Having just returned from two weeks at the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games, I’m still catching up with my UK reading. So it was that I turned last night to the February 10 edition of Marketing magazine, and an article on sponsorship by one of my favourite columnists, Mark Ritson, on which I really have to comment. Here’s why.

In his characteristically forthright style, Mark lambasts the sponsorship industry in general and a number of people in particular for predicting that Tiger Woods’ travails would not damage his image and endorsement deals:

‘Then there was the scandalous inability of an array of experts to predict correctly the impact of Woods’ misdeeds on his sponsorship deals…If ever we needed proof that most pundits in the world of sports sponsorship and celebrity endorsements are buffoons, here it was, in spades. This is one thing they are supposed to know about, and they managed to be 100% incorrect in the assessments. Not just wrong, but dead wrong.’

I’m not about to defend the industry, or the people Mark names and shames. What I am here to do is point out that Synergy did call the Tiger situation correctly. On December 12 last year, the day after  Tiger announced he was taking an indefinite break from golf, I made the following post on Twitter:

‘Tiger’s move will play well in the media. It also makes it easier for his sponsors to quit - or to stay. Most will quit: Nike will stay.’

Time has of course proved me right. I’m not sure whether Mark is on Twitter - and if you want to follow me Mark, you’ll find me there as @synergytim, along with numerous other Synergists - but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he had Synergy in mind when he said ‘most’ - ie not all - pundits called the Tiger situation wrong!

By Tim Crow on February 25th, 2010

Tags: Golf, Sponsorship, Sponsorship consultancy, Synergy, Tiger Woods

1 comment

I’ve been with Synergy clients and colleagues here in Vancouver for over a week now taking in the 2010 Olympic Winter Games. This is the seventh Games I’ve attended, and as always it’s been a fascinating experience, but this time with a heightened sense of importance and uniqueness, because we’ll be applying the insights we develop here for our clients to their London 2012 sponsorship strategies.

With this in mind, here are a just a few examples of how the Olympics has played out here in Vancouver and Canada, with some thoughts on the associated implications for London 2012.

1. The Weather

This has of course been a major theme in the Vancouver 2010 story, both around the world and here in Canada, with the effects of one of the warmest winters ever in BC impacting heavily on the events in Whistler and Cypress Mountain. But it’s been less of an issue here than you might expect, because so many major events – in particular ice hockey, of which more later – are being staged in indoor venues in the Vancouver metropolitan area.

Whilst the weather is of course a much less critical factor in the summer Games than in the winter edition, there’s no doubt that a wet summer in two years’ time – and let’s face it, a wet summer is hardly a rare event in the UK – would have a major effect on the overall image and experience of London 2012.

2. Olympic Scepticism

Vancouverite scepticism is not getting in the way of the party, but it’s always there in the background. Games-time has brought with it a huge surge of excitement and celebration, but there is a palpable undercurrent of scepticism about the effects and benefits of the Olympics here. It’s characterised by what Vancouverites would be the first to admit is their opinionated mindset, and framed by Canada’s proud tradition of free speech. I’ve experienced it every day, face-to-face, in the news and in social media, across a wide spectrum of topics, such as Government policy, the economy, tax, house prices, and travel disruption.

Recognise any similarities with the UK?

3. The Opening Ceremony

Fuelled by a tidal wave of rumours and a surprising lack of leaks from inside the dress rehearsals, last week everybody here was talking about the opening ceremony, in particular who would perform (apart from Rush, most of the rumours I heard turned out to be true) and who would light the Olympic flame (who else could it have been but Wayne Gretzky). The post-ceremony debate was equally fascinating. Whilst the consensus was “brilliant show” (and it was – the minor technical problems did not detract at all) there was also a significant debate about to what extent the ceremony truly represented Canada.

We’ll see exactly the same things happen in the UK around the London 2012 opening ceremony: indeed if anything, the pre-show rumours and the post-show debate will be even more intense.

4. Bad Luck, or Bad Games?

Although every Games has its problems, Vancouver 2010 has of course already had more than its fair share. They have ranged from the unfortunate to the tragic and – depending on your point of view – resulted from either misadventure or mismanagement. Inevitably this has become a major media theme worldwide, with the most strident criticism of IOC and VANOC coming from the UK, as well as some early – some would say too early – comments by UK journalists that this is ‘the worst Games ever.’

