As I write this we are only three days away from Christmas Day and, in our industry anyway, many thoughts beyond that are inevitably turning to the New Year and London 2012. So it seemed entirely appropriate, for my last post of the year, to write about my belief that the Olympic Games – Summer and Winter – are a lot like Christmas.

That might sound strange to some of you, but having experienced numerous Games first hand, I can tell you that this ‘Christmas feeling’ has always been one of my overriding impressions.

There have been others of course: great sporting moments, inspiring human stories, the sheer scale of the Games, the very different experiences each host nation and city creates (good and not so good), and many more. London will give us all of these – hopefully some of the best ever.

And if you’re lucky enough to be here at Games-time, I hope you’ll get that Christmas feeling too.

A feeling of optimism and celebration; of being part of something precious and intense, very big but at the same time very personal. A feeling that, for a time at least, the world and the people in it are united and at their very best. And, once the moment has passed, the wonderful memories tinged with the sadness of knowing that you can’t get it back.

Sound familiar?

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and yours from myself and all at Synergy. See you in (London) 2012.

By Tim Crow on December 22nd, 2011

Tags: Default, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship, Olympics, Synergy, Winter Olympics

No comments

Last Friday, The Times published an article by Olympics Correspondent Ashling O’Connor with major implications for how London 2012 will come to be viewed and, going forward, for the value to brands of grassroots sports sponsorship and marketing in the UK.

Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt. Photograph Tim Ireland/PA.

Headlined ’2012 legacy plan for a fitter Britain is quietly scrapped’ and substantiated by an exclusive interview with Olympics Secretary Jeremy Hunt, it began:

One of the key promises that helped London to win the right to host the 2012 Olympics is being quietly scrapped by ministers because Britons are stubbornly resisting efforts to get them playing more sport. When Lord Coe gave his inspirational speech to persuade IOC members to being the Games to Britain, he spoke of the events legacy in inspiring people to play sport. But the numbers taking part in grassroots sport have slipped back and ministers now admit that there is no chance of hitting the target of getting two million more people active by 2013. The target will now be axed in favour of a “payment by results” system that will penalise sports that fail to engage with young people.

Neither the Olympics failing to inspire the inactive to take up sport, nor the targets being scrapped, should come as any surprise.

In the case of the latter, this has been widely expected, based on the decline in sports participation in the last five years, which has seen only four sports gain new participants and 17 lose ground, and on the extensive briefings (with very different motives) given recently by Messrs Robertson and Jowell.

In the case of the former, it is a fact that no modern Olympics has driven an increase in sports participation in a host country, with evidence pointing to the fact that the Games simply inspires people who are already active to become even more active, and that the biggest contributory factor worldwide to the failure to engage the inactive is flawed strategy at state and sport governing body level.

On which point, expect all this to become a seriously political hot potato as we move through and beyond the Games, when the analysis of whether London 2012 has delivered on its legacy promises – already generating its fair share of media attention – moves firmly centre-stage, with sports participation in a starring role.

But beyond the Games, in the same Times article Jeremy Hunt signalled a shift in Government policy, to be announced next month, that has important consequences for brands investing in grassroots sport. Again, I quote from the piece:

The success of UK Sport…has shaped the shift. After its “no compromise” model, 46 sports governing bodies will receive money based only on their ability to attract and retain 14 to 25-year-olds. From 2013, more than half their funding will depend on their success, reviewed annually at three stages: 16, 18 and 25-year-olds. Sports that fail will have their money deducted…[Hunt said] “We are learning from the success of UK Sport…and moving to a payment-by-results system…[sports] shouldn’t expect funding unless they are delivering on targets.”

This is good news for brands investing in grassroots sport sponsorship, whether directly or as a component of a wider investment in a sport asset. In order to maintain and increase their state funding, sports governing bodies will have to be much more focused on creating and delivering grassroots programmes that demonstrably engage and recruit new young players.

That will need both more effective marketing, and more results-focused marketing. And with the greatest respect to most sports governing bodies, federations and teams, that’s something that brands – who already live and die by their ability to acquire and retain new customers – are much better at.

