By Tim Crow on June 11th, 2010

Tags: Default, Digital marketing, Downloads, Facebook, Football, Football Sponsorship, New Product Development, Olympic sponsorship, Social Media, Vancouver 2010, Winter Olympics, World Cup

No comments

As the “Golden Generation” of England footballers bid for the umpteenth (and probably last) time to realise their potential at a major international tournament, fans across the country will be reaching for their Three Lions replica shirts, keeping their fingers crossed, and praying that “Wazza” really can Write The Future.

Back to the present. Before a fly-away Jabulani ball has been struck in earnest, the contest between “official sponsors” and those pesky ambushers has truly kicked off. The FA and Mars, an official partner of the England Team, are reportedly considering legal action against Nestlé, for “passing off” an association with the England team through Kit Kat’s “Fingers Crossed” campaign. Yes, this is the same Mars who undertook the infamous “Believe” ambush marketing campaign around the 2006 World Cup. For 2010, and the first football World Cup on African soil, a classic case of poacher turned gamekeeper.

Three questions, one for each lion on John Barnes’s Mars Bar :

1. Is Nestlé actually passing off an association with the England team?

This should probably be left to the lawyers, but from a layman’s / sport industry professional’s perspective, using Sol Campbell and Mansfield Town manager David Holdsworth as your “talent” is not the best way to infer an association with the England team. And despite the well observed allusions to England’s World Cup heritage – “cross your fingers for no penalties…no broken metatarsals…no tears” -and liberal use of the ambusher’s best friend (the St George’s flag), nothing suggests that Kit Kat sponsors Capello’s boys.

2. Should Mars be trying to protect their hard bought status as the England Team’s confectionary brand of choice?

A lesson for all official sponsors. Complain about the ambushers and you are giving their campaigns the oxygen of publicity. Mars clearly had good reason to turn gamekeeper and pay for the privilege of England partner status. They should be confident that their association, leveraged properly, will pay off. Otherwise, why not remain a poacher?

3. Whose current World Cup campaign is better?

No contest. Kit Kat have tapped into the very essence of the English sporting psyche, and the pervading sense of hope over expectation that grips every England football fan during international football tournaments. Their TV ad brings that insight to life in a down to earth, domestic football environment. Compare that with John Barnes re-hashing a song from 1990 in a sparsely populated park, with production values that suggest too much money in the FA’s coffers and not enough in the activation pot.

Reports suggest that Mars may have won the battle of the lawyers, and that Nestlé have agreed to curtail the campaign. Is that the final whistle on this contest? Probably not if Kit Kat’s PR team are on the ball. What price England players crossing their fingers during a crucial penalty shoot, or being caught on camera tucking into one of the 200 Kit Kat’s that have been delivered to the England training camp by the FA’s official supermarket …?

Whatever happens, fingers crossed that 2010 marks the end of John Barnes’s singing career.

By Tom Gladstone on June 11th, 2010

Tags: Advertising, Ambush campaign, Brand marketing, Communications, Content, Football, Football Sponsorship, Media, Public relations, Social Media, Sponsorship, Sport

1 comment

It’s a very exciting time when the mascots are announced for any Games.  Admittedly, this excitement is normally reserved for those aged under ten, and rightly so.  However, I feel very fortunate that I’m blessed with an inner child and can appreciate similar feelings of anticipation that I did back when I was six or seven years old. The more exciting thing this time though, is the fact I might actually get to meet the London 2012 editions.  If you’ve yet to see them, take a look at the Telegraph’s comprehensive explanation of their design.

As you’ve probably guessed I like them.  I think they offer something that will inspire and engage young people across the UK.  They have a thrilling adventure ahead of them and they’ll be able to interact with their audience like never before in the history of Olympic Mascots.  The speed in which both technology and young people have developed in recent years is astonishing.  The digital children right across all corners of the UK will have the opportunity to follow, like and play with Wenlock and Mandeville however they choose, whenever they choose and wherever they choose.  Surely this is amazing? They will take them on holiday, take them to school and probably in the bath too, and more often than not this will be through the digital channel.

