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

Listening to the unassuming Dave Brailsford, the man in charge of British Cycling, at this week’s FT Sport Industry Summit, was electrifying.

No wonder the cyclists won so many medals in Beijing.

He told his story quietly but with such underlying passion and determination that the effect was mesmerising.

It underlined the vital role played by excellent coaches and back-up teams and how badly our athletes need them if they are to continue to succeed at the elite level in general and the Olympics in particular.

I think it was the word ‘determination’ that came across so emphatically.  He and his team were utterly determined to succeed and the strategy they embraced to achieve that goal was cold, ruthless and deadly.  If you didn’t make the grade you were out.  No hard feelings, no bitterness; that was the deal.

We need more Dave Brailsfords in all walks of life.  But, in the meantime, let’s just hope we can replicate him in all the other Olympic and Paralympic sports because that certainly would lead to more success at London 2012.

By Karen Earl on November 7th, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, Cycling, London 2012, Olympics, Team GB

No comments

At the FT Sport Industry Summit on Tuesday a very interesting topic was raised but never fully explored.

Roger Draper, Chief Executive at the Lawn Tennis Association and famous for his hunger for change, said that when he left Sport England he had presented a document to Government which recommended that the UK should have just one sports body – instead of the proliferation of bodies which now exist.

A number of us in the industry have always been baffled as to why so many different bodies exist within sport in the UK but, with the realisation that turkeys don’t vote for Christmas, we have long accepted that the current scenario is unlikely to change.

However, and slightly ironically, it may be that a change is just over the horizon.  I say ironically because it is the very fact that Team GB was so successful in Beijing that sport really is now at the top of the Government agenda.  There is a genuine belief that sport is good for the country, for morale and health reasons and more, and ministers are keen to associate themselves with success.  Let’s face it, there’s pretty little else in the way of success to which they can nail their colours at the moment.

So, we might be witness in the next four to five years to a move to streamline the administration of sport in this country.  It’ll probably take that long for Government to address the issues and there will be a feeling that there is so much else to do prior to London 2012 that rocking the boat now would be detrimental.

But, picture the scene after 2012 and after (we hope) more medal success for Team GB.  We could find ourselves with one UK Sports Association (or other appropriate title) responsible for all things ‘sport’ across the UK – and that includes Scotland, Ireland and Wales.  Governing bodies through to local clubs would know where to apply for financial and all other assistance instead of the myriad of different institutions currently in existence.  The system would be straightforward, which it’s not now.

Roger Draper said his report had identified £80 million of administrative savings if the plan was embraced.  Imagine what sport could do with that sort of money – from medals at the top to community sport at the grassroots.

You never know, one of the political parties might put the notion in their manifesto for the next general election – it could make them very popular.

By Karen Earl on November 7th, 2008

Tags: DCMS, London 2012, Olympics, Team GB, community, grass roots sport

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

What’s in a name?

So, it’s change afoot in the UEFA Cup. Again. In a bid to increase its profile – and no doubt differentiate itself from its slicker, richer, better-fed sibling, the UEFA Champions League – the competition has undergone a radical overhaul. Say goodbye Group Stage, with eight leagues of five; say hello Group Stage with…er…twelve groups of four. Begone, lowly UEFA Cup; enter in its place the mighty UEFA Europa League – a name I’m sure you’ll agree adequately reflects just how reinvigorated, aspirational and totally-not-the-Champions-League this competition really is. Doesn’t it…?

Whilst there is a greater level of subtlety to UEFA’s latest jiggery-pokery than I’m possibly letting on, such changes are not all that much fun to write about (eg. the winning FA Cup team cannot ‘give’ their UEFA Cup place to the losing finalist, in the case that they are already in the Champions League – the place instead going to next-highest team in the Premier League). See: told you.

To be honest, for the clubs concerned, I have a feeling that the only key difference they care about is just a little more fundamental: cold, harsh cash. For example, last year Liverpool raked in a reported £18 million as a losing Champions League semi-finalist. By contrast Spurs’ 2007/08 UEFA Cup run, where the club reached the competition’s Knockout Stage, playing a total of 10 matches, purportedly brought in around £500,000 in prize money. Approximately the same amount of revenue Tottenham made last season for a single live match on Sky Sports.

Can we have our ball back?

Ever thought that putting on London 2012 looked like a bit of a challenge?

Well, if the Games had to be co-hosted with a neighbouring country sharing no common language; if the journey time between certain Olympic venues was in some cases upwards of 9 hours; if the IOC had visited LOCOG a year ago and voiced mild concerns over our preparations – then returned six months later only for things to look even worse; if our national supporters were fearsome regulars on Ross Kemp on Gangs; if Seb Coe and his team were suspended from their duties due to charges of corruption…I could probably understand your concerns. As it is, this is the situation facing Poland, co-hosts of UEFA EURO 2012™.

Although Poland and Ukraine had never been the realistic front-runners during the bidding phase back in 2006/07, corruption and hooliganism in Italy’s game – along with the public support of FIFA’s Sepp Blatter – saw the tournament handed to Eastern Europe.

