In the run-up to London 2012, UK consumers are going to hear more and more about Olympic pins, and the trading thereof. This cranked up another notch this week with the launch by LOCOG of ‘Landmark London’ pin badges, featuring iconic locations in each London borough, such as the Lambeth London 2012 pin featuring the London Eye below. They go on sale later this month and you can see them all here.

With London 2012 in mind, this led me to consider what else captured the unique geography and zeitgeist of London, and what immediately sprang to mind was Ian Dury’s brilliant rendition of ‘The Bus Driver’s Prayer’. Being of a certain vintage, I was lucky enough to see Dury perform it several times live, but as I expect most of you will be unfamiliar with it, it’s the Lord’s Prayer as - perhaps - recited by a London Bus Driver, and it goes like this:

Our Father, who art in Hendon, Harrow Road be thy name. Thy Kingston come, thy Wimbledon, in Erith as it is in Hendon. Give us this day, our Berkhamsted, and forgive us our Westminsters, as we forgive those that Westminster against us. Lead us not into Temple Station, and deliver us from Ealing, for thine is the Kingston, the Purley and Crawley, for Iver and Iver, Crouch End.

It would be nice to think that it could be worked into London 2012 in some way: as part of an ‘Essential London’ album perhaps - or maybe in the Opening Ceremony? After all, a London bus famously featured in London 2012’s section of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games Closing Ceremony…

By Tim Crow on March 11th, 2010

Tags: Beijing 2008, Default, London 2012, Music, Olympics

No comments

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

Great excitement and a few sore heads this morning, but the feeling of pride in the agency and in the quality of our work far outweighs the hangovers.

Now in their 16th year, the Hollis Sponsorship Awards are a stalwart of the industry and, over the years, we have notched up a grand total of 26 Hollis awards.  But, this latest award is our proudest as it is testament to the fact that 2009 was our best year yet.

It was our 25th anniversary; a year of celebration but, more importantly, of change.  Against a background of economic crisis, the year started out with some uncertainties.  But we decided to embrace change wholeheartedly - in the way we thought and the way we creatively activated.  And it worked.  Last year we had nine new business wins as the market place recognised our industry leading position.  Most importantly, we put digital at the heart of our thinking, whilst drawing on some of the best thinking from our fellow Engine companies.

The result was that we produced some exciting, creative and quality work for our clients and it was pleasing to see that one of our clients, Betfair, won the Hollis Award for the best use of PR in a Sponsorship Campaign for its Fan v Fan Ashes Campaign.

Of course the truth is that behind great campaigns and a great company is one thing - great staff. Have a look at the short film to hear about 2009 from our people in their own words.

By Karen Earl on March 10th, 2010

Tags: Default, Sponsorship, Sponsorship consultancy, Synergy

1 comment

With the general election looming ever closer, the media is crammed full of stories discussing the wonderful world of politics. Whilst I’d be the first to admit skimming through this section in the paper to get to the sport and celeb pages, an article by Daniel Finkelstein in today’s Times caught my attention.

Finkelstein discusses the concept of the brand, using author Martin Lindstrom’s example of the curved Coca-Cola bottle as one of the most recognisable and best-loved icons, to the point that it can be considered “smashable”. If dropped on the ground, and smashed into a hundred pieces you would still be able to recognise what it is from any one of those pieces.

He goes on to explain that “consumers purchase the product as much for what it says about them, and how it makes them feel, as for what it does. The product is much more than functional; it is part of their identity.”

This idea isn’t new in itself, and I’m sure we can all bring to mind a couple of brands that, for us, fall into this category. However, the twist that took this down a new angle for me was Finkelstein’s application of the concept to the Conservative party. We’re all aware of the photos of David Cameron cycling through London and visiting local schools and we understand that public perception is crucial in the popularity polls, but surely in this case we don’t “purchase” based on how this makes us feel? Isn’t it policies on the NHS, education and taxes that decide who gets out vote?

Think again, according to research by the BBC it appears that we absorb far more about the character and broad messages of our political parties than the individual policies they promote. All the more important then that the parties remain true to their brand positioning as any deviation from this could have a bigger impact on voters than they might realise.

Just goes to demonstrate once again, the power of the brand and it’s personality over our decision making in all areas of life. Thanks @Dannythefink – I’ll definitely be keeping a closer eye on the positioning of our political parties ahead of the election, whilst challenging the norm to see if one or two actual policies creep through.

