It’s not news that we’re all watching TV whilst surfing the net, tapping away on our smartphones and engaging others in discussion around our favourite programmes (just log on to Twitter during  X-Factor and Strictly!). What I’d like to applaud here is how broadcasters are taking this social engagement and building communities of loyal fans beyond the TV schedule.

Sunday night saw the last ever episode of the BBC’s thrilling MI5 drama Spooks. After nine years and 10 series it was time for the sliding doors of Section D to close for a final time. I knew I would probably be a little tearful and mourn that I’ll no longer swoon over the incredibly suave terrorist-fighting male cast, nor dream of emulating the leading ladies; however, what I absolutely loved was the show’s commitment to social engagement.

As an avid Tweeter, I was super-excited to find out during Series 9 that you could actually follow the characters on Twitter. The thing that they have got so right with these feeds is that they are active all year round (unlike @bbcLuther who only tweets when Luther is airing). Not only are they active but also attentive. They care about their followers and will take the time to respond to individual tweets.

First up, can you imagine my surprise (and delight) when @Dimitri_MI5 tweeted back to a message I sent about being excited about the final series starting…

I certainly *grinned* on receiving that back, but this was topped off by a response from the boss man himself @Harry_Pearce when I tweeted after the final episode…

I’ve honestly never felt more social media love than that and I’m sure anyone who has received a response or RT will be feeling the same way!

It’s great to see other dramas are taking a lead from Spooks, with ITV’s Downton Abbey creating profiles for all cast members – @LadyMaryCrawley is winning the followers race with over 1,700 at the time of writing. So when you’re watching on Sunday night, you know where I’ll be… wrapped up on the sofa with Blackberry in hand, tweeting away.

By Caroline Ayling on October 27th, 2011

Tags: Default, PR, Public relations, Social Media, Television, Television audiences, Twitter

No comments

Content forms an integral part of our work; understanding the factors regarding emotional and intellectual engagement with an audience are important in order to create meaningful experiences. The aim of this article is to trace the evolution of content creation and delivery in light of advances in technology and changes in social activities; hopefully giving some useful insight into options we have for our clients when planning campaigns.

“My biggest competitor today is someone with an idea”

Nabil Sakkab – Head of Research & Development, Procter & Gamble.

TV Content

In the days when the only mass media was broadcast and print, content producers had a one-way channel to engage their audience.

Typically, audiences respond best to content that carries authority (from factually trusted sources such as the Government) or authenticity (content that connects through personal or social relevance).

Successful TV has both authority and authenticity and the really successful ones are memorable – generally through well-executed, great ideas that appeal to the emotions (through shock or comedy).

A good example is Keira Knightley’s Women’s Aid commercial:

The production values are high, the storyline is strong and the effect of the film is to shock; but if we do not remember the website listed at the end, once the ad finishes we are left shocked but no longer engaged.

Internet content

With the arrival of YouTube came Manic Dog, Mystic Cat and endless wedding carnage videos. However, once TV producers started to talk with web developers (with the aid of a translation service) the result was a subtle shift in the style and format of programmes.

Interactive software has enabled content producers to give audiences a different experience; multi-layered options in story, format and delivery that no longer depend on high production values but instead rely on engagement through information and choices.

The Government anti-knife crime video campaign, ‘Choose a Different Ending’, is a good example of informed choice given to an audience:

Due to the interactive nature of the viral video, the user/target audience is forced to think about knife crime and the choices they are being asked to make. Each decision is then brought to life in the video, offering an insight into the consequences of carrying a knife. This is a good example of a campaign initiative that can only work online, as it relies on audience interaction.

The video engages the target audience in several ways:

- It is shot from an individual perspective i.e. the player sees the world through the eyes of one person

- It is shot on a council estate and then in the surrounding areas (park, nearby roads), so that the location is a familiar one to the target audience

- The cast is formed of the target audience, ensuring that the language and dress code would also be recognised by this audience

- The video was created with the aid of the target audience which helps with authenticity

Paid, owned and earned

For a while we settled into the comfort of three areas where content would be delivered and debated:

• Paid: TV commercials
• Earned: Comments on a YouTube video
• Owned: A company’s website

 

Of these three areas, earned has proven to be the most valuable as it carries authenticity through endorsement from peers.

Once hit counts and comments turned into real currency, producers soon realised that success with the audience required more than simply being in the same space, even if the content was clever or well-produced. It became clear that the appropriate tone, language and social context were essential for success.