At present we are told there is no immediate threat to Poland’s position – but with Ukraine unable to act as sole host, Spain now more interested in bidding for the 2018 World Cup, Germany still recovering from 2006, and England ‘otherwise engaged’ in 2012, there are few obvious takers should Poland’s position become untenable. Forget east: whatever way you look at it EURO 2012 may have now officially gone south.

(Almost) Everyone’s a winner

Good news for fans of the Home Nations: by 2016 we may qualify for the European Championships. No, the UK is not bidding to host the tournament. Nope, this won’t be thanks to a future midfield triumvirate of Brooklyn, Romeo and Cruz Beckham. And no, all decent teams aren’t being disqualified from qualification. It’s in fact simpler than that: UEFA are letting more nations into the Finals. 

With the expansion from 16 to 24 teams, UEFA EURO 2016™ will be an interesting tournament from several angles. From a commercial perspective, the return on investment for brands sponsoring the event is likely to be greater, as there is an opportunity for more of a sponsor’s European markets to engage with their consumers via Football – the flipside of this likely to be that the contractual fee from UEFA rises accordingly. And as a fan, there’s a 50% greater chance that your team might actually make the tournament. Okay, maybe 10% if you’re Scottish…

By Jonathan Izzard on October 10th, 2008

Tags: Default, Football, Football Sponsorship, London 2012, UEFA Champions League

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

Two weeks ago I flew out of Terminal 5 as part of the British Airways Team, filled with excitement and intrigue heading to Beijing for my first Olympic games. The scale of the airport proved to be a taste of things to come, as the recent expansion to cope with demand during the games made us feel like the only people arriving in Beijing.

As expected the first greeting (other than the strict visa checks) were the various TOP and domestic sponsors displaying their Olympic advertising. Being brutally honest it failed to really inspire or excite me, so it was not until arriving land side did we feel the full Olympic welcome from Beijing. This came in the form of two eight foot mascots bouncing towards us emblazoned with the Beijing 2008 logo. Whilst visitors queued up for photos, our guide was almost bursting with pride when he told us that we were not just in the presence of some inflatable cartoons, but we were standing next to BeiBei and YingYing two of the five Official Olympic Mascots. Having always been a little dismissive of mascots, except perhaps when they amusingly play rugby at the Guinness Premiership Final, I started to be amazed by the clamour to meet the eight foot cartoons. The Beijing Organising Committee of the Olympic Games named the five mascots BeiBei, JingJing, HuanHaun, YingYing, NiNi which when the words are put together translate to “Welcome to Beijing” and they were living up to their name. In fact it proved to be pretty hard to avoid them out and about in Beijing, as they appeared on every other form of communication about the games. So whilst some brands like Visa wanted to own the welcome to Beijing with information booths and guides, it was only the Olympic organisers themselves that really stood out welcoming visitors, a key opportunity lost for sponsors.

During my time in Beijing it was fascinating to see an entire city turn its attention to making sure the games are a complete success. Everyone we met wanted to help us, the taxi drivers trying their hardest to make sure we all went in the right direction (despite it being a nail biting experience) and even the underground was lined with volunteers, part of the army of helpers all over the city that guided visitors around Beijing and the games. Whilst it was obvious that this was Beijing with its make-up on I was impressed by their staging of the games, even if we felt uneasy thinking about how it all has been made possible. London has a considerable challenge to follow Beijing but I believe we will deliver a memorable Olympics and certainly deliver the party atmosphere, which was sorely lacking in Beijing.

One of the objectives of the trip was to have a look at how each of the Olympic sponsors used their association with the Games. Whilst there is too much to list as expected the most prominent use was outdoor advertising and there is no doubt the competition for the premium sites was hotly contested. However what was disappointing was the creative execution which was relatively poor and many campaigns looked like they had simply added the Beijing 2008 logo to existing campaigns. Another potential loss of value was that some of the key sites were taken by the IOC to thank all their Worldwide partners, domestic partners and suppliers. Whilst this gives brands guaranteed ad space, I doubt if any brand will see any return from being part of a list of sponsors. Had the IOC split each of these sites up amongst the partners it could have given each of the brands access to some of the most sought after advertising opportunities.

One of the other major sponsor activities was the large scale product showcasing on the Olympic Green around the now famous Bird’s Nest stadium. As reported in the media, sponsors originally believed this area would be filled with thousands of visitors and with an area six times the size of the Athens Games sponsors eyed this as a valuable opportunity. Whilst not all sponsors were present those that were invested heavily in substantial buildings for showcasing, ready to accept up to 18,000 people a day.

Unfortunately security precautions limited numbers during my time at the games and I sensed the sponsors’ areas were well below capacity. Whilst all the showcases where delivered to a very high quality on the whole they did not actually do anything to really enhance my experience of the games as they did not fulfil any real need by a visitor. That said it did give sponsors like Coke and Adidas a good opportunity to demonstrate their heritage and long term relationship with the games. I doubt this will be replicated on the same scale at London 2012 but what is clear is that whoever uses this space must make sure the activity is compelling and relevant to visitors’ experience at the games. Lots of lessons learnt and I now can’t wait until London 2012.

By Roberto Colandangelo on August 29th, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, China, London 2012, Olympics

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