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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Tim Crow on January 20th, 2010

Tags: London 2012 sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship

No comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Tim Crow on January 12th, 2010

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

1 comment

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 newly-appointed head of Olympic legacy, Margaret Ford, interviewed in yesterday’s Evening Standard, signalled a potential u-turn in the proposed use of some of the London 2012 facilities post-Games.

This may not be a bad thing…

At the 117th International Olympic Committee Session in Singapore in 2005, as part of our winning bid to host the Games, Lord Coe stated that it was London’s intention ‘To stage an inspirational Games that capture the imagination of young people around the world and leave a lasting legacy’ and indeed this has been carried through to become one of the 10 strategic pillars of London 2012.

The question is, will we as a host nation succeed where so many before us have struggled?

One only has to visit former Olympic sites to see how hard it is to leave something that really makes a difference to the live of those around us. But it is not impossible…

We have the best opportunity we have ever had to permanently regenerate an area of London, place sport at its heart and inspire people for generations to come.

It’s an opportunity that we should wholeheartedly embrace and not shy away from, and as one of the masterminds behind the regeneration of the former Millennium Dome through its sale to the entertainment empire AEG, Lady Ford is the ideal person to lead the charge.

She has already stated that the 80,000-seat Olympic Stadium may now not be reduced in size to 25,000 seats, but left as an iconic structure that could be used to host games, given a successful World Cup 2018 bid. And isn’t it good to be so positive about the future for a change?

When it comes to regeneration and legacy, visionary confidence is what we need – in abundance.

By Philip Patterson on June 26th, 2009

Tags: London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship, Olympics, grass roots sport

No comments

Last week saw two bad-news stories break on Olympic sponsorship by the automotive industry.

First was the news that the IOC had ended its long search for a global Olympic sponsor in the automotive category, exclusively scooped by Around The Rings. The only thing that was surprising about this story was that it took the IOC so long to go public on it.

This followed hard on the heels of General Motors - a major domestic sponsor of Vancouver 2010 - announcing that it was closing 245 dealerships in Canada in the run-up to today’s filing for bankruptcy protection, which unsurprisingly led to speculation in Canada that GM would not be able to meet its commitments to the Vancouver winter games - claims strenuously denied by VANOC.

Will the post-recessionary automotive industry be prepared to fuel each Games’  habitual Games-time requirement for thousands of vehicles? (VANOC’s fleet requirement from GM, for example, is 4,600 vehicles, a not untypical figure, on top of which GM is also paying $14m in cash.)

Unless there’s a major overhaul both of the package of rights on offer by the Olympic Movement and of the approach of auto sector brands to this type of sponsorship, we doubt it.

We’re yet to see any evidence that previous Olympic sponsorships by automotive companies have justified the investment - and this reported statement by VANOC Deputy CEO Dave Cobb, commenting on the GM situation, perhaps partly explains why:

“Not sure we were expecting that much promotional activity at a dealer level, the sponsorship is with the corporate entity and not the dealerships themselves.”

By Tim Crow on June 1st, 2009

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

No comments

I’m saddened but not surprised by the IOC decision to limit Torch Relays to host countries. It was both predictable, following the anti-China protests that dogged the 2008 Torch Relay, and pragmatic, given the volatile political climate. But I believe it’s a backward step for the Olympics which could have been avoided.

The problem with the 2008 Torch Relay was that it was an overtly Chinese Torch Relay, not an Olympic Torch Relay. As such it ran counter to the DNA of the Olympics, which is a celebration of humanity – of the many, not the few, and of all countries, not simply the host.

Call me an idealist if you will, but surely it would be both preferable and possible to preserve the international leg by re-designing the Torch Relay experience so that it both reflects this true Olympic DNA, and in so doing eschews nationalism?

I guess I shouldn’t complain, in that we’ll have the Torch all to ourselves in here in the UK in advance of London 2012. But I can’t help feeling that the Torch could and should be used experientially to share the true spirit of the Olympic Games with the world.

By Tim Crow on March 30th, 2009

Tags: Default, Experiential marketing, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, Olympic Torch Relay, Olympic sponsorship

No comments

Last week we helped launch British Airways’ Great Britons campaign at Heathrow by naming a plane after Olympic Gold medallist Chris Hoy. We’ve been working closely with the team at British Airways to create a campaign to demonstrate a clear role for British Airways in the London 2012 Olympic Games.

As the national flag carrier, helping British talent succeed has always important to BA and the 2012 Games has given the airline a great goal to aim for. The BA Great Britons programme is offering hundreds of free flights in the run up to 2012, to enable budding talent from sport, fashion, community, art & design, innovation and performing arts to realise their dreams.

Whilst much Olympic marketing can feel remote to consumers, this campaign has active participation at is core. Alongside encouraging applicants to show how flights could help them, BA is encouraging the public to vote on who deserves to fly across the world in search of their dream.

The initial response has been positive with good media pick up and lots of discussion on a variety of blogs from http://www.gaj-it.com/7639/british-airways-holds-its-very-own-britains-got-talent-show to http://styleclone.com/128/fancy-a-flight-to-milan-fashion-show-with-british-airways. The hope is to not only receive hundreds of applicants but create a forum for discussion and support for Britain’s up and coming talent.

By Roberto Colandangelo on February 27th, 2009

Tags: Fashion, Film, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, Music, Olympic sponsorship, Olympics, Team GB, The Arts, grass roots sport

1 comment

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

As further proof of the recession, the announcement by B&Q that it would not be extending its sponsorship of Team GB Olympic and Paralympic athletes and hopefuls generated more than its fair share of coverage. But only one commentator, Paul Kelso of the Telegraph, touched on what would have been the key driver in the DIY chain’s business case: to continue the association B&Q would have had to upgrade to a London 2012 sponsorship, involving significantly increased rights fees.

By Tim Crow on January 14th, 2009

Tags: Default, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship, Olympics, Sponsorship, Team GB

No comments