Last Friday, The Times published an article by Olympics Correspondent Ashling O’Connor with major implications for how London 2012 will come to be viewed and, going forward, for the value to brands of grassroots sports sponsorship and marketing in the UK.

Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt. Photograph Tim Ireland/PA.

Headlined ’2012 legacy plan for a fitter Britain is quietly scrapped’ and substantiated by an exclusive interview with Olympics Secretary Jeremy Hunt, it began:

One of the key promises that helped London to win the right to host the 2012 Olympics is being quietly scrapped by ministers because Britons are stubbornly resisting efforts to get them playing more sport. When Lord Coe gave his inspirational speech to persuade IOC members to being the Games to Britain, he spoke of the events legacy in inspiring people to play sport. But the numbers taking part in grassroots sport have slipped back and ministers now admit that there is no chance of hitting the target of getting two million more people active by 2013. The target will now be axed in favour of a “payment by results” system that will penalise sports that fail to engage with young people.

Neither the Olympics failing to inspire the inactive to take up sport, nor the targets being scrapped, should come as any surprise.

In the case of the latter, this has been widely expected, based on the decline in sports participation in the last five years, which has seen only four sports gain new participants and 17 lose ground, and on the extensive briefings (with very different motives) given recently by Messrs Robertson and Jowell.

In the case of the former, it is a fact that no modern Olympics has driven an increase in sports participation in a host country, with evidence pointing to the fact that the Games simply inspires people who are already active to become even more active, and that the biggest contributory factor worldwide to the failure to engage the inactive is flawed strategy at state and sport governing body level.

On which point, expect all this to become a seriously political hot potato as we move through and beyond the Games, when the analysis of whether London 2012 has delivered on its legacy promises – already generating its fair share of media attention – moves firmly centre-stage, with sports participation in a starring role.

But beyond the Games, in the same Times article Jeremy Hunt signalled a shift in Government policy, to be announced next month, that has important consequences for brands investing in grassroots sport. Again, I quote from the piece:

The success of UK Sport…has shaped the shift. After its “no compromise” model, 46 sports governing bodies will receive money based only on their ability to attract and retain 14 to 25-year-olds. From 2013, more than half their funding will depend on their success, reviewed annually at three stages: 16, 18 and 25-year-olds. Sports that fail will have their money deducted…[Hunt said] “We are learning from the success of UK Sport…and moving to a payment-by-results system…[sports] shouldn’t expect funding unless they are delivering on targets.”

This is good news for brands investing in grassroots sport sponsorship, whether directly or as a component of a wider investment in a sport asset. In order to maintain and increase their state funding, sports governing bodies will have to be much more focused on creating and delivering grassroots programmes that demonstrably engage and recruit new young players.

That will need both more effective marketing, and more results-focused marketing. And with the greatest respect to most sports governing bodies, federations and teams, that’s something that brands – who already live and die by their ability to acquire and retain new customers – are much better at.

So I’m hoping this ushers in a new era where sports governing bodies become more focused on tapping into the marketing expertise of brands – especially youth-oriented brands – and much less focused on treating brands as banks to fund grass roots programmes that, plainly, aren’t working.

By Tim Crow on December 7th, 2011

Tags: Brand marketing, Default, grass roots sport, London 2012, Olympics, Politics, Sponsorship

No comments

We love a bit of tactical advertising at Synergy.

Our sports stars who we work with frequently find themselves the subject of timely brand communications that use the news agenda to gain cut-through in print. Which is why, for example, around Wimbledon or the British & Irish Lions rugby tours you see sponsor brands (official and ambush alike) trying to savour the cultural moment in order to capture their target audience.

Most impressive are those brands who turn around an ad in the space of 24 hours – sometimes less. We’ve offered up some examples on this blog before – with Veet’s efforts around President Bush’s departure and a whole host of tactical work around President Obama’s inauguration from brands as diverse as Dunkin’ Donuts and IKEA.

And our ad of the day today came from a joint venture between MARS-owned cat food brand, Whiskas, and Battersea Cats and Dogs home, with which they partner. Capitalizing on the recent addition to the Downing Street family – Larry the cat, employed principally to deal with the reported emerging local rat population – Whiskas and Battersea threw down a welcome mat throughout the National Press.