The Canadian media and Canadian consumers aren’t denying that there are problems – quite the reverse. But it’s hardly surprising that many have reacted furiously to some of the more extreme criticism from the UK. If London 2012 comes in for similar criticism from another country’s media, we’ll see exactly the same reaction in the UK.

5. In Canada, It’s All About Ice Hockey

Ice Hockey – just ‘Hockey’ here - is king in Canada. Think football in the UK, cricket in India or gridiron in the USA in terms of its dominant popularity. And so it follows that for Canada, this games is going to be defined by whether or not Canada wins the hockey gold medal. Of course, every Canadian success is going to be a cause for national celebration, as it was when Alex Bilodeau won Canada’s first-ever gold medal on home soil – an occasion I was lucky enough to witness at first hand – in the freestyle skiing moguls. But hockey is what really matters. So it was that on Tuesday night, after Canada beat Norway, the energy and noise in the streets and the bars of Vancouver went way up, to the levels we see in the UK when England play a big FIFA World Cup or UEFA Euro match.

Will London 2012 be different in the UK? Yes and no. We’ll see, I’m sure, huge support for all of Britain’s athletes, and national celebrations when a gold medal is won, particularly in the blue riband events. But although medal success will definitely be a key measure of how UK consumers judge the success of the Games, the focus will be spread across most of the Olympic sports rather than just one.

By Tim Crow on February 18th, 2010

Tags: London 2012, Olympics, Vancouver 2010

No comments

The role of technology sponsors in creating the technical infrastructure behind global events such as the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup is largely unrecognised outside of the sponsorship and rights holder communities. There are two reasons for this: consumers and the media are more interested in the show than in the tech; and most tech sponsors are B2B brands.

But the scale of these events - the Olympics ranks among the world’s biggest peacetime projects - together with the rapid evolution of their technological requirements, makes the role of tech sponsors increasingly vital to their success, and the scope of this group of sponsors’ contributions increasingly complex and impressive.

I was reminded of all this last week at an Editorial Intelligence London 2012 seminar, when Stuart Hill, who leads the BT London 2012 Delivery Programme, gave a fascinating insight into the scale of BT’s London 2012 technical operation. Here are a few extracts from what he said:

BT is providing 80,000 connections across all 94 London 2012 venues, as well as 16,500 fixed lines, 14,000 mobile phone SIM cards and 1,000 wireless access points;

The information this network can support – calls, emails, images, texts – will amount to 6 Gigabytes per second: the equivalent of 6,000 novels, or the entire contents of Wikipedia, every 5 seconds;

Whereas 30% of the coverage of Beijing 2008 was digital, 100% of the coverage of London 2012 will be digital, meaning that consumers will be able to watch every sport in High Definition, when they want to watch it.

Stuart also made two other observations which as an Olympic Marketing practitioner I found very interesting. 

The first was about how London 2012 is playing out within BT. Stuart characterised London 2012 as a being like a slow drumbeat inside BT, beating gradually louder, and recalled the excitement of staff when the company lit up the BT Tower to celebrate 1,000 days to go to London 2012.

The second was the highly perceptive comment that BT’s London 2012 delivery role is effectively a silent one - ensuring that when people use BT’s London 2012 services, they enjoy a flawless experience. This of course, emphasises the crucial role for BT’s 2012-related marketing: the need to bring to life for customers and consumers the company’s enabling role in their London 2012 experiences - because unlike B2B tech sponsors, BT needs powerful B2C marketing behind London 2012 to drive its retail business.

I came away from the seminar thinking about these two observations in particular. Is BT’s current B2C London 2012 marketing creating a drumbeat (to use Stuart’s phrase) among customers and consumers as well as staff? I’d be interested in your views – feel free to comment below. And on this point, let me leave you with a personal perspective: as a longstanding BT customer (fixed line and broadband) the only London 2012 related communication I’ve received so far is the London 2012 logo on the outside of the envelope that contains my monthly bill.

By Tim Crow on January 20th, 2010

Tags: London 2012 sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship

No comments

Channel 4’s successful bid against the BBC to win the UK broadcast rights to the London 2012 Paralympics defied predictions and surprised leading observers. The latest in a series of bold and innovative moves by the London 2012 Organising Committee in their quest to create and deliver a Games for a new era and a new generation, it’s a decision that will be good for the Paralympics, for consumers, and for London 2012 sponsors.