Take the Government swine-flu film, 2009:

This was a TV ad that was also delivered and promoted online, receiving a whopping 380 hits on YouTube. The ‘Catch it Bin it Kill it’ message was generally dismissed as something for other people (perhaps the penalty for wearing bad jumpers in lifts).

The Government then commissioned a viral video to deliberately spoof the official one, involving actors from the target demographic and contemporary music. The result is much more fun.

Same message; different style (smaller budget); 1 million hits on YouTube. Enough said.

How we consume media

Almost more important to ‘where’ people are watching their videos is ‘how’ people are watching them.  This has an effect on the creative and production process.

Viewing habits can be grouped into three main types of activity:

- Snippets (spontaneous media activity)

- Boutique (speciality media searches)

- Catch-up (fitting TV schedules around our own lives)

A recent survey of 1,300 mobile Internet users below the age of 25, showed that most use a mobile device to talk to friends about the show they are watching, a trend known as ‘Social TV’.

Social media

Social media has altered the definitions of paid, earned and owned media or at least has blurred the lines between them. Now, the challenge that agencies face is figuring out how to integrate all three forms of media for maximum effect.

After all, social content, by definition, can lack authority but it has authenticity because it establishes relevance and context with our friends and our surroundings.

Let’s have a diagram.

Sponsorship events

We know there are Fans (consumers) who have Passions (Sport, Music, Art). Sponsored activities provide the magical third piece of the puzzle – the Location. This is not just the location of the event, but, thanks to mobile phones, the location of fans too. And this is powerful intelligence regarding media capture and distribution options.

Radiohead’s concert video shot in Prague in 2009 by 50 fans on Flip cameras makes you feel like you are standing amongst the crowd:

It appeals to fans because it was made by fans, contains fans and gives the fans that couldn’t go the feeling that they were there.

And the effects go beyond the concert. The video was endorsed and published by the band; further projects have been planned by the fans that in turn become a part of the history of the band, strengthening the relationship between all concerned.

The Social challenge – the media ecosystem

The goal is to connect the dots and integrate all media for maximum results.

It is not just about producing content for an event or campaign but to inspire the target audience to contribute, to collaborate and comment beyond the life of the event.

The media can take on a life of its own, especially if there are core community and social values – a mini ecosystem that can run beyond the campaign.

Mobile

Mobile is ever-increasingly becoming the medium of choice, particularly for image capture and Geo-positioning. According to Comscore, in the next 12 months:

‘We predict more than half of all mobile consumers will have access to mobile media, largely driven by growing adoption of smartphones. Identifying the synergies that exist between all consumer touch points – traditional PC internet, mobile media (via app and browser), tablets, etc. – and understanding how consumers use these devices to fulfil different needs and convenience levels will be of critical importance to marketers.’

How does all this affect production for Synergy Clients?

Social / mobile media is very powerful but it often requires a paid spark.

Synergy already produces world-class output and my goal is to bring broadcast, online and social production and planning experience into close proximity with the Synergy team and clients hopefully resulting in:

- Real-time intelligence on media options available

- Advice on production and delivery techniques, and suppliers to maximize creative impact

- Guidance on delivery options, channels, asset management (now and future) and measurability. If they are managed, assets can be re-purposed, like this COI text driving radio ad that was repurposed (very cost-effectively) as a viral video simply by adding graphics

Here is fifteen years of TV and web production distilled into my simple media AIM chart:

In Summary

- Content has developed from a one-way communication to an interactive conversation endorsed and measured through social reference

- The balance  of emotional, intellectual and social engagement should be carefully planned depending on the target audience and mediums available

- Technology and innovation drive the reach of our work but synergy between content producers and audiences fuels its impact

By Colin Burgess on October 13th, 2011

Tags: Advertising, Alcohol, Branded content, Celebrity, community, Content, Default, Digital marketing, Facebook, Media, Sponsorship, Synergy, Synopsis, Television, Viral Marketing, YouTube

No comments

What happened?

Online fashion retailer ASOS has continued its pioneering digital approach by utilising urban culture to promote its new 2011 Autumn/Winter menswear collection.

Through a new online experience, the ASOS Urban Tour uses an interactive platform to showcase its latest range, by zooming in on a variety of street performers including skaters, dancers and musicians, in five of the most stylish cities across the globe: London, Paris, Berlin, Los Angeles and New York.