Simple, fun, effective and apparently starring Larry himself – which must have taken a bit of pre-planning on behalf of Battersea and No.10. Bravo to all involved.

By Lucie Bartlett on February 16th, 2011

Tags: Advertising, Ambush campaign, Brand marketing, Politics

No comments

Just occasionally I write about politics and football, and so it is that today I bring you a fascinating section in Tony Blair’s new memoir where he discusses agonising over whether or not to sack Gordon Brown and he recounts a conversation – actually, the implication is repeated conversations – with Sir Alex Ferguson:

…there is a crucial difference between political management and running, say, a company or a football team. A conversation I used to have with Alex Ferguson pinpointed this. ‘What would you do if you had a really difficult but brilliant player causing you problems?’ I would ask. ‘Get rid of them’ he would reply. ‘And supposing after you got rid of them they were still in the dressing room, and in the squad?’ I would say. ‘That would be a different matter’ he would reply, laughing.

Now I know some of you may already be reaching for a large pinch of salt given the former PM’s previous unhappy brush with footballing (not to say other) recollections. It’s passed into urban mythology, of course, that Blair lied about having watched Jackie Milburn at St James’ Park, but let’s put the salt back (on this one at least) because he was subsequently proved to have been misquoted.

Blair’s conclusion, of course, was that football and politics are different, and that it was better to keep Brown in the team rather than sacking him. And we all know what happened next: resignations, and relegation.

I can’t help but wonder what Sir Alex would have done if he’d been in Blair’s position.

I’m betting he’d have sacked Brown, let him stew in the reserves (ie back benches) and arranged for a transfer to the SNP.

Ask David Beckham, Jaap Stam, Ruud Van Nistelrooy, Andrei Kanchelskis, Paul Ince, Gordon Strachan and Mark Hughes – to name a few.

Tony Blair’s memoir, ‘A Journey’, is published by Hutchinson.

By Tim Crow on September 2nd, 2010

Tags: David Beckham, Football, Manchester United, Politics

No comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Kelly Russell on March 10th, 2010

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

No comments

I’ve debated in this forum previously, the merits of various activities calling themselves “sport”. In a nutshell, sport is competitive activity that can be won outright and which raises a sweat through the competitor working physically for his or her victory. Thus running, jumping and swimming are sports. Darts, golf and anything synchronised are not.

Whither motorsport? Clearly a machine bears the brunt of the load, but having lived in Formula One for a while, I can testify that F1 drivers definitely sweat in pursuit of victory and need to be fine physical specimens in order to pilot their machines at all. Motor racing, and Formula One in particular, is definitely a sport.

But not according to the Indian government.

India’s aspirations to join the developed world as a sporting venue are well documented. The Commonwealth Games beckons and F1 is supposed to visit an as-yet un-built circuit somewhere in Uttar Pradesh in 2011.

F1 has a record of attendant commercial prosperity: witness the annual $500m delivered in attributable commercial benefit to Bahrain and the (admittedly unlikely) $570m claimed by Valencia in relation to its 2008 race. F1, commercially speaking, will be A Good Thing for the good people of Uttar Pradesh.

Which makes it surprising that the Indian authorities this week refused to allow a special tax allowance to the company seeking to build the circuit and promote the Grand Prix, on the grounds that Formula One is not a sport. The tax allowance relates to foreign currency transfers and applies to sport, but not to entertainment.

F1 has been deemed an “entertainment” rather than a sport (please, Indian government, what is the difference?) and, more pertinently, a “commercial exercise” (again, what is the difference?) and therefore not eligible for the allowance.

This decision will cost the promoter about $36.5m. Not enough to slow development, but enough to leave a sour taste in the mouths of those seeking to develop one of the world’s emerging economies through the unifying medium of sport.

Shame on you India. This is a very poor advertisement for your country as a sporting venue and one which will, for a while, drive potential investors elsewhere.

By Scott Garrett on August 26th, 2009

Tags: Commonwealth Games, Formula 1, Politics, Sport

No comments