Justified or not, there was always a concern that the BBC would prioritise resources to the Olympics over the Paralympics. Channel 4’s bid removes the issue with a raft of unprecedented commitments: re-branding itself as The Paralympics Channel during the Games; 150 hours of Games-time coverage;  two ten-part peak time documentaries in 2011 and 2012; dedicated coverage of the Paralympic Torch Relay; and the biggest marketing campaign in the broadcaster’s history - a particularly crucial feature given the key Paralympic legacy objective of changing attitudes to disability.

But not only is changing to Channel 4 all good for the Paralympics: it’s good for consumers too.

Being free-to-air, access for all to coverage of the Games is assured - a vital consideration. Channel 4 also has a strong and proud track record of innovative coverage (Italian football, horse racing, cricket) that consumers will no doubt now see applied to the Paralympics And isn’t it good for consumers - indeed for society as a whole - that after a decade of Big Brother, Channel 4 is returning to its traditional diversity/minority remit?

I’d also argue that for consumers, having two London 2012 broadcasters is better than one, in that the inherent competition it will engender between the two stations (already visible in their somewhat barbed PR around the announcement of Channel 4’s win) will drive up coverage quality.

And finally, it’s undeniable that Channel 4 winning the rights to cover the Paralympics is brilliant news for the London 2012 Games’ sponsors. Leveraging an Olympic and Paralympic sponsorship is one of toughest challenges in the sponsorship playbook, owing to the nature of the rights: leveraging it in the UK, with - up to now - the non-commercial BBC as the only Olympic broadcaster has made it even tougher. The entry of a commercial station offers London 2012’s sponsors a new, and welcome, marketing option.

By Tim Crow on January 12th, 2010

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

1 comment

If, like me, you grew up in the seventies, you’ll recall entrepreneur Victor Kiam’s famous Remington ads, which ended with the line ”I liked the shaver so much, I bought the company”. Audi, evidently, feel the same way about their sponsorship of Bayern Munich, having yesterday announced that they had taken a 9% stake in the club as well as continuing as a sponsor. Bayern’s strategy of sponsoring the European footballing elite is self-evident - as well as Bayern, the brand also sponsors AC Milan, Barcelona, Manchester United and Real Madrid - but this clearly takes their involvement to a new level, and raises an interesting question: does Audi’s move herald a new era of brands moving from sponsorship of the elite sporting names to investing in them as well? Only time will tell. But if it did, I wouldn’t find it surprising.

Moving from sponsor to investor is undeniably a leap in terms of the financial commitment involved, but not that big. Clubs like Bayern are massive brands with millions of passionate, committed fans. But let’s remember that as businesses, in financial terms they’re minnows by comparison with the market capitalisation and buying power of major brand owners.

Some might argue - especially with Bayern languishing at seventh in the Bundesliga and facing elimination from the UEFA Champions League - that adding financial risk to marketing risk isn’t a smart move when on-field performance is so critical to the bottom line: the spectre of Leeds haunts. But whilst every deal carries an element of risk, let’s face it, Bayern aren’t Leeds: they’re a long term footballing superpower with stable, membership-based ownership and high-quality earnings. The risk is as minimal as you can get - in football anyway.

There’s a final argument - which I assume applies to Audi and Bayern - that makes moving from sponsor to investor entirely logical to me. If just about everything about the relationship from a brand and business point of view is right, and if you share and can commit to a long-term vision - in short, if there’s perfect synergy - why not go one step further and become an investor as well as a sponsor?

To summarise, I don’t believe we’ll see a stampede into these type of deals: for one thing there’s a recession on, and for another I don’t see too many assets out there that brands would invest in.  But I don’t think the Audi-Bayern deal is the last of its type that we’ll see.

In the meantime, I’ll be adding a new filter question into the model we use to help our clients make a call on whether to sponsor a potential asset: would you buy stock in it?

By Tim Crow on November 27th, 2009

Tags: Default, Football, Football Sponsorship, Manchester United, Sponsorship, Sponsorship consultants

No comments

‘Revolutions are not about trifles, but they spring from trifles’
Aristotle

Ukraine v England. A nothing match? Yes - we’d already qualified for the World Cup. A sports broadcasting revolution? No - simply another glimpse of a revolution that’s already here.

This is not to downplay the significance of the match as an online pay-per-view event of course. Even with only a reported 250,000-300,000 online pay-per-view subscribers, it’s the most watched “internet-only” football match in history – the concensus being that the previous record was set by Manchester City’s friendly against Barcelona on August 19, which was available free in the UK only on City’s website, where 95,000 fans clicked in.

