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

When people find out I work in sponsorship, I always get asked two things:

1. Do you have any decent tickets?
2. Do you have any decent gossip?

There was a time when I had plenty of the latter and little of the former. Unfortunately these days my gossip is about as revealing as a Tiger Woods press conference. The reasons for this are twofold due to changes that have happened over the last few years.

Firstly, the lines between sportsman and celebrity have blurred. Any star worth their salt should now be able to change their first name to ‘Brand’ and sound believable – think Brand Beckham, Brand Murray, Brand Schumacher. Could you ever imagine Brand Botham or Best?

The worlds of sport and entertainment celebrity, or ‘Sportainment’ as it’s naturally called in America, are now firmly linked and in more then a few cases by marriage (or separation). This means you become a front page story rather then a back page one, especially if it’s for the wrong reasons.

Secondly, and this is the significant recent change, with the rapid rise of digital and social media our appetite for instant news and our ability to create it has never been so strong.

Sports stars and clubs themselves are in on the act - basketball player, Shaquille O’Neal has a whopping 2.8 million twitter followers, while Barcelona FC has 1.3 million Facebook friends – but the real control lies with the person on the street.

After Tiger’s conference (streamed live on YouTube), we didn’t need to wait for the papers’ reaction the next day to gauge public opinion - in just the hour after there were over 93,000 tweets about it.

The headlines of Mr Cole, Terry and Woods show us that the sports stars haven’t really changed – in fact the only surprise is that Tiger kept it quiet so long. The change is that now they are considered fair game by both a salivating media and an unforgiving public able to influence and drive the agenda. This means there few secrets that don’t come out eventually – or in other words not a good time to be straying from home.

Oh and before you ask – no I don’t have any tickets to the World Cup, Wimbledon or The FA Cup Final. No change there then.

By Dominic Curran on March 2nd, 2010

Tags: Andy Murray, David Beckham, FA Cup, Facebook, Public relations, Sponsorship, Tiger Woods, YouTube

No comments

Whilst browsing Twitter last night, I came across an interesting survey, via @mediaguardian, on journalists’ treatment of social media as a source. The US survey conducted by Cision and The George Washington University is based on responses from 371 journalists, almost half of which have spent over 20 years working in the industry. It reports that 56% of reporters and editors believe social media is important for reporting and producing their stories and cites blogs as the major source with networking sites like Twitter and Facebook in second place.

The inclusion of user generated content, from YouTube, to substantiate media reports has become an established practice - highlighted so evidently through the use of bystanders’ videos of the police assault on Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protest. However, the use of information taken from other social media sites seems to be moving things forward a stage.

Predictably, of the journalists that acknowledged using social media as a source, the vast majority (84%) admitted that they treat the information taken from these sites as more cautious and less reliable than traditional media. Whilst on first reading that might seem sensible, surely this depends on the context in which they are planning to use the information taken from the ‘source’.

I’m not sure that anyone that regularly contributes to blogs or social networking sites would propose that their daily tweets and posts be considered as ‘fact’. In contrast, I would suggest that the purpose of consulting social media should be to add colour to a report by drawing on different people’s opinions to shed light on any given subject, rather than providing the ‘facts’ themselves.

From my own experience in PR, I can happily admit to being a source for a journalist on more than one occasion via Twitter. From a combination of my own posts about the projects I’m working on and following a number of relevant journalists, I’ve managed to set up a number of stories in press. Rather than the content of posts being used as content, they instead highlighted a common interest and shared goal which made me the source. Certainly from my world, social media is becoming an increasingly effective and common way of communicating with journalists.

My advice to the 46% of journalists that don’t consider social media to be important in their line of work would be to give it a go. It won’t tread on the toes of your reliable, traditional sources, but it might just provide you with access to additional resources, colour and opinion than the ‘facts’ on their own could offer.

By Kelly Russell on February 16th, 2010

Tags: Blogging, Public relations, Social Media, YouTube

1 comment

Much has been written about Thierry Henry this week.

Has he forever lost his va va voom? Will his reputation recover from the ‘Hand of Frog’ drama?

Is he the new Maradona? Will the nation of Ireland ever forgive him?

(No, yes, no, no - as you ask).

It’s not been the best of weeks for the Frenchman, ain’t that the truth. But is it really Armageddon?