So I’m hoping this ushers in a new era where sports governing bodies become more focused on tapping into the marketing expertise of brands – especially youth-oriented brands – and much less focused on treating brands as banks to fund grass roots programmes that, plainly, aren’t working.

By Tim Crow on December 7th, 2011

Tags: Brand marketing, Default, grass roots sport, London 2012, Olympics, Politics, Sponsorship

No comments

When Chelsea announced they were looking for a naming rights sponsor for Stamford Bridge earlier this week, I tweeted that I would advise brands to avoid naming rights sponsorships of an existing stadium like Stamford Bridge, because they don’t work with the media [who won’t use the sponsor’s name] or the fans [who don’t like a sponsor re-branding ‘their’ stadium].
 
This principle is the second of my Five Golden Rules Of Naming Rights For Brands, which visitors to this parish will recall I last dusted off back in July.

Cue quite a response from the blogosphere, pointing out that O2 successfully re-named an existing arena, the Millennium Dome.

Does this render my second rule invalid? Well, no actually. To me The O2 and another recent deal are actually the exceptions that prove the rule.

But I admit that it does mean a re-think of the rules. And I’ve come to the conclusion that a new one is needed.
 
Based on the success (in branding terms) of The O2 and the Aviva Stadium in Dublin (re-built on the site of the decrepit and ultimately unloved Lansdowne Road) it’s clear that it is possible to successfully brand an existing stadium under certain conditions: those conditions being when the stadium involved is unloved and/or decrepit, and as a result is going to be re-built and/or re-launched.

So, for the very first time, I give you a modified second rule and a new third rule, to create a new list of six.

1. The stadium must have only one short name. If there are two names, one of which is the sponsor’s, guess which one the media, and the fans, will edit out? ‘The Reebok Stadium’ works: so does ‘The Emirates’. Conversely, horrors like ‘Sports Direct.com@St James’ Park’ always quite deservedly bomb. 

2.  Avoid re-naming an existing stadium with heritage. If you do, you run the risk of being edited out (The Oval) or the object of acrimony (SportsDirect.com@St James’ Park). It’s much easier to start with the blank canvas of a new stadium. But don’t forget to follow rule number one.

3. The exception to this is when a stadium or arena is unloved and/or decrepit and as a result is going to be re-built and/or re-launched – for example the way the Millennium Dome became The O2 and Lansdowne Road became the Aviva Stadium.  But again, don’t forget to follow rule number one. 

4. You must pay enough. There was an outcry in Leicester against Walker’s – previously a relatively popular local employer – when it was announced that the company had paid only £150,000 per year for 10 years to sponsor the new Leicester City Stadium. This was unfavourably compared with the millions the company had spent using Gary Lineker in its TV advertising.

5. You must be in it for the long term, for two reasons: to demonstrate your commitment (see also rule number four) and also because if you do it for long enough, the return on investment in terms of media impressions alone will be enormous – as long as you’ve followed rule number one.

6. Once you’ve followed rules 1-5, the hard work really starts – gaining the respect and admiration of the fans and the media for what you’re doing.

So, there they are. The new Six Golden Rules Of Naming Rights For Brands. Let me know what you think.

And before you ask, yes I am wondering whether the Etihad deal with Manchester City to re-name Eastlands might create a seventh, where it is also possible to re-name a stadium with, let us say, no heritage. But let’s wait and see how that one plays out first.

By Tim Crow on November 9th, 2011

Tags: Default, Naming Rights, Sponsorship

9 comments

What Happened?

On Tuesday September 13, Westfield Stratford City opened its doors to the public. Against the background of a day-long blaze of publicity, Mayor of London Boris Johnson cut the opening ribbon whilst invoking Chaucer, followed by pop diva Nicole Scherzinger strutting her stuff before a (slightly bemused) VIP audience. But by far the most important feature of the day was the 100,000 consumers who visited what is now Europe’s largest urban shopping and leisure destination – all 1.9 million square feet of it, the equivalent of 25 football pitches - spending a combined £4m. Recession – what recession? Good news for Westfield’s retailers, many of whom mounted major marketing campaigns to attempt to grab the lion’s share of the Opening Day buzz and bounty.