Through an interactive scrolling map, similar to Google Earth, the application starts with a bird’s eye view of the globe and then zooms into the streets within your chosen city. The real funs starts when you click on any of the dancers, skaters or musicians who then start to perform. The interactive videos offer links for each of the performers and enable the user to see what they are wearing and how to purchase it.

Why we love it

Marketing something as personal and tactile as clothes in a two-dimensional online environment will always be a challenge. But ASOS continue to develop and push the boundaries, using engaging and innovative methods to showcase its clothing ‘in action’. This cutting-edge campaign, which combines lifestyle aspirations and fashion, represents a natural progression from the successfully executed online catwalk concept.

Research undertaken indicates that male consumers being targeted by ASOS are influenced in their fashion choices by what they see being worn on the streets, and therefore partnering with inspirational urban talent offers a fresh and relevant approach for the online retailer.

Urban Tour has been supported with extensive social media presence via the official ASOS Facebook page which currently boasts over one million ‘likes’. Inter-city rivalry has been utilised to spark conversation via an online poll, simply asking fans which city is their favourite – London currently sits at the top with 1,381 of the 2,895 votes. Fashion bloggers globally have been going crazy for this ‘mind blowing’ digital offering, describing it as an “entirely fresh and truly incredible experience.” So for those of you fashion-conscious men not making it to any London Fashion Week shows, I suggest you get your fix of urban style here!

By Emily Waring on October 13th, 2011

Tags: Advertising, Branded content, community, Default, Facebook, Fashion, Social Media, Sponsorship, Sport, Synergy, Synergy Loves, Synopsis, Television, The Arts, Viral Marketing

No comments

Now I enjoy pleasant scenery and lush green surroundings as much as the next guy, but you’d be unlikely to find me seeking out the latest news concerning the upcoming Chelsea Flower Show.  Kudos, then, goes to Hillier Nurseries, who captured my attention with some fantastic imagery of their 35ft silver birch tree, en-route to the annual horticultural festival.

The £4.5k valued birch tree is the largest to ever be hosted at the CFS, and was featured in today’s editions of The Independent and Daily Telegraph making the journey from its Hampshire home.

With this week coming on the back of a momentous weekend of truly historic news stories, PRs all over the land will have been groaning under the pressure to get coverage for their own important product launch.  Congratulations to the guys in the Nickelodeon press office, who kept it simple and landed a full page of coverage in the Daily Star and online with ITN for the launch of Nickelodeon Land at Blackpool Pleasure Beach.

There’s nothing to wow the creative or strategic mind here, but sometimes some good old fashioned fun PR works a treat, and the unlikely combination of David Hasselhoff and Spongebob SquarePants proved a big hit.  With “The Hoff” donning a red jacket to reprise his lifeguard role from 1980’s smash hit Baywatch on the new log flume ride, the photos ensured the park is set to cause a splash this summer.

However with the media agenda still dominated by the fallout of royal weddings and US military operations, only one PR story came close to grabbing the same column inches.  It may be about to begin a seventh season, but BBC’s The Apprentice still has what it takes to grab big headlines. This time the format of the show has been tweaked slightly, with the winning contestant receiving £250k to put towards the start-up of their very own business.

Almost every national carried a full feature on the launch, including interviews with Lord Sugar, quotes from pumped up contestants, and opinion from columnists on the next 12 months ahead.  A high profile launch would expect to deliver standout national coverage, but The Apprentice skilfully distributed it’s assets to ensure compelling cut through in nearly every outlet a week from transmission.  You’re hired.

By Donald Parish on May 6th, 2011

Tags: Gardening, Media, PR, Public relations, Synergy Papers, Television

No comments

During a 5-hour traffic delay on the way to the Ryder Cup, two Synergists entered into a debate about the greatest Sports Marketing Innovation of the last 50 years. What started in the back of the car, turned into our own private mission to find the answer. We invited suggestions from the public, debated the merits of each suggestion, invited guest bloggers to put their case forward and finally put the resulting short-list to a vote. And according to you, the biggest Sports Marketing Innovation of all time was Nike’s deal with Michael Jordan.