I think for brands involved as Official Partners of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games this offers a unique opportunity.  The mascots will play an important role in connecting with the young people, not only in terms of promoting the Games, but also as an educational inspiration.  I remember how engaged I was when taught about the Olympic movement, having something so real and tangible on the door step will have an enormous impact, particularly for young boys who commonly have learning challenges in certain subjects of the curriculum in this age group.  Tapping into to this market to help develop and extend the Olympic experience and involve our young nation in the Games is a fantastic opportunity and we’ll be looking to develop programmes for our clients to maximise this exciting development.

So, I hope you to get some excitement from seeing the new mascots unveiled.  If they’re not for you don’t worry, but I urge you to just ask a small person their opinion in two years time, as this will be the true judge of the success of Wenlock and Mandeville.  Get involved yourselves and follow them on Twitter @iamwenlock and @iammandeville and see how the story unfolds in the build up to the ever nearing London 2012. And keep your eye on this blog, as if I do get the chance to meet them the pictures will be here first!

By Ben Wilkinson on May 20th, 2010

Tags: BOA, Brand marketing, Branded content, Digital marketing, Experiential marketing, Facebook, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, London 2012 sponsorship consultants, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Olympics, Online communities, Social Media, Sponsorship, Sponsorship consultancy, Sponsorship consultants, Synergy, Team GB

5 comments

Yesterday I was pointed in the direction of an article on social media that suggested brands should choose a targeted Facebook ad campaign to promote their product(s) to fans of a sport or sports team, rather than through any official partnership with the sport or team in question.

The article’s main argument was that by advertising to fans of a club on Facebook, the brand could save itself 99% the cost of a sponsorship and have more measureable results than a ‘traditional sponsorship’.

The writer signed off by saying: “If I ran a business that made its dollars (the article originates from Australia) raising sponsorship funds, or was highly dependent on sponsorship for revenue, I would be very concerned about now”.

I’m undecided as to which irritated me more, the writer’s lack of understanding of marketing, social media or sponsorship.

There is no doubt that social media is changing the way we communicate globally. As an industry, sponsorship has embraced social media with brands, teams, sports stars and the media are all creating reams of content that is giving fans multiple additional ways to consume their sport.

Granted, a brand that marketed itself in this way may see a return, but I would argue that this return will mirror their investment – minimal. As part of a wider sponsorship activation strategy, Facebook advertising could drive significant traffic to your website or product, but only if the brand has established a level of credibility with its target audience. Shoe-horning a traditional communication tool like advertising into the growing medium of social media and expecting it to be an instant success is just a little bit ludicrous.

Brands that sponsor a sports team build an affinity with the fans who appreciate the investment that the brand is putting into their club to help them progress. Fans are unlikely to show loyalty to a brand that hangs on the coat tails of a team without giving anything back.

I for one cannot recall a single ad that has appeared on my Facebook page – if I’ve not signed up for it, I’m not interested. Sponsorship is proven to benefit brand recall and in many cases leads to a positive shift in brand preference.

Facebook is aiming to have a billion users by December 2010, but when you drill down into the specific audience that you want to speak too, the numbers may not be so impressive.

The thing with Facebook is that not everyone lists their hobbies and interests. Take me for example, I haven’t listed Formula One as a hobby on Facebook but my friends and colleagues know that I post updates or tweet about F1 every day, so you would not be targeting as many people as you could through sponsoring a team.

Associating officially with a club will not only give your brand visibility in-stadia, but also online via the club’s website, access to supporters clubs, advertising in event programmes and, depending on the sport or team, possible television exposure – and that’s before you throw in access to tangible assets such as players, club representatives, tickets or replica kit.

Any good sponsorship agency will find a deal that offers opportunities to meet the brand’s objectives and which doesn’t involve ‘paying a premium to the club’.

Facebook may appeal to those marketeers who don’t really understand social media but for those that do, social media offers so much more than just advertising. Engage with your target audience through competitions or promotions, give them access to exclusive content, ask their opinions and create a dialogue that enhances their experience rather than interrupts it.

Whilst writing, a saying sprang to mind which really sums this up for me, ‘if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys’. Concerned? I’m not.