I think not.

In my opinion and as quoted in PR Week, the Thierry Henry brand is not irreversibly damaged.

Damaged? Yes for sure but he will recover.

Thierry is a hero in France whose football fans witnessed their captain play to the whistle and arguably use his nous to secure a victory for his team. The incident is a far wider indictment of the sport and what is at stake nowadays (in this case, national pride and a place in The World Cup); cheating is nothing new in sport unfortunately.

Henry would have preferred to have scored a controversy-free belter to secure his country’s fate. That goes without saying. But the unpredictable nature of sport throws up the unexpected. Like most rational sportsfans, I didn’t like what I saw and I wish the referee had seen, during the game itself, what the rest of the world has since watched over and over again. But he didn’t. C’est la vie.

For Thierry, his value to sponsors, and I am talking in the long term, will not irretrievably suffer although I would not envisage too many Irish companies beating down the door of Henry’s agent this week offering brand endorsements.

There will be those who don’t agree with me. Fine, great, I love a good debate but let’s put it in perspective shall we?

Henry is French, plays his football in Spain (for Barcelona), has global cross-gender appeal and as Arsenal’s greatest goal scorer, he will always be a legend in England. He is a gifted footballer and an eloquent individual. The 2010 World Cup is likely to be his last and he played a highly visible role in ensuring himself one last shot at the biggest prize in football. Gillette, for whom Henry is a global brand ambassador, has said on record the incident will not affect their relationship with him.

As a role model to millions and a footballer who was widely perceived to demonstrate true sporting values, his biggest crime was missing the opportunity to right a wrong and show genuine sportsmanship on the pitch immediately after the incident. His reputation may forever be tarnished by that decision but his commercial value in the long term, as one of the most dazzling players of his generation, I believe will hold firm.

By Stephanie Branston on November 20th, 2009

Tags: Football, Public relations, Sponsorship, World Cup

3 comments

Who would have thought a simple name change could cause such a rumpus? St James’ Park, more a cathedral to the Geordie Nation then a stadium, has been given the catchy title by its beleaguered owner of ’sportsdirect.com@St James’ Park’. Cue much uproar across the media and more importantly among the fans.

However, rather then add to the derision already rightly poured on this bizarre move, we think there could be an opportunity for a canny brand here. Any brand in sponsorship is fundamentally looking to engage, not alienate, fans and this naming rights debacle actually offers up a unique opportunity.

The answer is simple - try and strike a short term deal with the Newcastle United commercial team, buy the naming rights for the rest of the season and call it - this is the simple bit - ‘St James’ Park’.

In other words, give it back to fans: they’ll love you forever and no doubt you’ll get more than a few column inches to boot - for the first naming rights deal to get rid of the brand name.

By Dominic Curran on November 17th, 2009

Tags: Communications, Football, Football Sponsorship, Naming Rights, Newcastle United, Public relations

No comments

Jenson Button had a dream last Friday night that he would have a bad qualifying session in Brazil but do enough in the race to win the F1 World Championship.
And so he did.

Button added his name to the history books over the weekend. The first ever English back-to-back world championship win the sport has witnessed. All of this happening in just the first season of Brawn’s existence, a fairytale for the team. The charismatic and handsome Button is now in an enviable position. With a wealth of experience, the support of a strong team around him, a model girlfriend on his arm, this year’s BBC Sports Personality of the Year a shoe-in and the likelihood of tens of millions of pounds to follow through sponsorship and endorsements, it all rounds off the year rather nicely for him.

And the best thing? He seems like a really nice guy to boot.

Jenson is a PR dream and a hark back to the old days of work hard, play hard F1 drivers. His earning potential is certainly set to rocket so long as he continues to perform on the track. As well as his success in the car, Jenson’s personality, charisma and good looks will help to make him a global bankable star. If he wins next year’s World Championship, he will almost certainly become the highest paid British sportsman.

Interestingly, he is not currently contracted to a team for next year. His negotiating powers right now are surely at a premium, especially having taken a severe pay cut to race for Brawn this season. For brands and future sponsors, Jenson is a very attractive investment. He is a popular figure, a leader amongst his team, speaks well, is well educated and glamorous and is also close to his family (his father attends every race). He is perceived to be more modest than Lewis Hamilton, more approachable and has a real sense of fun. Couldn’t have imagined writing this a year ago but Jenson could very well end up as the more successful of the two British drivers. It may have taken Jenson ten seasons to arrive at this stage (compared to Hamilton’s two) but Button is viewed by many as the more consistent and even tempered driver.