The deal went beyond mere endorsement and created a product line purely around the player, whilst defining the relationship between corporate organisations and sports stars. According to Charlie Brooks, the communications director of Nike “…It has helped define the way the Nike brand, and the industry overall, has behaved ever since in terms of sports marketing and creating athlete signature products…”

It’s staggering, if the stories are to be believed, that Jordan originally didn’t even want to meet with Nike execs to cut a deal. The company’s association with MJ created a brand in Air Jordan that generated some of the most memorable advertising creative in recent years, with ‘Wings’ still one of the most popular posters ever printed. Almost a decade since he last played, the Jordan brand has grossed over $1 billion in sales, representing around 5% of Nike’s total revenue, with the “Jumpman” adorning the shoes of kids for whom Jordan has only ever been a YouTube myth. Wouldn’t you want to be a part of that?

So, there is no doubt that we found a worthy winner…but at Synergy, that just triggered the next question. What next for superstar endorsements? Is this still a winning sponsorship strategy?

From the earliest days of advertising, the stars of the day have been employed to strengthen the promise of a brand. Whether it’s the testimonial of actress Lillie Langtry for Pears Soap, or that of US President William McKinley for his Waterman pen – both before the turn of the 20th century – we’re not talking about a new art, just one that has evolved over time.

That said, apparently, using a celebrity doesn’t guarantee success. According to research carried out by US-based firm Ace Metrix, in 2010 almost 15% of advertising in the US involved celebrities, at an estimated cost of $50 billion. And of that number, nearly 20% of commercials indexed negatively versus the advertising norm. With four out of the top five culprits from the world of sport, several UK publications suggested this as sounding the death-knell of deals for major sporting names like David Beckham.

Of course, this is partly explained by the fact that two sporting superstars for whom 2010 had hardly been a year to remember, featured heavily in this list: Lance Armstrong was accused by his former team-mate Floyd Landis of taking performance-enhancing drugs, whereas Tiger Woods, well, you don’t need me to tell you about his 2010. What this demonstrates is the height from which an icon has to fall, even if, in the case of Armstrong, the pedestal is still structurally intact.

The fact is that consumers are now a savvier bunch and it is easy to pick out where a celebrity is simply a hired hand lending stardust to a brand.

Looking at the advertising that best resonated with US consumers last year, we can see that celebrities need to bring an authenticity that is impossible to manufacture. Oprah Winfrey’s traffic safety campaign represented three out of the top four strongest performing creatives. A very ‘Oprah’ endorsement. George Clooney, another celebrity with integrity, unquestionably plays his own smooth self in Nescafe’s commercials, although it’s definitely more than just an address to camera. Turning this on its head, Kevin Bacon’s commercial for Logitech (where he brilliantly plays a Kevin Bacon-obsessed superfan) is in no way a Bacon endorsement of their specific product, but a means of connecting the brand with humour and charm often missing from the category.

This is where sponsorship begins to play a greater role for companies looking to connect with a consumer, a market or a movement. It’s about a brand in alignment with an individual. What develops is a symbiotic relationship where brands have as much to gain as they have to lose…arguably more.

Nike, of course, has since repeated the trick with Tiger Woods. Why didn’t Nike cut Tiger loose last year? Well, whilst his behaviour disappointed fans and sponsors alike, there’s no denying that he represented a longer game to the sporting giant. And his relationship with Nike is deep and authentic. Prior to Woods’ endorsement of Nike’s golf range in 2000, Nike owned approximately 1% of the global golf market. Following Woods’ signing, Nike Golf acquired approximately 4.5 million customers and in 2008 posted revenues of $648 million – a direct result of the Tiger who came to tee. Estimates suggest that even the 100,000 or so consumers that left the brand in the wake of his extensive indiscretions never actually defected to a competitor, impacting instead a net loss on the golf industry as a whole.

So, authenticity is key. In an attempt to find it, a new avenue has been explored by brands over the past couple of years: offering the celebrity more than just cold hard cash, but a job.

Arguably the most successful proponent of this is adidas with their appointment of designer Stella McCartney as its creative director in advance of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. An appropriate relationship that, suitably leveraged, will provide adidas ample reward in 2012, but, critically, one based on her skillset and day job. Need to demonstrate an ability to actively shape their employer’s brand and bottom line, whilst still connecting with the target consumers. Jamie Oliver and Sainsbury’s, Kate Moss and Topshop, Dr Dre and Monster headphones – all examples of motivated individuals working to deliver tangible value back to their paymasters.

In a slightly more worrying turn of events, the role (or rather title) of creative director provides an opportunity for companies to steal genius (or perhaps more realistically, borrow talent) from a heavily focus-grouped ‘next best thing’.

