoming part of the conversation organically.

5. There was a lot of hilarity in the sports marketing ecosystem when Listerine, a World Cup sponsor via Johnson & Johnson’s FIFA deal, unveiled its #PowerTo YourMouth campaign, in particular this quote from a senior Listerine exec in the launch PR:

“The World Cup is a good opportunity to get people to reconsider the importance of oral care beyond cleaning your teeth, and to consider what a mouth goes through.”

Really? But when the Suarez incident happened last night, the first thing I thought of was #PowerToYourMouth and the gilt-edged real-time opportunity it presented for Listerine, and I tweeted as much.

Now I can’t say that what Listerine came up with really did justice to the opportunity, especially compared to the likes of McDonalds:

 

But I loved the fact that they took the time and trouble to reply to my tweet with a customised line.

Now that’s great marketing.

By on June 25th, 2014

Tags: Ambush Marketing, Branded content, Brazil 2014, Brazil 2014 Sponsorship, Default, Football Sponsorship, Real Time Marketing, Social Media, Sponsorship Activation, Sponsorship consultants, World Cup, World Cup Sponsorship, World Cup Sponsorship Consultants

No comments

Synergy’s 2014 Marketing World Cup Infographic

With the greatest football show on earth now having kicked off in Brazil, we’ve delved into the past, present and future of the FIFA World Cup off the field to bring you Synergy’s 2014 Marketing World Cup Infographic. Enjoy.

By on June 13th, 2014

Tags: Brazil, Brazil 2014, Brazil 2014 Sponsorship, Football Sponsorship, Sponsorship, Sponsorship consultants, Synergy, Synfographic, World Cup, World Cup Sponsorship

No comments


Synergy

How To Find Us


What We Do
Our Work
Engine Group Office
Synergy
60 Great Portland Street
London
W1W 7RT
Tel: +44 (0) 203 128 6800
Fax: +44 (0) 203 128 6837

hello@synergy-sponsorship.com
www.synergy-sponsorship.com

 Find us on Google maps