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 and BeNumber 1.

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, Olympic sponsorship, Sponsorship, Team GB

No comments

With the £79m shortfall now apparently down to £59m, and (not coincidentally) Medal Hopes still merely a soundbite, it was nonetheless surprising to see Beijing golden girl Rebecca Adlington, interviewed in The Times the other day, declaring that her success had not led to any endorsements. 

“Nobody has called to help with any funding…nobody has come forward to help. People mistakenly think, ‘She must be well-off now’, but it’s not quite how it works.”

So not surprising then, in an ever-crunchier world, to see many of our London 2012 medal hopefuls doing the fundraising for themselves, in the shape of the Be Number 1 online campaign, which uses the pixel marketing model pioneeed by Alex Tew’s now-famous Million Dollar Homepage to give donors the opportunity to sponsor individual athletes, including including the ‘Yngling girls’ Sarah Payton, Sarah Webb and Pippa Wilson, BMX ace Shanaze Reade and gymnast Beth Tweddle, by buying pixels on their Be Number 1 pages for as little as £20.

Clever – good luck to them.

By Tim Crow on October 29th, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, DCMS, Default, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship, Olympics, Sponsorship, Team GB, grass roots sport

No comments

One Games ends: the road to another begins. Since the curtain came down on Beijing 2008, VANOC has launched an array of Vancouver 2010 initiatives, including a new Vancouver 2010 brand identity, a new motto (‘With Glowing Hearts’), and the release of the first tranche of Vancouver 2010 tickets.

Another recently-launched initiative is ‘The Vancouver 2010 Club - A Patron’s Programme’, a limited-edition high-rollers’ Olympic experience, which includes premium tickets, a car and driver, a concierge service and a place in the Olympic Torch Relay. VANOC is marketing 100 of these packages at C$285,000 (£140,500) each, and is reporting strong demand.

VANOC has rebuffed inevitable criticism of the concept by pointing out that the tickets involved do not come from the public allocation, and that the scheme is underpinned by philanthropy, as each package automatically donates 100 event tickets to the Vancouver 2010 Charitable Ticketing Fund, which is distributing 50,000 tickets to underprivileged children.

I applaud VANOC’s initiative. It’s a win-win for all concerned, and is simply a logical extension of a major NPD trend of recent times - products and services created specifically for the super-rich.

And what all commentators on the scheme have missed is that without this type of philanthropy, the Olympics would not have been re-born.

Two-thirds of the funding for the Athens 1896 Games, the first of the modern era, came from private donations, and the largest expense of the Games, the refurbishment of the Panathanaiko Stadium, was financed by a single benefactor, George Averoff.

By Tim Crow on October 24th, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, Brand marketing, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, New Product Development, Olympic Torch Relay, Olympic sponsorship, Olympics, Vancouver 2010

No comments

Following on from my post about Culture Secretary Andy Burnham’s statement on how he intended to tap into private sector sponsorship to plug the £79million hole in the Government’s budget for funding Olympic athletes’ training, I was interested to see the good corporate citizens of the West Midlands announce an innovative new Olympic funding model, the first of its kind in the country, which may provide Mr Burnham with a solution to his problem.

A group of businesses in the region, led by the West Bromwich Building Society, have united under the banner of Team Business West Midlands and aim to raise £60,000 each over the next four years in the run up to London 2012 to help fund local athletes’ training. Hats off to Team Business West Midlands, and great news for the athletes.Good news for Mr Burnham too - and an opportunity.

Not only is Team Business West Midlands extending an invitation to other local businesses to join the funding scheme, it’s also inviting other UK regions to follow its lead.

If DCMS were to get behind this initiative by incentivising businesses with matched funding, maybe, just maybe, that £79m is achievable after all.

By Tim Crow on September 25th, 2008

Tags: Default, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, New Product Development, Olympic sponsorship, Olympics, Sponsorship, Sponsorship consultants, 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

Before Beijing 2008 began I wrote a post speculating about what the legacies of Beijing might be for the Olympics, for London 2012, and for brands. Now that the Olympic flag has been handed to London 2012, what initial conclusions can we draw?

1. From a UK perspective, Beijing was the latest in a long line of single-issue Games - but the issue wasn’t, in the end, China. It was, of course, Team GB’s brilliant performance. This has created numerous legacies, all of which can be filed under ‘Feelgood Factor’. Right now, we feel good about Team GB, London 2012 and The Olympics. Of course it’s too early to say, using one of Boris Johnson’s many wonderful new soundbites, that “Olympo-scepticism” has been totally blown away, but I think we can say with some confidence that thanks to ‘The Great Haul of China’ it will be a minority sentiment from now on.