Intel has shown the world that it likes (black eyed) peas with its chips, having signed up the ubiquitous Will.i.am as their own ‘director of creative innovation’, where he plans to work with scientists and researchers to “collaborate and co-develop new ways to communicate, create, inform and entertain”. Well, if it keeps him out of the recording studio, I’m all for it.

Mr i.am’s work placement comes hot on the heels of icône du jour Lady Gaga, who in 2010 announced she had bagged a role at Polaroid as the brand’s creative director. Here she was “fairly involved” in merging the company’s two mainstays, cameras and sunglasses into (wait for it) a pair of camera sunglasses. One might suggest Ms Gaga was chosen by Polaroid as a 1980s throwback with the ability to deliver an instant reaction, but there’s a definite risk that they have instead simply secured a cheap imitation that fades after prolonged exposure.

It is clear that giving a celebrity a job is no guarantee of authenticity. In a world permeated by the insidious creep of celebrity wannabes and casually eroded by salacious A-Z list gossip, ambivalence is a perfectly understandable reaction from consumers to all-star overkill. Similarly, people believe in sports stars – they are heroes to fans young and old, and as such have a duty of responsibility that for many is beyond their reach.

Celebrity endorsement can still be a winning strategy. But the rules are very clear: without authenticity a brand will simply shed its celebrity skin.

By Jonathan Izzard on March 17th, 2011

Tags: Advertising, Brand marketing, Default, Golf, Music, Olympics, Sponsorship, Sport, Synopsis, Team GB, Television, What's the Greatest Sports Marketing Innovation?

No comments

For a long time, UK viewers of American TV have been familiar with the concept of product placement. From the ‘background’ props (Sunkist in One Tree Hill, Dr. Pepper in 90210) to the blatant story-line-focused brands (ipad in Modern Family, Verizon in 30 Rock), brand power has fuelled U.S. small-screen entertainment.

No longer is this solely a preserve of our American cousins.

Following OfCom’s relaxation of product placement laws in the UK, brands now stand much more chance of gaining screen-time. Not just sponsoring TV shows (Toyota Aygo‘s long-standing support of T4, Aviva‘s sponsorship of ITV Drama Premieres), but actually intergrating themselves within the programming. But as of yesterday, it has become clear that Ofcom are concerned we are under no illusions that the product appeares their naturally.

As reported by Brand Republic yesterday morning, Ofcom released the Product Placement ‘P’ (above) that will be the mandatory requirement of broadcasters and producers wishing to include branded presence within their creative output. P is for product, is for placement, is for paid-for. This simple logo will need to:

·    Appear for three seconds at the start and end of programmes, and after any ad breaks;
·    Be placed in one of the four corners of the screen;
·    Not conflict with programme idents (e.g. Aviva’s ITV Drama sponsorship break bumpers);
·    Meet minimum size requirements, which according to an Ofcom spokesman means it will be “roughly equivalent to the size of a channel logo“.

The impact of this is difficult to measure until we start seeing it on our screens because the actual execution and the measures taken to enforce it are equally difficult to predict and visualise.

In theory, at least it seems a fairly inocuous concept. A small logo in the corner of the screen is no different from the majority of TV channels currently on air. But the interesting question is on brand engagement – do we take the brand’s inclusion in the narrative as less legitimate because we are made aware of the big ‘P’? Or is our attention actually drawn more to its presence because we are warned?

Taking the One Tree Hill example, would a P placed at the start and end of every episode suffice? Or the start and end of every relevant scene? Which of the 58 (!) verbal mentions of Sunkist throught Season 3 would require tagging? Would Sunkist’s brand impact be greater or would we be more skeptical because we had been alerted to the fact that (shock) its inclusion was ‘placed’ (by the producers) and not the ‘genuine’ choice of the characters (which, being fictional, was also the choice of the, err, producers)?

And how far will this start intruding into the realms of editorial integrity? The traditionalists amongst us might like to see advertising restricted to, well, advertising. Aviva’s (admittedly, very entertaining) break bumpers around ITV Drama actually work very well – but at what point will we see the owners of the Marchlands house claiming on their Aviva home insurance after a bathroom flood? P or no P, clunky brand inclusions run a very real risk of alienating audiences and compromising enjoyment of the programme.