But make no mistake: live streaming of major sports events is already with us. During last year’s Beijing Olympics, BBC Sport served 40 million UK requests for online video streams and 11.8 million viewers used the red button during the Games; hundreds of thousands of UK consumers regularly stream live global sports every month through various sites; and niche sports, extreme sports and gaming are routinely streamed online due to the lack of mainstream broadcast distribution opportunities.

As webcasting grows in capacity and audience, it’s inevitable that more events will be streamed online. Computers and portable devices are simply alternative screens, and are converging quickly. Once TV sets are broadband-enabled the role of the internet won’t matter. Viewers won’t care how the match is getting to their screens – it’s all ‘TV’. It’s just that the notion and experience of ‘TV’ is going to change.

But only slowly of course. Saturday’s match proved that internet-only ppv is still in a contentious infancy when it comes to marquee events, and that the traditional broadcasters will not be usurped as the main distributors of big-ticket sport anytime soon.  QED: if England had still needed points against Ukraine, the game would have been bought by one of the big TV names for millions.

But we’ve seen a glimpse of the future. Remember when Sky first came along?

‘The future is already here, it is just not evenly distributed.’
William Gibson

By Tim Crow on October 12th, 2009

Tags: Default, Football, Media

No comments

Visitors to these pages will know that since questioning Andy Burnham’s now-infamous Medal Hopes announcement last year, I’ve written several posts on the issue’s evolution. So, with Team 2012 having risen last week like a phoenix from the ashes of Medal Hopes, it seems only appropriate to mark the issue’s apparent resolution with a few observations.

1. Team 2012 should not have been necessary

Let’s remember that the budget problem Team 2012 is designed to help solve was created by the Treasury in 2006. Let’s also remember that the problem was then exacerbated by two years of DCMS inaction, and finally exploded by the obvious flaws in Fast Track’s Medal Hopes ‘plan’ - memorably described by the BBC’s Matt Slater (author of a number of excellent blogs on the subject) as being ‘up there with Baldrick’s finest’. Quite a contrast with the Vancouver 2010 Own The Podium programme, launched in 2005 with adequate national and regional Government funding and a joined-up long-term plan.

2. The launch of Team 2012 is a triumph for LOCOG and UK Sport

Given the mess they inherited from DCMS and Fast Track, this is indisputable. Consider the list of their achievements: uniting the various stakeholders; creating a new property; resolving (apparently) the incendiary issue of elite Olympic athletes’ image rights; and persuading global Olympic sponsor Visa to come on board as Team 2012’s ‘Presenting Partner’ for £10m to start the fundraising.

3. Visa: sponsorship – or patronage?

I use the term ‘fundraising’ advisedly. Team 2012 is unashamedly a fundraising initiative designed to dent the shortfall in our Olympic sports’ budgets for London 2012, and increase Team GB’s chances of success: the official press release talks of nothing else. In which case, is Visa’s role more about patronage (financial aid with little or no expectation of ROI) rather than sponsorship (a win-win marketing partnership)? Don’t misunderstand me: I wish Team 2012 and Visa the best of British. But getting a meaningful return from this particular £10m investment looks like a big ask.

4. Sponsorship is not the only answer to the budget problem

A month after Andy Burnham’s original Medal Hopes announcement, I began advocating that any replacement programme should also incorporate innovative non-sponsorship fundraising models that had evolved elsewhere, such as Team Business West Midlands and the Vancouver 2010 Patron’s Programme. It’s good to see that this approach has been built into Team 2012, in the shape of the SME Club and the Official Donor programme.

By Tim Crow on October 7th, 2009

Tags: DCMS, Default, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, London 2012 sponsorship consultants, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Synergy, Team GB

No comments

The stand-out performer on the track at this week’s World Athletics Championships in Berlin has of course been the astonishing Usain Bolt. Off the track, his sponsors Puma have also demolished the opposition in the marketing contest (albeit that Puma had little to beat, given the complete lack of activation by the various event sponsors) with a funny, savvy, multi-platform campaign which is right up there with anything produced by the category titans, adidas and Nike.

The inspiration for the campaign was gifted to Puma:  the fact that fans and the media incessantly request that Bolt reprise his trademark ’arms pointing skyward’ pose from the Beijing Olympics wherever he goes. Puma’s inspired twist? A ’solution’ to the problem, developed after ‘a year of research and development’, in the shape of strap-on foam ‘Bolt Arms’.

“From now on, they do the pose”, says Bolt, at a fake but cleverly-rendered press conference included in a number of virals released as part of the Puma campaign, which is notable for its integrated use of social media platforms.