By Kelly Russell on March 10th, 2010

Tags: BBC, Brand marketing, David Cameron, Default, General election, Politics, Public relations, Television

No comments

So, the draw for the 2010 FIFA World Cup™ finals is almost upon us. At 5pm GMT today in Cape Town, Sepp Blatter, Charlize Theron (yes, really) and co will select the teams from the four designated pots that will make up Groups A – H next summer in South Africa.

But what does it all really mean to the brands, the fans and to FIFA’s flagship?

From a brand perspective there are no surprises in terms of the major head-to-heads we’ll be seeing: Nike managed to comprehensively crash adidas’s party in Germany at the last World Cup, with Joga Bonito stealing adi’s ball from its own back yard. What about 2010, though? As the first World Cup to take place on the African continent, will the joy, enthusiasm and raw power that characterise African football play into Nike’s hands, or, as kit supplier to 11 of the 32 teams, including hosts South Africa (versus Nike’s 10), do adidas have something else in their locker? Although if anyone understands African football, it’s Puma. Together with reigining champions Italy, Puma supplies four of the continent’s six nations: the brand’s use of its African assets in Africa’s World Cup will be interesting to track.

So what about the draw itself? Whilst Portugal and France’s poor qualifying records have upped the ante on any prospective Group of Death, all we can do at this stage is wait and speculate. For sponsors, a killer draw may represent a challenge, for others an opportunity: big Group Stage fixtures in the diary drive scale and anticipation and allow for advanced planning…but also affect permutations in the Knockout Stage. From a fan perspective, no one wants a Group of Death – but who imagined they’d see France getting ‘Senegalled’ back in 2002? Whether it’s the relief of a dream Group, the agony of the worst draw imaginable, or the buzz of a being drawn against a historic or local rival, this will be THE big global sports story of the next few days no matter what happens today.

What about FIFA? After a 2006 tournament remembered for Zidane’s madness, rather than his magic, a sticky tie here or there is likely go down pretty well with the organisers, adding to the colour and vibrancy already imbued by hosts South Africa. And, as a prelude to Samba Football going home at the 2014 FIFA World Cup™ in Brazil, the 2010 draw is a critical moment in FIFA’s perennial brand and business rivalry with UEFA and its titans, the Champions League and the European Football Championships.

By Jonathan Izzard on December 4th, 2009

Tags: Default, Football, Football Sponsorship, Synergy, World Cup

No comments

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

I was saddened to see that Donington Ventures Leisure Ltd has gone bust. Amid all the furore about the location, and very existence, of the 2010 British Grand Prix it has been easy to forget that DVL had a vision that extended far beyond a single race in the F1 calendar.

DVL CEO Simon Gillet is an immensely likable man and it is easy to agree with his views on just about anything, such is the clarity and passion with which he communicates them. I am not certain of exactly whose idea it was to fund a race track through debenture sales, but when I heard him expound the virtues of his scheme, I completely understood what he was trying to do.

Yet the basic assumption behind the scheme was deeply flawed and in the final analysis I am surprised that it got as far as it did. To expect regular race fans to subscribe to multi-year debenture seats in unbuilt stands, to attend multiple races each season to justify the cost, at a location that is remote from the centres of commercial power in this country, was just too much of a stretch. The approach works well in sporting environments where tens of thousands of loyal fans live locally to a facility (The Emirates, for example) where the number of games is high and demand historically outstrips supply.

But motor sport doesn’t work like that. The Bahrain International Circuit concluded after five years of hosting a Grand Prix that the race earned the circuit no money at all; the cost of organising and hosting the event over five days is significant. But what it did do is confer on the circuit the awareness, credibility and gravitas to allow it to promote itself on the open market as a venue for events throughout the remaining 360 days of the year. The BIC is successful at executing this strategy and hosts hundreds of events on track and at its various facilities each year, which earn more than enough to compensate for its F1 loss leader.

Donington chose not to attempt to replicate this model, perhaps feeling that without the steady stream of government business that the BIC enjoys (it is government funded), the East Midlands facility would struggle to survive as an independent exhibition and events venue in the manner that Gillet had conceived. Instead it chose to focus on hosting lesser races and driving events on a more regular basis, and charging regular punters more than they could bear, for the privilege.

There is insufficient demand for Motorsport away from F1 to justify this approach, and that is why DVL’s dream has died. Sad, I know, but true.

By Scott Garrett on November 20th, 2009

Tags: Default, Formula 1

No comments

Formula One pits nation vs nation in A1GP copycat shock!

Some time ago, I recommended to FOTA that it adopt some of the infrastructure of A1GP (the self-styled World Cup of Motorsport), were it to start a breakaway series, which was a topic being discussed earlier in the 2009 season by the F1 teams’ representative body. I meant it as a logistical efficiency, whilst bemoaning the decline of A1GP which I reckoned was founded on some interesting principles: nation vs nation in identical machinery.

