It’s a very exciting time when the mascots are announced for any Games.  Admittedly, this excitement is normally reserved for those aged under ten, and rightly so.  However, I feel very fortunate that I’m blessed with an inner child and can appreciate similar feelings of anticipation that I did back when I was six or seven years old. The more exciting thing this time though, is the fact I might actually get to meet the London 2012 editions.  If you’ve yet to see them, take a look at the Telegraph’s comprehensive explanation of their design.

As you’ve probably guessed I like them.  I think they offer something that will inspire and engage young people across the UK.  They have a thrilling adventure ahead of them and they’ll be able to interact with their audience like never before in the history of Olympic Mascots.  The speed in which both technology and young people have developed in recent years is astonishing.  The digital children right across all corners of the UK will have the opportunity to follow, like and play with Wenlock and Mandeville however they choose, whenever they choose and wherever they choose.  Surely this is amazing? They will take them on holiday, take them to school and probably in the bath too, and more often than not this will be through the digital channel.

I think for brands involved as Official Partners of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games this offers a unique opportunity.  The mascots will play an important role in connecting with the young people, not only in terms of promoting the Games, but also as an educational inspiration.  I remember how engaged I was when taught about the Olympic movement, having something so real and tangible on the door step will have an enormous impact, particularly for young boys who commonly have learning challenges in certain subjects of the curriculum in this age group.  Tapping into to this market to help develop and extend the Olympic experience and involve our young nation in the Games is a fantastic opportunity and we’ll be looking to develop programmes for our clients to maximise this exciting development.

So, I hope you to get some excitement from seeing the new mascots unveiled.  If they’re not for you don’t worry, but I urge you to just ask a small person their opinion in two years time, as this will be the true judge of the success of Wenlock and Mandeville.  Get involved yourselves and follow them on Twitter @iamwenlock and @iammandeville and see how the story unfolds in the build up to the ever nearing London 2012. And keep your eye on this blog, as if I do get the chance to meet them the pictures will be here first!

By Ben Wilkinson on May 20th, 2010

Tags: BOA, Brand marketing, Branded content, Digital marketing, Experiential marketing, Facebook, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, London 2012 sponsorship consultants, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Olympics, Online communities, Social Media, Sponsorship, Sponsorship consultancy, Sponsorship consultants, Synergy, Team GB

5 comments

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, London 2012 sponsorship, London 2012 sponsorship consultants, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Olympics, Vancouver 2010

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

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

The team behind Powerade’s InnerGear campaign is celebrating today after picking up the ’Best Communication Campaign featuring Sponsorship’ at the highly regarded MCCA Best Awards last night.

Entered by Synergy, Coca-Cola GB’s sponsorship consultancy, the campaign’s striking photography, of Team GB athletes doing their individual sports naked, caught the judges eyes.  The win is the second in a row for Synergy campaigns.  In 2008, Guinness, with its title sponsorship of the English Rugby Premiership, was the victor.

Fingers are now crossed for both the Hollis and Sport Industry Awards 2009 for which the Powerade InnerGear campaign has also been short-listed.

By Sara Wilson on March 6th, 2009

Tags: Beijing 2008, Default, Guinness Premiership, London 2012 sponsorship consultants, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Olympics, Rugby, Sponsorship consultancy, Synergy, Team GB

No comments

Given that the announcement by Andy Burnham of Team 2012, the replacement fundraising programme for the ill-conceived Medal Hopes, was very long on PR and positioning but very short on detail, I give Team 2012 only a cautious welcome.

On the plus side, it’s good to see the various stakeholders in London 2012 are working together – a rarity in British sport. And it would be extremely churlish not to applaud the motivation behind the scheme, which is to ensure that all our Olympic sports and athletes have the best possible chance of success at London 2012, including the eight Olympic sports that were hit hardest by the budget shortfall that Medal Hopes failed to plug.

I’m also encouraged that the announcement promises that Team 2012 will include alternative funding models I suggested last year - creating a non-ambush entry point for smaller businesses to 2012 using the Team Business West Midlands model, and sourcing private donations using the Vancouver 2010 Patrons Programme model - as an alternative to Medal Hopes.