By Nick Mott on March 26th, 2010

Tags: Default, Facebook, Social Media

1 comment

Today I find myself feeling especially Irish, buoyed by the news that one of my favourite books, Round Ireland with a Fridge, has been made into a feature film with the author Tony Hawks in the main starring role. This is especially excellent having developed a teenage crush on the main character when I first read the book: India, November 2006 (I was not a teenager then, just the crush was).

I won’t tell you what happens in the book – needless to say it involves a fridge and Ireland.

But I can say this. I recommend the book highly especially if you find yourself relaxing on some faraway beach as I was in Kerala way back when. If the book doesn’t make you laugh out loud at least once then take a deep look at yourself. And again. And try and locate a sense of fun.

What is less funny is that currently, the team who created the film, don’t know if it will ever be seen by a wide audience. Which would be no less than a tragedy.

Incase you’re not familiar with the art of movie distribution, here’s a very quick lesson – and special thanks to Jeff at HowStuffWorks for the inspiration behind this list:

1. Someone has an idea for a movie – writes outline, uses it to try & get interest in the idea.
2. A studio or independent investor decides to purchase rights to the film.
3. Screenwriter, producer, director, cast, crew come together – to help make the film.
4. The film is completed and sent to the studio.
5. The studio makes a licensing agreement with a distribution company.
6. The distribution company determines how many copies to make.
7. The distribution company shows the movie to prospective buyers representing the theaters.
8. The buyers negotiate on which movies they wish to lease.
9. The theater shows the movie for a specified number of weeks.
10. You & I buy a ticket and watch the movie. And eat popcorn loudly if you’re one of those annoying cinema go-ers (I am not). Infact, don’t get me started on anti-social foods that are sold in movie houses…

Simple. In theory at least.

Obviously a lot of people in the world have ideas for movies (step 1) but few of them make it all the way seamlessly from 1-10.  The film industry is ruthless.  Money, more often than not, outweighs the creative process. The studios won’t commit without the big Hollywood names attached, the names won’t sign until the money is secured. Funding makes the movie world go round. Not excellent.

So the Round Ireland with A Fridge team, it appears, find themselves stuck at step 5,6 & 7 with no official distribution yet in place. Steps 8,9 and 10 probably seem somewhere over the rainbow right now.

Hawks (not to be confused with Tony Hawk, the pro American skateboarder), ever the quirky comedian, has instead opted to turn his back against the traditional model and is taking the film-making road less travelled. Planning to go on the road with the fridge and visit film festivals (“to see which doors open”), he plans to generate buzz around the film until it has a life of its own. And with the potential force that can be harnessed today using social media, digital PR and internet campaigners – power to the people – everyone loves an underdog (think Rage Against the Machine making Christmas Number one back in December, the successful digital campaign to get Cadbury to bring back the previously extinct Wispa bar…), I am confident he will succeed.

Whatever the movie release strategy that is ultimately deployed this autumn, watch this space. It almost certainly won’t be with a mainstream distributor. And it’ll likely be quirky, entertaining and highly innovative.

Back to today, happy St Patrick’s Day.

I’m off to have a pint of Guinness. And in true Irish fridge fashion, perhaps a second – “one for the road” whilst (and if you’ve read the book, you’ll get the reference here) being careful to avoid, in Tony’s words, ”granting the road too much respect”…

By Stephanie Branston on March 17th, 2010

Tags: Alcohol, Digital marketing, Film, Guinness, Public relations, Social Media

1 comment

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

So the Sony Radio Academy Awards 2009 – or ‘the Oscars of the radio world’, as I’m sure anyone involved will customarily term them – are almost upon us (tonight, to be precise) and the various shortlists make pretty interesting reading.

Yes, you’ve got the obligatory nods to Moyles, Mayo, Mills and Feltz (okay, maybe Vanessa was slightly less obligatory), but of greater note are the nominees from less readily available radio sources. No doubt this has something to do with the evolving face of media consumption: more DAB radios, greater penetration of satellite TV, the proliferation of the podcast, and – oh yeah – that internet thingy; but you’ve got to consider the content of individual shows themselves. 