Our favourite? The M&S ’On Your Marks’ campaign, with creative shot by fashion photographer John Akehurst, featuring a model wearing heels from the M&S Autograph sub-brand in starting blocks.

Why We Like It

M&S brilliantly leverages Westfield Stratford’s Olympic DNA: Westfield is of course the gateway to the London 2012 Olympic Park.

First, there’s the skilful navigation of the legislation preventing brands from using Olympic IP. You absolutely get the connection, but there isn’t an offending piece of Olympic IP to be seen.

Second, it fulfils one of our litmus tests for great work - anchored around the use of ‘Marks’ – it wouldn’t work for any other brand.

Third, the Olympic connection isn’t forced. It’s entirely natural and drives both the consumer insight and the call to action.

And last but absolutly not least, it’s a stunning image in every way.

Beautifully done.

By Tim Crow on October 13th, 2011

Tags: Advertising, Ambush campaign, Default, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Olympics

No comments

Three cheers, then, to the IRB for publishing a weekly round-up of Rugby World Cup-related social media activity by fans. As I tweeted yesterday, all rights holders should be doing this – a point echoed by numerous sponsors, who contacted me to say they’d now be making the same point to the rights holders with which they contract.     

But here’s the thing. One of the IRB social media round-ups highlighted an issue I’ve had for many years with the marketing of the Rugby World Cup.

I’ve always been uncomfortable with the IRB describing the tournament as the world’s third biggest sporting event behind the Olympic Games and FIFA World Cup (which it routinely does – see the penultimate paragraph here for example).

It’s a very clever marketing soundbite (which many rugby journalists now routinely repeat) but it doesn’t stand up to detailed analysis.

The IRB anchors this claim primarily on those old chestnuts of cumulative TV viewers and TV footprint, but those are currencies which only matter to sporting officialdom: most brand marketers aren’t remotely interested in them as a measure of either audience engagement or value.

The reality is there’s a vast chasm on this notional list between the top two and the Rugby World Cup in terms of audience criteria that really matter to brands: things like the number of unique viewers, the number of fans engaging online, and the number of countries in which the event/sport has salience (mass appeal).

And against these more meaningful criteria, there are plenty of sporting events which have a bigger reach and/or footprint than the Rugby World Cup. To quote just a few examples, the F1 World Championship, the Indian Premier League, the NFL, and the UEFA Champions League.

And none of this should be a surprise because when you consider rugby’s footprint.

It’s salient in only eight major markets (the IRB Tier 1 countries Argentina, Australia, England, France, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, South Africa) with a combined population of 309 million (4.4% of the world’s population) in only one of which (New Zealand, the smallest market at 4 million) it is the number one sport.

All of which is illustrated nicely by this IRB infographic, showing the location of the last 1,000 Tweets mentioning #rwc2011 during the Rugby World Cup opening ceremony.

So, hat-tip to the IRB for blazing a social media trail among rights holders. But please, don’t play the ‘biggest’ game – play the best.

By Tim Crow on October 5th, 2011

Tags: Default, Rugby, Rugby World Cup, Social Media, Twitter, World Cup

No comments

It’s 20 years since the Premier League was launched and to mark the occasion, we’ve put together an infographic suitably laced with factoids illustrating the League’s journey from domestic breakaway to global superpower.

Having worked on sponsorships in and around the League since its inception, it’s been an extraordinary journey both to have witnessed and to have been part of. The incredible transformation on and, above all, off the field is what I hope we’ve captured.

Off the field, my personal favourite factoids are the League having no title sponsor in its first season (owing to disagreements between the clubs) and the staggering 9900% rise in Manchester United’s annual shirt sponsorship income, from Sharp’s £200k endorsement in 1992 to today’s £20m Aon deal.

On the field, it has to be United’s dominance of the title (which of course has driven their off-field success), the proliferation of overseas players, from a mere 11 in 1992 to 337 last season, and the perfect symmetry of the 11 current and 11 former clubs who featured in the inaugural 22-club Premier League (great quiz question by the way).

Click to enlarge…and enjoy.

Crafted and made beautiful by Jon Izzard.