But until the full details of the scheme are revealed, questions remain about the nature of the rights being sold, and the implications for London 2012’s global and domestic sponsors.

Perhaps the biggest question, however, is why it has taken DCMS so long to begin sorting out a job it was tasked with back in 2006 by the then-Chancellor Gordon Brown?

Contrast this with Vancouver 2010’s equivalent Own The Podium programme, launched in 2005 with adequate national and regional Government funding, on track in every respect, and currently completing the job with a clever and perfectly-timed fundraising appeal to the Canadian public, $20.10 for 2010.

By Tim Crow on February 27th, 2009

Tags: Default, London 2012 sponsorship, London 2012 sponsorship consultants, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Team GB, Vancouver 2010

No comments

Synergy has been shortlisted in the ‘Best Campaign featuring Sponsorship’ category at the MCCA Best Awards 2009, for Powerade’s sponsorship of Team GB and the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.

The sponsorship, managed by Synergy on behalf of Powerade, was the focus of a fully-integrated campaign which was based around the concept of InnerGear - the brand’s core creative idea.  Synergy worked with Powerade and it’s other agencies to activate the campaign through-the-line, resulting in the brand enjoying it’s highest-ever levels of market share.

Winners will be announced at the MCCA Best Awards dinner which is being held at The Brewery on Chiswell Street on Thursday 5 March, so fingers crossed!

By Sara Wilson on January 19th, 2009

Tags: Beijing 2008, Brand marketing, Cycling, London 2012 sponsorship consultants, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Olympics, Synergy, Team GB

No comments

It’s good to see that UK Sport and LOCOG are taking Medal Hopes over, and back to the drawing board.  As I wrote back in August when it first surfaced, Medal Hopes was clearly a flawed concept that needed a radical re-think.

I wasn’t alone. Peter King, CEO of British Cycling, was quoted by the Evening Standard as follows after listening to a Medal Hopes briefing by Culture Secretary Andy Burnham:   

“I don’t think it will work – it’s an absolute non-starter. Even if it does generate income it will not generate £79million. Athletes are supposed to give three days of their time (per year) to support the lottery programmes. But it will be an extra demand on their time and there will be conflicts of interest between athletes’ own sponsors, their governing bodies’ sponsors and the sponsors of the Medal Hopes scheme.”

The mystery is why it took DCMS and Fast Track over two years to come up with something that would be so obviously problematic and unpopular.

Now, with UK Sport leading, and LOCOG advising, the global and domestic sponsors of London 2012 will be reassured that whatever finally reaches the market will not dilute and ambush the Olympic sponsors’ territory in the way that Medal Hopes was clearly going to.

Indeed I hope that UK Sport will explore non-sponsorship solutions, and take inspiration from innovations which others have already created to fund the Olympics without ambushing it, such as Team Business West Midlands, BeNumber 1 and the Vancouver 2010 Patrons Programme. 

They could also look at why it is that our Olympic athletes’ contractual appearances for the National Lottery are, as The Times’ Olympic Correspondent Ashling O’Connor revealed recently, ‘rarely used’, and how they might be used to drive additional funding via the Lottery rather than being re-sold as part of Medal Hopes.

By Tim Crow on December 4th, 2008

Tags: Ambush campaign, DCMS, Default, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, London 2012 sponsorship consultants, Olympic sponsorship, Olympics, Sponsorship, Team GB

No comments

“It is the moving story of one glamour model’s struggle to be accepted in the equestrian Establishment, leaping all the barriers that the British class system could place in her way.

Now the tale of Katie Price, the model otherwise known as Jordan, is to be used to inspire inner-city children to take up riding in time for the 2012 Olympics.

At the Burghley horse trials, [Katie] Price [was] be unveiled as the face of Hoof, a campaign run by the British Equestrian Federation.

It aims to challenge the widely held perception that London is a difficult place in which to pursue a career in three-day eventing. It hopes to deliver a generation of young city horse riders as a legacy of London 2012.”