For example, Answer Me This! – a weekly podcast delivered by Helen Zaltzman and Olly Mann has been shortlisted in the Internet Programme category – making it the first independently-produced comedy podcast ever to have been nominated. And certainly the first to be broadcast from a living room in Crystal Palace.

Check it out here.

Another potential surprise is the four separate nods amassed by Electric Radio Brixton, a digital station launched a couple of years back with live performances from Mick Jones and Billy Bragg. What’s so impressive about that? It’s developed, produced and run by inmates of HMP Brixton. Insert your own “the jailhouse rocks” joke here.

Whilst clearly an arena for more niche music, editorial and entertainment programming, digital radio and podcasts arguably provide a forum for creativity and expression beyond the traditional 88.7-108Mhz FM spectrum.

It’s no massive surprise to me, therefore, that BBC 6 Music’s Adam and Joe have amassed four separate Sony nominations this year. If you don’t know of Adam and Joe, or haven’t encountered any of their previous TV or radio material, I can only urge you: get involved. The three hour show – and its commercial music-free, leaner, podcasted offspring – is a subculture gem. Cleverly disguised as two good mates chatting about films, music, telly and whatever else takes their fancy, the pair are relentlessly self-effacing, witty and eloquent, putting in a unparalleled amount of personal creativity into every weekly installment. 

This has clearly rubbed off on their audience. One of the most popular features, Song Wars, where the pair write and perform songs based on a given theme, spawned Video Wars, a listener challenge to create a video to accompany said tunes.

One rather dedicated listener made an astounding homage to Radiohead’s brilliant ‘No Surprises’ video, to incongruously accompany ‘Meatballs’, a poignant Joe-penned number based on the cooking instructions found on the Ikea delicacy (seriously). 

If you don’t know the original video, click here to see it.

And this is the Video Wars version (NB unless you don’t mind getting a few strange looks, you might want to hook up your headphones before starting the clip below…):

A frightening amount of effort.

Still, the overall winner went a step further, creating an entire stop-motion film for Adam’s song, ‘Jane’s Brain’ – a ludicrously accomplished effort, the output certainly justifying A&J’s nominations in Sony’s Best Competition and Listener Participation categories:

I heartily hope the boys manage to sweep the boards at the ceremony tonight; although I’m doubtful they’d argue with any of the lags on B-Wing should Electric Radio Brixton manage to steal their thunder…

By Jonathan Izzard on May 11th, 2009

Tags: Default, Media, Radio, Social Media, YouTube

1 comment

At Synergy, while we work exclusively on the brand and sponsor-side of the industry, we still frequently receive unsolicited requests for sponsorship from hopeful individuals looking for funding to achieve their goals. One such enthusiastic sponsor-seeking individual caught my eye last week, fielding a rather unusual campaign.

Last October world pole-vault silver medallist Romain Mesnil suffered a disappointing withdrawal of sponsorship from his backer, Nike. In an attempt to gain awareness for his sponsorship proposal, the Frenchman stripped off, and jogged through Paris with, er, pole in hand, and posted the final video on his personal website. In one afternoon, Mesnil had whipped up nearly 300,000 views.

Viral heaven. Within hours the video clip, hosted on YouTube, had gone global. Media outlets and news wires all over Europe could not get enough of the naked French athlete who was prepared to do whatever it took to make potential sponsors sit up and take note. Well, they certainly couldn’t doubt his genuine enthusiasm and dedication, nor his athletic prowess.

Mesnil followed up the stunt a couple of days later with a slightly less controversial approach by launching a ten-day attempt to get sponsors via the French version of the eBay online auction website. After the buzz that his naked jog created throughout the industry and the media, he told a French news conference that he planned to offer sponsorship deals of himself through the online auction site to the highest bidder. Those who click onto his website can place a bid to sponsor the athlete with any profits going to a brain tumour research group.

A rather novel approach to rights fee negotiation, but hats off to him for fully embracing Sponsorship 2.0 in order to achieve, well, ultimate exposure.

In recent weeks, Mesnil has also sported a black kit with a big white question mark where the sponsor’s logo would normally be. When asked about his whole campaign by the press, Mesnil’s response was remarkably astute:

‘In times of crisis, you have to come up with a novel approach.’