2. The Olympic brand survived the China crisis. Concerns about regime policy and authoritarian stage-management never went away, but were ultimately overshadowed by a technically superb Games which delivered both breathtaking spectacle and an array of legendary performances. The most important performance of the lot in a global context? My vote goes to Usain Bolt. Not just for what he did, in the event which above all defines the Games, but for what he didn’t do: three of the previous five Olympic 100 metre champions tested positive for drugs. Usain prefers chicken nuggets.

3. The London 2012 brand evolved significantly. Beijing 2008 grafted two new elements into London 2012’s DNA: Team GB and, by very different means and in his own unique way, Boris Johnson (and since you ask, I’m a huge fan of both). Finally, do you know anyone who doesn’t like the new London 2012 logo featuring Union jack colours?

4. And what of the brand marketing contest around Beijing 2008 in the UK? To my mind there were three clear winners: adidas, via their kit sponsorship of Team GB; Powerade, the only Team GB sponsor to commit to a brand campaign throughout the Games, as my colleague Sara vividly described in her post a few weeks ago; and British Airways, who skilfully leveraged Team GB’s homecoming

By Tim Crow on August 27th, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, Brand marketing, China, Default, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Sponsorship consultancy, Sponsorship consultants, Team GB, Vancouver 2010

1 comment

There appears to be confusion within WPP about the value to brands of sponsoring London 2012. Announcing WPP’s results on Friday, WPP CEO Sir Martin Sorrell said that “The winners as a result of Beijing are the seven [London 2012 sponsors]…They have done a good deal”. However Lesa Ukman, chairman of WPP-owned IEG, a US sponsorship consultancy, was quoted in Sunday’s Independent that London 2012 sponsorship is “impossible to justify” and “absurd”. Come on WPP, make your minds up…

By Tim Crow on August 26th, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, London 2012 sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship, Olympics, Sponsorship consultancy

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

Apart from the competitors’ heroics, what will we remember Beijing 2008 for? And how, with London 2012 in mind, will UK consumers feel about the Olympics after Beijing?

Previous Olympics in the modern era have all strongly impacted the Olympic brand – in general negatively – and left a single-issue legacy. Montreal 1976 invented the Olympics as a debt monster. Moscow 1980 was the Cold War, Soviet Games. LA 1984 showcased the American entrepreneurial Dream - and in Atlanta 1996 the Dream became an over-commercialised Nightmare. Seoul 1988 will forever be remembered for Ben Johnson and doping. Barcelona 1992 was a triumphant spectacle for Spain, as Sydney 2000 was for Australia. Athens 2004 was the Games that could never follow Sydney and only just got built.

Beijing 2008 looks like being another single-issue Games - the issue, of course, being Chinese government policy. With the Torch Relay crisis now firmly imprinted on Beijing’s DNA, and the media even more focused on the issue as we move into Games time, I can’t see this changing.

But what I do see changing is the world’s knowledge of and attitude to China. And in this respect the Olympics is part of the solution, not – as many would have it – part of the problem. Beijing 2008 will offer an unprecedented window into China’s uniquely fascinating society and culture. And the greater knowledge, understanding and – let us hope – human empathy this engenders will perhaps be Beijing 2008’s key legacy. As Simon Barnes of The Times wrote in a characteristically brave and intelligent piece back in April, this is a key strand of what this Olympics is about. It will make few, if any headlines, but it will leave the world, and the Olympics, in a much better place.

And what of the legacies that Beijing 2008 will leave London 2012? Here in the UK of course, as the next hosts of the summer Games, we’ll be looking at Beijing very differently to the rest of the world. “It’s our turn next” will undoubtedly be a theme running throughout the Games coverage, rising to a crescendo when Beijing hand the Olympic flag to London during the Closing Ceremony on Sunday 24 August.

The big question, of course, which we’ll be looking at closely with our clients who are Olympic sponsors, will be the effect of Beijing 2008 on UK consumers’ attitudes to and behaviours around the Olympics. There are bound to be some big shifts – especially in favourability if, as we all hope, Team GB wins medals galore – but only time will tell what they’ll be, and how lasting.

By Tim Crow on August 6th, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, Brand marketing, China, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, London 2012 sponsorship consultants, Media, Olympic Torch Relay, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Olympics, Sponsorship, Sponsorship consultancy, Sponsorship consultants, Synergy

No comments