Certainly it will be interesting to watch what he does next from a sponsorship perspective. In F1, most brands are sponsors of the team, not the individual drivers. There are occasions of drivers having individual sponsors – Jenson himself has a personal deal with the (number 1 by volume-sales energy drink in the US) Monster Energy. However, what his manager may well be doing at the moment is looking at long-term opportunities for Jenson to take an ambassadorial role with existing team sponsors - something Lewis Hamilton has done very successfully with brands like Hugo Boss and Tag Heuer. We shall see.

For the time being, Jenson is back in the UK to fulfil sponsor activities (Virgin Media’s SpeedWeek50 campaign, as you asked) before the end of season finale in Abu Dhabi next month which will finish off one hell of a dream season.

By Stephanie Branston on October 20th, 2009

Tags: BBC, Formula 1, Jenson Button, Lewis Hamilton, Public relations, Sponsorship

1 comment

OK so the news is bad - you’re the tournament organiser of the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand in two years and already you are having to re-forecast, again, the level of loss you expect the event to make (now up another $9.3 million to $39.3 million). Much of the increased loss is based on lower expectations around ticket sales.

But I suspect that the tournament organiser, Martin Sneddon, may see his latest stance on the situation quoted back to him in the coming years.

Asked recently by the media whether he expected a game between minnow nations from Europe and America in New Plymouth on a Thursday night would be hard to sell, Mr Snedden came out with the classic: “It will sell out. I am prepared to put my reputation on it.”

While admiring his passion, I just hope the good folks of New Plymouth see it the same way and turn out for both the sake of the sport and Mr Sneddon’s mortgage.

By Dominic Curran on October 19th, 2009

Tags: Communications, Default, Public relations, Rugby

No comments

So there it is, all over. 100 days and 2400 people later; today marks the final day of Antony Gormley’s live art installation ‘One & Other’.

34,520 people applied; 1208 men and 1192 women aged between 16 and 84 were randomly selected to take part. People from every walk of life from across the UK, spent an hour alone on the empty plinth in Trafalgar Square creating a collective portrait of humanity.

And not a single ‘celebrity’ or former Big Brother contestant in sight.
Marvellous.

The project - the focus of articles, photos, tweets and blogs well before the first person took to the plinth on 6th July 2009 – has been deemed a success. In Gormley’s own words, “Whether you see the plinth as a protest or pole-dance platform; studio or stocks; playpen or pulpit; as a frame for interrogation or for meditation, it has provided an open space of possibility for many to test their sense of self and how they might communicate this to a wider world.”

So did we like it? The art critics did not.
Me? I loved it.

I first wrote about the project last July on this very blog. I didn’t get picked in the ballot but I have enjoyed watching those who did, including three people I know. ‘A snapshot of Britain’, the creation has been described as. Well certainly it showed off the great British sense of humour - as well as raising over £24,000 for charity through plinthers performances.

A brief snapshot of just a few of the plinthers who caught my eye:
- A modern day naturist Lady Godiva astride a child’s rocking horse in only a pair of boots (Gormley himself had said that ‘he would be very upset if somebody didn’t take their clothes off’)
- A 26 year old dressed as a giant turd in a plea for cleaner water, resulting in some nice PR & awareness for Water Aid
- A Stringfellow’s dancer whose pole dancing performance apparently caused the Sky Arts website to crash
- An 8ft Godzilla
- A bent over skin-tight morph suit
- A number of folk advertising themselves in a ‘Give me a Job’ bid to gain work most of which resulted in employment
- The girl who led an impressive flash-mob audience in a world-record bid for the most people dancing to Thriller (Michael Jackson, RIP, would have been proud).

The list goes on. Right up to the very final plinther, Emma Burns from Liverpool who used the last hour of the people’s plinth (08.00-09.00 today) to remember the victims of the Hillsborough disaster.

The good, the bad, the ugly and the downright bizarre have all been up there.