How particularly relevant to the current times, and how very, very true.

By Lucie Bartlett on April 6th, 2009

Tags: Athletics, Public relations, Social Media, Sponsorship, Viral Marketing, YouTube

No comments

Back in February, Evan Davis and the Today programme team challenged viral marketing agency Rubber Republic to make a viral campaign to test the concept of viral marketing. Inspired by a number of successful brand virals (including Cadbury’s Dancing Eyebrows advertisement that did the rounds not long ago), the Today programme is running an experiment to see if Rubber Republic can make Evan, Jon, Jim and the whole gang go viral.

The final result went live on YouTube today:

On its own merits, it’s a fun little clip and worth a watch – especially for regular listeners who are familiar with all the personalities involved. Having picked it up from Twitter this morning, I sent it straight around the office, and on to friends and family who I knew would appreciate it. So, I guess in that sense, it is a good viral.

However, measuring its success as a stand alone viral will be tricky. For starters, they announced that it had gone live on this morning’s programme, which makes it impossible to discern whether any subsequent YouTube views are a result of that broadcast, or of having been passed the link virally.

Evan Davis suggested that Today would herald the project a success once the clip found its way back to the Today show’s inbox – but when you broadcast this live on air, how can such communication truly be the result of viral marketing, and not just fans of the show wanting to be the first to send the link back to Today?

Which points to another difficulty in measuring the project’s success: how many people sent on the clip for its genuine viral qualities (funny, worth sharing etc.), and how many forwarded it simply to be part of the experiment or, for those in the marketing industry, to share with colleagues the latest example of viral marketing?

In other words, by overtly referencing the fact that their viral content is part of a viral marketing experiment, have Today and Rubber Republic rendered the viral quality of that content obsolete? Hence making it impossible to measure its effect?

But then again, does any of this actually matter? Surely the whole point of the exercise was to get Today talked about, and to potentially reach a new audience of more social-media-savvy (and therefore potentially younger) listeners by engaging with blogs, Twitter and YouTube to convey a slice of Today humour.

Ultimately, my main question would be: has this engaged anyone who didn’t previously listen to the show? Would anyone unfamiliar with Today’s personalities actually see the humour in the clip, or see any relevance to make it worthy of sending to their like-minded friends?

I’m not convinced.

By Lucie Bartlett on March 11th, 2009

Tags: Radio, Social Media, Viral Marketing, YouTube

1 comment

Amongst all the clamour extolling the numerous marketing values to Twitter, this morning I came across a sage example of when it can rather spectacularly backfire.

Last week’s UTalkMarketing.com newsletter displayed a lead story on the subject of Twitter: a Marketing Director’s guide to utilising the platform best, a list of do’s and dont’s for PR’s and the like. The whole article is definitely worth a read for those of you considering using the service for more than your own personal ramblings, but particularly worthy of note is the now classic ‘Watch your mouth’ anecdote teaching all Twitterers when they should know to keep quiet.

Ketchum, the US PR and marketing agency, keen to impress upon their client (FedEx) their expertise in all areas of social networking and digital media marketing, sent a young executive by the name of James Andrews to their HQ in Memphis for a meeting. Unfortunately, the said executive was rather too down with the kids, and sent out a tweet upon landing using his own personal moniker @keyinfluencer, decrying the desperately uninspiring state of his client’s home city, in his own tweet words:

True confession but I’m in one of those towns where I scratch my head and say ‘I would die if I had to live here’

Perhaps more savvy with social media than Mr. Andrews had anticipated, FedEx employees, already following Andrews on Twitter, promptly caught the offensive Tweet and emailed round the offending tweet internally (copying in the top executives in FedEx’s front office as well as the corporate comms department) – all before Andrews had even set foot through the door.

Safe to assume he received a less than warm reception upon arrival – in fact, the full response that FedEx immediately sent through as a Direct Message to Andrews is now available online. As well as a public FedEx statement on the incident. Check it all out here.

And so the term CLT (Career Limiting Tweet) was born.

By Lucie Bartlett on March 3rd, 2009

Tags: Blogging, Brand marketing, Public relations, Social Media

No comments