F1 machinery is not identical and I am happy for that: A1GP could never offer a constructors’ championship. But I remain intrigued by the nation vs nation idea and think that - more by accident than design - F1 is heading this way. I think it would be good for the sport if it were to do so because national passions could be piqued, adding a spice to its competition that F1 has largely been missing. The news today that Jenson Button has signed for McLaren has helped.

To begin not with McLaren but with Jenson’s former team Brawn GP, here’s how I see it:

Brawn is now Mercedes Grand Prix. Mercedes is German. In 2010 its drivers will be Nico Rosberg and possibly either Nick Heidfeld or Adrian Sutil. All are German. They may be sited in the Northamptonshire countryside (Mercedes F1 engines are made down the road from Brawn’s Brackley site, in Brixworth) but this team will be under teutonic management. Team Germany.

Not ten minutes’ drive from Brackley, Force India F1 operates from Silverstone. Promoting Indian brands globally, and western brands in India, the team’s commercial proposition is clear. Owner ViJay Mallya is the face of this team that has no Indian drivers yet, though Arun Chandhok remains a decent bet for a drive next year. Flushed with pride at its late season progress and with an Indian GP on the cards from 2011, Team India is alive and well.

To the east, in Hingham, Norfolk (until it moves even further east to the home of its Malaysian owners) is Lotus F1, managed by Tony Fernandes, the man that built Air Asia on the back of a Williams F1 sponsorship. The corporate body behind the team (Malaysia Racing Team Sdn Bhd) has embarked upon a programme of driver development aiming to put Malaysians in F1 cars in the future. In his tweets, Fernandes refers to “Team Malaysia aka Lotus F1″.

On the other side of London, the McLaren team pairs Jenson Button with Lewis Hamilton. Ignoring the fact that the team remains 30% owned by Bahrainis and will run Mercedes engines under its existing contract, we know that Mercedes will be reducing its investment in the team over the next couple of years. This will allow McLaren to become Team GB A.

In Oxfordshire, Williams F1 markets itself as the only truly British-owned team, the only true independent and the only team still managed by its founding partners. In 2010 none of these statements will be true, so the commercial proposition will have to evolve. Nonetheless, for Sir Frank’s unstinting loyalty to Queen and country, I think Williams can comfortably assume the mantle of Team GB B. At least it will run a British (Cosworth) engine in 2010.

One new entrant struggling to assert its nationality is Spanish team Campos Meta, which has been desperately trying to sign Spanish driver Pedro de la Rosa but there is so little interest from Spanish sponsors that the team is having to run a Brazilian and (probably) a Russian or a Venezuelan. But it’s a Spanish team sited in Valencia and Madrid, and no-one else is laying claim to the title of Team Spain.

By contrast USF1 positively glows with pro-American sentiment. I cannot imagine a sports team from the USA with the name US in its title, based in Charlotte NC, being anything other than Team America, whoever ends up driving the cars..

Ferrari is of course an Italian brand and excites rabid passions among the scarlet-clad grandstands of Monza and beyond. Even though it has failed to excite with its driver selections since Michael Schumacher departed (a shame: Felipe Massa is a cool character worthy of more than he receives from the fans) it will doubtless rise again in 2010 to become Team Italy.

So there you have it: Team Germany v Team India v Team Malaysia v Team GB A v Team GB B v Team Spain v Team Italy. This is a solid reflection of where F1 is touring, location-wise, and I think we will see teams from Korea and Russia before too long.

The teams that do not fit this model (Renault, Red Bull, Toro Rosso, Qadbak Sauber and Virgin Racing) are backed by sponsors with naming rights that care little for national boundaries and so fail to excite national passions. This is not a criticism: their commercial objectives are transparent and they will doubtless serve their sponsors well. But I predict that their share of national support will be weaker than the “national” teams with a corresponding reduction in media attention that may yet cause sponsors to take note.

All of which may mean that A1GP’s legacy is more memorable than most commentators assume, as Formula One becomes the true World Cup of Motorsport.

By Scott Garrett on November 18th, 2009

Tags: Default, Formula 1, New Product Development

No comments

Settle back. This is a season review blog, and it’s been a long old season.

Before the last wheel had turned in 2009 we welcomed the second British World Champion in two years, driving for a team that has risen, phoenix-like, from the ashes of another. All the talk coming into the final few races was whether Brawn could keep ahead of Red Bull but in the end it wasn’t even close. And shame on the poo-poo-ers that decry Brawn for its failure to perform consistently over the whole year: Schumacher and Ferrari did that and it nearly killed the sport. Besides, when you’re 6-0 up at half time you’re entitled to take it easier in the second half.