By Tim Crow on August 10th, 2011

Tags: Barclays Premier League, Football, Football Sponsorship, Manchester United, New Product Development, Sponsorship, Synergy

No comments

(This article first appeared in the Synergy newsletter in October 2004. On the day that Manchester City announces the biggest UK football stadium naming rights deal since Arsenal/Emirates - also with a Middle Eastern airline - we thought it was an appropriate time to dust it off.)     

Fifteen-year, £90 million sponsorship deals being more than a little rare, it was no surprise that the unveiling of Arsenal’s stadium naming rights deal with the Emirates airline last month generated significant media coverage – which was however very short on genuine analysis of a landmark deal and its implications for the sponsorship landscape. 

 Show Me The Money Driven by Arsenal’s need to service the £260m they loaned to build their new stadium – not to mention the £142m of debt on their balance sheet to the end of May – a key feature of the Emirates deal is that it’s massively front-loaded, with Arsenal scheduled to receive £72m (average £9m per year) 2004-2012 and £18m (average £2.25m per year) 2012-2020. 

 From 2006-2014 this includes £5m per year (£40m) for Arsenal’s shirt sponsorship, to start – naturally – when the new stadium is scheduled to open in August 2006. 

 All of which reveals the following: 

 What’s In It For Emirates? Emirates executives are on the record in trade press interviews that the airline sees sponsorship solely as a means of driving accelerated international brand awareness and stature. They’ve also been quoted that their benchmark is Coca-Cola. Quite simply, their vision is to make ‘Emirates’ the generic term for ‘airline’. 

 It’s therefore unsurprising that Emirates are spending heavily in sports sponsorship generally – they have around 30 major deals worldwide – and football in particular. Last year, for example, they joined Coke (among others) as one of the FIFA World Cup Partners for Germany 2006. This year Emirates also became the first-ever sponsor of football referees in England, in a deal which gives them branding on the refs’ kit in all major competitions – one of which is of course the Coca-Cola League. 

So where does the Arsenal deal fit in – particularly given the less-than-perfect scenario of Emirates announcing the deal in the final season of a shirt sponsorship deal with Chelsea? 

The answer would seem to be brand awareness. What naming rights deals deliver, if you get them right (of which more later) is multiple media impressions. Naming Arsenal’s new stadium will generate literally billions of media impressions for Emirates worldwide over the course of the deal, and they’ve presumably calculated that this is worth at the very least £50m over 15 years: a reasonable assumption given the huge coverage of Premiership and Champions League football worldwide, the only caveat being that it relies on Arsenal staying at the top of the game – again a reasonable assumption, provided that a Leeds-style meltdown is covered in the contract. 

Another consideration will no doubt have been that the deal kicks off at the start of the season following the 2006 World Cup, thus maintaining Emirates’ football presence beyond their first foray into FIFA land, as well as the fact that the brands share the colour red – visual empathy being a key, but rarely-considered, element of sponsorship synergy. 

But in the most crucial respect the deal doesn’t stack up. Emirates won’t gain the respect of the fans – particularly the Arsenal fans – by writing a big cheque and letting the branding do the work. Quite the reverse. They’ll need to work very hard – and much harder than they did with Chelsea – to establish their credibility, especially to turn around the fans’ scepticism (which was very much in evidence on football websites after the Arsenal deal was announced) about a brand so readily prepared to jump from one team to another. 

And if Emirates need any convincing that sponsorship – especially in football – is all about affinity rather than awareness, they need look no further than their own benchmark: Coca-Cola. 

There’s nothing new about naming rights. Ever heard of Times Square? Named for the New York Times when it relocated to Long Acre Square, as it was previously known, in 1903. Rather less successfully, if you walk over the Golden Gate Bridge you’ll find that its official name is ‘The Pacific Gas & Electric Bridge’. Catchy. 

Naming sports stadia is a well-established American phenomenon. Since the first deal of its type in 1973, it’s become a major feature of American sport, with around 40% of NFL, NBA and MLB stadia carrying a brand or corporate name (including, as Emirates will no doubt have noted, with several US airlines). The deals vary widely in value: most are around $5m per year, but a few are absolutely huge, led by the $30m per year, 30-year deal between Reliant Energy and the Houston Texans. 