British equestrianism has rightly or wrongly long been dogged by an image of elitism and general poshness. The basic facts can’t be denied; to ride you need a horse and maintaining a horse or pony is expensive (also very time-consuming and requires the owner/keeper to have a high degree of training). Plus the eventing elite do have a tendency to double-barrelled names and nasal accents.  Katie Price (aka Jordan) might seem an anathema to equestrianism but the very fact that she is involved in this scheme, and has obviously been embraced by the horsey community, I think shows that they are not as backward as appearances first indicate. 

The other sport that suffers in the same way is the British Olympic success story of 2008, sailing. I was interested to hear on the BBC one of the organisers of the club from which the ‘3 blondes in a boat’ hailed saying that their elitist image was mis-founded.  This might be true to a degree, but as with riding, a boat is required for sailing and boats are expensive to maintain.

What is interesting is that both of these sports are ones Britain is highly successful at. Whilst equestrianism didn’t do as well as expected at this year’s Olympics, they have over the past 20 years managed to be a medal-guaranteed sport.  The eventers bought home a bronze from Beijing which was a huge disappointment for the sport, (whereas in the world of gymnastics one bronze was deemed a massive success). 

So if these sports are expensive and have a poor image why do we do so well at them? The answer could lie in the fact that both sports have strong grassroots.  For example, the Pony Club, the global youth organisation promoting horse-riding has been active since 1928 and has over 110,000 members.  It is supported by an active and energetic force of volunteers – unlike many sports that struggle for volunteers and young coaches.  The focus is not all about competition either, it is about teaching children how to care for their animals properly and enjoy riding – perhaps a more rounded view of life than just being about winning. 

Efforts are also being made to make the sport more accessible. In 1998 the Pony Club launched its centre membership scheme for children who do not own their own pony but want to get involved in Pony Club activities through their local riding school. This summer the scheme celebrated its 15,000th member. 

The difficulty both these sports have is that they are not best-suited to an urban environment. Whilst children in cities may get the chance to learn to ride in a riding school if they wish to take the sport to the next level they will probably need to re-locate and find financial backing. 

So whilst image may be an issue for grassroots equestrianism I don’t believe it is the overriding one.  Young girls (and boys but perhaps not as much) have long adored ponies and will pester their parents to take them riding (just as Katie Price did). I don’t think they need Jordan to persuade them.  What they do need is assistance with access and finances to continuing the sport to a higher level.  This is why the elite riders tend to be ‘posh’ as they are the ones who have parents who can fund their careers. 

To reach the top-level you need quality horses and these are not cheap to buy or maintain, so those not born with a silver spoon in their mouth will need to find a rich benefactor or a sponsor.  Even Zara Phillips relies on the support of her sponsors to allow her to compete internationally. At the moment few sponsors wish to be associated with the ‘posh’ image of equestrianism.  This is where Jordan can help, her involvement can potentially broaden the appeal and image of the sport and increase its attractiveness to sponsors by bringing it to a more mainstream audience.  Katie Price knows a thing or two about marketing herself to the public – and I think there is lot that equestrianism can learn from her and in this way her association can certainly benefit the sport and its young riders.

By Georgina Spring on September 5th, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, Equestrianism, Jordan (Katie Price), London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, London 2012 sponsorship consultants, Olympics, Sponsorship, grass roots sport

No comments

I have mixed feelings about Culture Secretary Andy Burnham’s announcement that post-Beijing, the Government will be launching a new initiative, called ‘Medal Hopes’, in a bid to raise £79 million from private sector sponsorship, plug a hole in the 2012 Olympic sports funding plan, and ensure athletes do not suffer funding cuts as they train for the London Games.

Like most Brits, I’ve rejoiced in the brilliant performances of Team GB in Beijing, applauded the fact that increased public sector funding of our Olympic sports has been a major factor in these performances, and welcome any initiative to attempt to ensure that what we’ve seen in Beijing 2008 is repeated in London 2012 – and, let’s not forget, Vancouver 2010.

I have no doubt that ‘Medal Hopes’ is well-intentioned. But based on Mr Burnham’s comments about what the scheme will be offering prospective sponsors, I do have serious doubts about the scheme’s viability, potential value to sponsors and, as such, whether it can realistically generate £79m. To explain why, let me concentrate on what Mr Burnham is reported to have said.