For me, the season was fun because Ferrari tugged around at the back, whichever driver drove, and in true Italian style the team gave up early and went home. McLaren looked to be in danger of suffering a similar fate but Martin pulled his boys together and the silver cars looked quick at the end. This bodes well for next season, especially if the brilliant Red Bull team can keep advancing and the midfield can start to get two drivers in the points, every now and then.

In 2010 the grid will look somewhat different, and not just because the cars will have swelled to carry a whole race’s worth of fuel. We’ll be a manufacturer lighter than in 2009, following the withdrawal of Toyota and BMW, replaced by Lotus, with only Ferrari and Renault remaining as true manufacturer teams. Three manufacturers; ten independents. This is A Good Thing because it focuses the sport on what it should be all about: racing. It is less likely to result in the technological arms race that was responsible for driving budgets to irresponsible levels in recent years despite hollow assertions to the contrary from - you guessed it - manufacturers like Ferrari and Toyota.

More importantly, it will result in racing through to the back of the grid, as independent teams duke it out for the lower places and gradually find their feet enough to - I hope - occasionally challenge the big boys at the front. With the ability that resides in some of the new teams, I fancy the upsets might be more than occasional.

Which makes Ferrari’s attitude (I paraphrase only a little: “we blame the sport’s authorities for allowing in this bunch of monkeys that are not worthy to compete with us”) all the more understandable. I think the team is running scared not of losing next year, but of having to spend upwards of $400m - ten times the formerly proposed budget cap - in order to do so.

It will be interesting too, to see how ex-Ferrari boss Jean Todt fills Max Moseley’s shoes at the FIA. Todt’s manifesto was a strangely bland mix of policies that sought to appeal to all but alienate none. We’ll see what he makes of it and the sport will give him a year to do so before rounding on him in its typically toothless style although to be fair, there are no mechanisms in the FIA constitution for sanctioning the organisation’s leader anyway.

Commercially, I think the F1 patient is stable and out of intensive care after liegate, crashgate and the manufacturer withdrawals which while they may be good for the sport, do have a negative impact on teams’ ability to attract sponsorship. With no Honda, Toyota or BMW there are no first fill deals for Esso or Petronas, no technology partnerships with Panasonic, Dell or Intel and a massive number of road cars that no longer need to start their lives on Bridgestones. Bridgestone too, will leave the sport at the end of 2010, completing a Japanese exodus that will see fewer sponsors from that part of the world despite the fact that the country retains its GP. Shame; Japanese fans are among the most passionate in the sport.

Yet I see reasons for commercial optimism. The grid will be 26 cars long next year. More cars means more sponsorship opportunities, at lower prices probably, which will mean that more brands can enter the sport. Some of the teams have already shown that it is possible to attract top partnerships (Virgin, Megafon). The geographic base of F1 team ownership continues to expand with Qadbak-Sauber and Lotus spreading the love eastwards. If Tony Fernandez can excite Malaysians behind their own team, then everyone will benefit; Sepang has been quiet in recent years because of the failure of Malaysian business to realise the benefits of F1.

I think the show will improve, on and off the track. Bernie is trying to sort out HDTV at Abu Dhabi which may go some way towards livening up a dull race at least by giving us a more detailed look at the facilities on the telly. Social media advances irrespective of copyright concerns; about half the drivers tweet and most have facebook sites. F1 Rocks added great value to the Singapore race and if they can get their contracts sorted out, should appear at more races next year.

All we need now is a British Grand Prix. As I write, it doesn’t exist, but I fully expect that this situation will change before the day is out. Watch this space.

By Scott Garrett on November 9th, 2009

Tags: Default

No comments

OK so the news is bad - you’re the tournament organiser of the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand in two years and already you are having to re-forecast, again, the level of loss you expect the event to make (now up another $9.3 million to $39.3 million). Much of the increased loss is based on lower expectations around ticket sales.

But I suspect that the tournament organiser, Martin Sneddon, may see his latest stance on the situation quoted back to him in the coming years.

Asked recently by the media whether he expected a game between minnow nations from Europe and America in New Plymouth on a Thursday night would be hard to sell, Mr Snedden came out with the classic: “It will sell out. I am prepared to put my reputation on it.”

While admiring his passion, I just hope the good folks of New Plymouth see it the same way and turn out for both the sake of the sport and Mr Sneddon’s mortgage.

By Dominic Curran on October 19th, 2009

Tags: Communications, Default, Public relations, Rugby

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