Cue from there a blitz of experiential activity in Berlin, including mass distribution of the Arms to fans, leading to an inevitable decision by the IAAF (sports equipment sponsor: adidas) to ban fans from wearing ‘Bolt Arms’ in the stadium - prompting Puma to ask fans via Twitter if anyone managed to sneak them inside, which they clearly did judging by numerous TV crowd shots.

All in all an exemplary case study, and to my mind a contender for campaign of the year.

By Tim Crow on August 21st, 2009

Tags: Ambush campaign, Athletics, Beijing 2008, Default, Digital marketing, Viral Marketing

No comments

I really like the thinking behind Procter & Gamble’s new deal with the NFL, which sees an array of 13 brands in the P&G portfolio become ’Official Locker Room Products’ of America’s dominant sport. P&G’s own comments about the deal also reveal a very interesting insight into the consumer products giant’s new commitment to sports marketing.      

What do I like about the deal? Two things in particular.

First, creating a new, customised category around P&G’s products is seriously smart.  It’s been done before of course - GE’s Olympics deal, Sony’s FIFA deal - but nothing wrong with that. For a house of brands like P&G, the commercial benefits - marketing synergies and retail efficiencies in particular - are immense. Crucially too, P&G’s ‘Locker Room’ play works as a consumer message - not to be underestimated, as so often these type of ‘official’ tags have absolutely no consumer meaning.

Second, playing the NFL to Mom. An odd choice you might say, given that P&G’s products are mainly purchased by women, and that the NFL audience is 66% male. That 33% female audience for the NFL is still huge of course -  estimated at around 94 million by Nielsen. But the key is, Mom doesn’t just buy for herself: she buys for the family. And if a consuming family passion is the NFL - which it absolutely is in the US - then connecting P&G’s products to that family passion is absolutely on the money.

“And let’s not forget” added NFL Marketing SVP Mark Waller today “that more women watch the Super Bowl than watch the Academy Awards”. 

Not convinced? Then consider Gatorade: a brand which went from niche sports drink to mass-market everyday family drink, primarily bought by Mom, by leveraging above all its NFL credentials, in a partnership which endures to this day. And while you’re at it, on the same theme you might also want to consider Gillette - owned by P&G since 2005 of course - which is most famous for its sports marketing.

Which brings me to P&G’s new commitment to sports marketing. In the news around the NFL deal, P&G’s Jason Dial was quoted as follows:

“When we aquired Gillette [in 2005], we found out how much of a role sports marketing could play…Gillette created the winning principles of sports marketing to our broader portfolio.”

I wonder whether other consumer products companies - hitherto oddly under-represented in sports sponsorship - will follow suit?

One thing’s for sure: with big investors like the financial services and auto categories cutting back, and with supply far outstripping demand, there’s never been a better time.  After all, the audience is still there, and still just as passionate - ask Mom.

By Tim Crow on August 5th, 2009

Tags: Default, NFL, New Product Development

2 comments

Great marketing campaigns by rights owners in sport being a rarity (acid test: how many can you remember?) I’ve really enjoyed two very different but equally hard-hitting efforts over the last few days.

First up was Manchester City’s ‘Welcome to Manchester’ poster featuring new City signing Carlos Tevez, aimed squarely and mischievously at the red half of Manchester from which, of course, Tevez came.

Cue national media coverage, a dismissive riposte from Sir Alex Ferguson, and an outpouring of fan banter and reaction, including a paint attack on one of the Tevez billboards and some highly creative visual replies by Manchester United fans - here’s my favourite so far:

Overall a top piece of work by the City marketing team, which has put the City brand, and the City/United rivalry, firmly back on the agenda for the start of the season in three weeks’ time.

Whereas in three years’ time of course, London 2012 will be upon us - as we all know by now following LOCOG’s masterfully-orchestrated celebration of the 3-year landmark on Monday.

Again, acres of coverage resulted – no small achievement - but what interested me most of all was how noticeably positive it was, and how much more upbeat LOCOG’s tone has become

As ever Lord Coe leads from the front – what a natural and assured communicator he is – but it was heartening also to see so many bravura touches during the day, such as the domino trail and the giant human 3.

By Tim Crow on July 28th, 2009

Tags: Brand marketing, Default, Football, London 2012 sponsorship, London 2012 sponsorship consultants, Manchester United, Media, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Olympics, Public relations

2 comments