The art critics may not have raved about it.
Stuff ‘em.

Over 720,000 people watched online - a huge figure for an arts website - with 7.5 million page impressions during the 100 days. And the project will live on through a TV documentary due to be screened on Sky Arts; a book produced by Random House; and within the walls of the Wellcome Library who plan to store the footage and interviews with every participant for future historians and academics.

Antony Gormley never actually made it onto the plinth having been rejected four times in the public ballot (and refusing to insist on a slot). One suspects he won’t mind. Without a shadow of a doubt, he will be kept busy over the coming months regardless, his profile further elevated by the successful way in which One & Other has truly brought art to the masses. And if you need further persuasion, take 4mins out of your day - right now- and have a watch of the final highlights video on Sky Arts. It’s emotive stuff.

- Next month, Sir Keith Park, a Battle of Britain hero will take to the Fourth Plinth in a more conventional memorial statue format

By Stephanie Branston on October 14th, 2009

Tags: Blogging, Communications, Flash mobbing, Media, Public relations, The Arts

No comments

Being half Aussie, one of the stories in yesterday’s Brand Republic email caught my attention.

The Australian Government recently announced that it is looking for an agency to develop a new brand identity to embody Australia in the 21st century with a budget of A$20 million over four years.

In response to this, agency DesignBay has launched a competition challenging people to submit their own logo and strapline for the chance to win a A$2000 prize. The global competition, which opens today, will run for two weeks, with the winners and short-listed entrants announced in the marketing industry’s B&T magazine in November.

DesignBay founder Alec Lynch, has been quoted saying: “Australia’s brand is important. We want to find the best logo and tagline ideas that Australia’s creative talent and the world can come up with and we’re going to offer them, for free, to the government. We want to give people the opportunity to contribute to Australia’s brand and we want Australia’s brand to be the best it can be.”

In this day and age we are all used to brands and media outlets asking for our contribution and I’m right behind giving the public the chance to translate their patriotism into what could become the new identity for their nation. However on this occasion, I can’t help but think that the aim of the game is more to drive publicity for the design agency than to give consumers a voice. Although hats off to their PR team, as I’m writing about them and I’d certainly never heard of them before reading the article this morning.

The Australian government are due to launch the new identity domestically in February and internationally in May and I’ll be keeping my eyes peeled along the way to see whether the Design Bay competition has any impact on the outcome.

Either way, you’ve got to be in it to win it so I’ll be off to the drawing board…..

By Kelly Russell on October 14th, 2009

Tags: Brand marketing, Communications, Media, Public relations

No comments

Read any of today’s national newspaper reports on Leeds United v Liverpool in last night’s Carling Cup and you’ll notice something - a total lack of any pictures of the match. Instead there is a box out in all papers saying the same thing, below is how The Guardian framed it.

Although, Leeds decided to allow just Action Images and a local agency in, they did allow national papers to send a photographer each which sounds fair enough until you listen to sports editors stating that they need a variety of photos from a game in order to chose the best shot.

Leeds may have sensible reasons for precluding leading agencies such as PA and Getty from the ground based on space, congestion, spectator viewing impairment etc but it does re-kindle an age old ‘debate’ between sports rights-holders and the media.

Here’s the problem - rights-holders have successfully packaged their product for television and make a vast amount of money from it, for example the latest Premier League / Sky deal is worth around the billion pound mark. At the same time, monetising the rest of the media has proved elusive.

You only need to look at the increased pagination of newspaper sports sections to know that sport is an important circulation and advertising driver, however, unlike TV and radio, newspapers don’t have to pay a penny for the right to air. This becomes even more acute with photographic and written agencies who directly make money by selling photos and copy from the matches without having to pay any sort of license to the rights-holder.

Agencies and media say they are providing the global publicity and coverage that is the oxygen of any sport and allows the rights holders to make more from sponsorship and in turn drives people to the television completing a virtuous circle. Are they right? Absolutely but it is almost impossible to actually equate that return. Is it frustrating for rights-holders trying to monetise all elements of their product? You bet.

While this argument rumbles on there will only be one loser, the team / event sponsors, missing out on the very exposure they paid for in the first place.

By Dominic Curran on September 23rd, 2009

Tags: Communications, Media, Public relations, Sponsorship, Sport

No comments