What the deals have in common are two things: they’re long-term (typically for a minimum of ten years) and they’re almost always – as with the Emirates Stadium – driven by the need to finance construction of a new stadium. As such, naming rights is still a fledgling industry in Europe, where the construction of new stadia is a very rare event, particularly for (with the greatest respect to Bolton fans) a top team such as Arsenal. 

Accordingly, naming rights deals in Europe are still viewed with suspicion by both consumers and the media – and therefore with some unease by brands, the more so because there is a shortage of expertise in the ‘Old World’ about this ‘New World’ phenomenon. 

All of which brings me, by way of summary, to the Five Golden Rules Of Naming Rights For Brands: 

1. The stadium must have only one short name. If there are two names, one of which is the sponsor’s, guess which one the media, and the fans, will edit out? ‘The Reebok Stadium’ works: so does ‘The JJB Stadium’; so will ‘The Emirates Stadium’. The ‘Friends Provident St Mary’s Stadium’ and (our favourite in the USA) ‘Invesco Field at Mile High’ don’t, and never will. 

2. You can only credibly and effectively name a new stadium. Try to name an old stadium only if you want to be ignored (answers on a postcard please if you can tell us who sponsors The Oval Cricket Ground) or the object of acrimony (the people of San Francisco have just voted against Candlestick Park becoming known as Monster Park). See also 1 above. 

3. You must pay enough. There was an outcry in Leicester against Walker’s – previously a relatively popular local employer – when it was announced that the company had paid only £150,000 per year for 10 years to sponsor the new Leicester City Stadium. This was unfavourably compared with the millions the company had spent using Gary Lineker in its TV advertising. 

4. You must be in it for the long term, for two reasons: to demonstrate your commitment (see also 3 above) and also because if you do it for long enough, the return on investment in terms of media impressions alone will be enormous – as long as you’ve followed rules 1, 2 and 3. 

5. Once you’ve followed rules 1, 2, 3 and 4, the work really starts: gaining the respect and admiration of the fans.

By Tim Crow on July 8th, 2011

Tags: Football Sponsorship, Naming Rights, Sponsorship

No comments

Recently I’ve spent a lot of time recalling the history of sports marketing and sponsorship. To start 2011, we ran our poll on the greatest sports marketing innovation of modern times. A few weeks ago the Sport Industry Group asked Dom Curran and I to contribute our memories of the last ten years of sport to help celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Sport Industry Awards, which took place last Wednesday night. And also last Wednesday, I attended Sportcal’s 20 Years of Sport conference, the highlight of which was a tour de force presentation by my old friend Patrick Nally on the origins of the modern sponsorship template which he created, and his view of the future.

Listening to Patrick talk of those early days and his work with Horst Dassler reminded me of one of the most remarkable incidents in the history of sports marketing to date, which took place in those early days, and which I only came across for the first time recently.

Back in 1974, adidas was the kit sponsor of the legendary Dutch national football team led by maestro Johann Cruyff.  Leading into the 1974 World Cup, which was marked by financial disputes between players and their federations, Cruyff, who had a personal sponsorship with adidas’ bitter rivals Puma, refused to wear a Dutch shirt with the now-legendary adidas three stripes. Incredibly, the Dutch FA backed down and alowed Cruyff to play in a specially-made kit with only two stripes. Here’s the proof, from Holland’s 1974 World Cup match versus Argentina:

Now that’s what I call player power!

By Tim Crow on May 17th, 2011

Tags: Ambush campaign, Default, Football, Football Sponsorship, Sponsorship, What's the Greatest Sports Marketing Innovation?, World Cup

No comments

Heineken Star PlayerI’ve often wondered why it is that, in contrast to other major events, the sponsors of the UEFA Champions League (UCL) have mostly struggled to create great campaigns (litmus test: how many can you actually remember?). The exception to this has generally been Heineken, which has consistently created entertaining and memorable UCL work. Last week it launched its latest UCL move, Star Player, to coincide with this year’s UCL semi-finals. Star Player is really interesting football first: a free iPhone app with Facebook integration, which leverages the intersection between football fandom, event TV, social media and gaming. I downloaded it and played it during last week’s now-infamous UCL semi final first leg between Real Madrid and Barcelona. Here’s my review.