“This will be the only official route for an association with the team preparing for 2012.”

I’m assuming Mr Burnham has been misquoted here. If this is how ‘Medal Hopes’ is going to be positioned to the private sector, confusion will inevitably follow, because there are already three well-established routes for sponsors into an association with our Olympic teams and athletes, all of them official:

·           Sponsor London 2012, which confers a number of rights, but in particular is the only way a brand can become an official sponsor of Team GB.

·           Sponsor one of the National Governing Bodies of an Olympic sport. This confers no rights to Team GB or London 2012, but is clearly in the same territory, and there are already many of these deals in place.

·           Sponsor individual athletes. Again this confers no rights to Team GB or London 2012, but is in the same territory and is a much-used tactic.

A related and massively important issue here of course, is that ‘Medal Hopes’ must be seen as complementary, not competitive, to these three existing revenue streams, all of which provide vital funding for London 2012, Team GB and the athletes.

“This Olympics has gripped people in a way I have never seen before. Everyone wants a piece of it. [Medal Hopes] is about saying to business – ‘get on board, join the effort’ – contribute regionally, nationally or whatever level you can.

A laudable rallying cry, but one which misses the essential point about how Olympic sponsorship is sold, and why it’s so valuable.

In relation to sponsorship, everyone cannot have a piece of The Olympics. It’s a premium asset, sold only to one brand in each category. They, and only they, are allowed to associate themselves directly with the Olympics. And these rights are fiercely protected by the Olympic authorities and worldwide legislation, which makes any attempt by non-sponsors to associate themselves with the Olympics punishable by law. This includes the UK, where as one of its commitments to IOC in return for winning the right to stage London 2012, the UK Government enacted new legislation expressly designed to prevent non-sponsors from passing themselves off as Olympic sponsors.

So, Mr Burnham’s rallying cry will no doubt have excited the private sector about Olympic sponsorship. But how will they react when they discover that, however much they want a piece of the Olympics or Team GB sponsorship pie, it’s not available to them unless a) they’re not a competitor of an existing sponsor, and b) they have the significant resources required to become a sponsor?

“The offer is an association with the athletes preparing for the Olympic Games.”

Exactly what ‘the offer’ is Mr Burnham didn’t make clear, and it’s possible to envisage non-sponsorship scenarios where businesses could be matched with the less well-known athletes – for example as employers. But as I’ve covered above, this wouldn’t come with a piece of The Olympics or Team GB attached. And in the case of our new Olympic heroes, many already have individual sponsorships in place, offers from new sponsors will already be flooding in and being signed, and the market value of all of them will now be out of reach of most businesses.

“There is also the possibility of naming rights of some of the Olympic venues (post Games) and this is something that needs to be explored with other stakeholders.”

I agree with Mr Burnham that this is a potentially significant source of revenue. Venue naming rights agreements can be worth tens of millions of pounds and more.  But there are two problems with this proposed solution.

First, BOA Chairman Lord Moynihan has already raised the issue that naming rights to the Olympic venues can only be sold by arrangement with the BOA if the rights are to include use of the word ‘Olympic’, which reverts to BOA ownership in the UK after 2012. Second, and most importantly, these proposed venue sponsorships would not start until 2013 at the earliest, and in these straitened times I find it hard to believe there is a potential sponsor out there who would be prepared to start paying for a sponsorship until it starts. But DCMS need to raise the athletes’ £79 million well before 2012, starting now.

To re-iterate, I have no doubt that ‘Medal Hopes’ is well-intentioned and I applaud any initiative designed to support our Olympic athletes. But I have equally no doubt that if ‘Medal Hopes’ is going to succeed, it needs to be both attractive to UK businesses and complementary to the activities of London 2012’s other stakeholders. For that to happen, when it is finally announced, it will need much more clarity – and, I suspect, a radical re-think in the meantime.

By Tim Crow on August 22nd, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, DCMS, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, London 2012 sponsorship consultants, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Olympics, Team GB, Vancouver 2010

No comments