The Game

Getting started is easy. You download the app and create a simple profile for yourself. Ten minutes before kick-off the app goes live: when the whistle blows the action begins. Throughout the game, you’re given various opportunities to score points, either by predicting the outcome of free kicks and corners, whether there will be a goal in the next 30 seconds, or answering multiple choice quiz questions during breaks in play. You can also use one of three ‘Power Ups’ throughout the game to give yourself an additional goal prediction, a chance to score more quiz points, or a 50:50 style clue to answering questions.

So far so basic – it’s the additional features that socialise the game and make it interesting. After each corner, free kick or quiz question, you can see how everyone else playing the game voted as a percentage. Correct answers win you badges, visible through your profile. You can enter yourself into a league with friends, and play against them in real time. And finally Facebook Connect functionality enables you to publish your results, and those of your league, to your Facebook wall.

The Experience

Playing the game was fun, and it nicely complemented watching the game on TV. If, like me, you enjoy the real-time, predictive environment of live in-play betting, you’ll like this game too, because it’s about trusting your instincts to make the right call in an instant. Like winning an in-game bet, there’s a real thrill both in correctly predicting (as I managed to) that Ronaldo would waste a string of free-kicks or that Messi’s run would end in a goal and then being rewarded for it (although only with badges and points rather than cash). I also liked the way after questions you could see how everyone else playing the game voted, and although I wasn’t playing with a group of friends, I could imagine it being a great brilliant ‘game within a game’ if I had been.

But there were also things that weren’t so good. On the night the app wouldn’t let me use the Power Ups, or post my score to Facebook at the end of the game – both very annoying (especially as I posted a score that put me in the top echelons of the global league!). The multiple choice questions were average: the football questions mostly seemed random and had no relevance to the game I was watching (for example “When was Rangers founded?”), and there were too many questions about Heineken (for example “How many countries is Heineken served in?”) when one would have been fine. I also felt there could have been more variety in the gaming. Goal and free kick prediction became a little dull after a while, and I found myself wanting the opportunity to be able to predict the half-time and full-time score, or the next scorer or next team to score, as you can in in-play betting. This is such an obvious missed opportunity that I can only assume there’s something in Heineken’s UCL sponsorship contract that prevents them from using scoring data.

The Verdict

Seven out of ten. This is a great move by Heineken that has the potential to create real social currency among football fans, become an essential part of the UCL experience, and an engagement platform in its own right. But there are missed opportunities too that need to be addressed if, as an experience, the app is to achieve its full potential.

By Tim Crow on May 4th, 2011

Tags: Branded content, Default, Digital marketing, Facebook, Football Sponsorship, New Product Development, Sponsorship, UEFA Champions League

No comments

The social media revolution has transformed the sports marketing toolkit and landscape. A sign of how powerful this change has been is that almost all of sport’s major rights holders have very quickly embraced social media, including some surprising names.

Take Augusta National Golf Club, the owner and organiser of The Masters. Given their world-famous adherence to tradition, you might not have expected Augusta’s rulers to have been social media early adopters. But they were – in fact, if you’ve ever had any dealings with them, you’ll know that ‘The Men Of The Masters’ may be traditionalists, but that doesn’t mean they’re not innovators: quite the reverse – especially when it comes to media.

In 2009 – well ahead of the mass adoption curve – The Masters went onto Twitter and Facebook. During the 2009 tournament, they provided regular Twitter and Facebook updates, and rapidly gained tens of thousands of followers. Best practice at the time? Absolutely.

So it was all the more surprising that a year later, during the 2010 tournament, The Masters posted only one tweet and no Facebook updates.

When I raised the subject on Twitter last night I had a reply from none other than golf’s leading Tweeter (1.2m followers and rising) Stewart Cink, who had obviously noticed the lack of engagement:

So it looks like – at least for now – The Masters has abandoned social media, presumably as part of a strategy to prioritise their website, which is amazing and as such clearly a focus.

Will you miss being able to follow The Masters on social media? And do you think their apparent decision to abandon social media is the right strategy?

By Tim Crow on April 5th, 2011

Tags: Default, Facebook, Golf, Media, Social Media, Sponsorship, Twitter

2 comments