I would propose that this promise of transparency and visual warning of product placement won’t make much difference to the impact of the brand’s presence. If anything, it might draw attention to the fact that we are about to be advertised at – but then who really watches TV these days expecting anything else? Will we think less of Eastenders because the drink on the Cafe table is Coca-Cola, or the pint being pulled is GUINNESS? We live in a branded world where we expect to see brand messages in our daily lives, so surely we would expect our alter-egos on screen to do so also – where both credible and relevant.

If Ofcom feels the need to make doubly sure we know that the brand has paid for that presence, then so be it, but the modern TV viewer is a savvy animal. Chances are, we already knew anyway.

By Lucie Bartlett on February 15th, 2011

Tags: Advertising, Brand marketing, Broadcast sponsorship, Communications, ITV, Product placement, Sponsorship, Television

No comments

The NFL’s Super Bowl is prime material for us marketing folks. Granted, a number of us love the actual football being played on the field, but a huge majority are even more excited by the entertainment during the time outs. And I’m not talking pom poms and dancing girls (fans of the cheerleaders though we are at Synergy…).

In advertising terms, Super Bowl is prime real estate. The most expensive ad spots in the world offer brands the chance to reach 111 million U.S. viewers – this year all watching on FOX – with the price tag reaching up to $100,000 per second. Yes, that’s right, per second. Between $2.5 and $3 million for a 30 second ad spot. Phew.

This is a sporting event that so embraces its sponsors and advertisers that a whole section of the NFL website is dedicated to showcasing that ads that run throughout the programming. So ingrained is the element of entertainment to the action on the field.

Expectedly brands go all out in preparation for this miniature slice of branded entertainment. So much so, that this year, we saw adverts advertising adverts. For real. Non US-based fans were obviously bereft of this fervent marketing build-up, but trusty BrandChannel was on hand to give us regular updates of the preview ‘teaser’ ads (and then later the actual adverts) as they became available on screen and online.

These teasers ran across Network TV (presumably not just FOX) in the build up to last weekend’s clash at the Cowboys Stadium, building anticipation for the actual 30 second spot that would run in one of the many time outs during the game.

The most effective of these thas to be the Bridgestone ‘Reply All’ and ‘Carma’ spots, both of which I just loved:

Bridgestone, official tire sponsor of the NFL, carried its Super Bowl website URL at the end of each spot where viewers can catch the full versions of the final ads – should they not have tuned in to the big game.

2011 was certainly the year of the car, with Chevy, Audi, VW and BMW all taking a spot. Quite a cluttered marketplace. On entertainment value alone, VW’s mini Darth Vader seem to deliver the most buzz online with Contagious Magazine reporting how, three days before the big game, the video went from 100,000 views to over 1,000,000 in the first couple hours – hitting 5.3 million after the first day. But did the cute factor do more to shift children’s Darth Vader costumes than actual cars?

The spot that seemed to attract the biggest UK media commentary, was the U.S. XFactor trails. Given the UK love affair with Cowell and Cole, it is possibly not surprising. Cowell took centre stage in the dramatic 30 second spot – which again was touted as having close to a $3m price tag.

No Super Bowl would be complete without a beer or two, and Bud Light probably took the crown for the most entertaining execution – seeing a bunch of bored office workers go to extreme lengths to get their hands on a six pack (the office setting seems a popular choice for football marketing, given Reebok’s brilliant Terry Tate/Office Linebacker campaign from several years back).

And then there was Glee. The hit US TV show bagged the much-coveted post-Super Bowl TV slot on FOX, evidence (if it were needed) of its immense popularity and cult following. Interwoven into this year’s Glee Super Bowl extravaganza was Chevrolet. The uber-American car brand – one of GM‘s stable, themselves an official NFL sponsor – have actually bagged themselves a deal with Glee, in addition to their NFL partnership.

This all beautifully dove-tailed on Super Bowl night, with a Glee/Chevy ad spot – at once a trailer for the show and the car – and positioning both as integral to the entertainment of Super Bowl night. Branded content meets sponsorship meets advertising. All in one glorious explosive, all-singing, all-dancing package:

These provide just a snapshot of the 50 adverts that aired last Sunday. So perhaps it is no wonder that you hear of some U.S. viewers nipping out of the room to the bathroom, or to the bar for beers during plays in order not to miss the adverts. The NFL Super Bowl is a world where the advertising becomes central to the evening’s entertainment and fuels the pre-game build up – especially amongst a wider fan base – more than any sporting preview analysis can.

There may be talk of the death of advertising, but on this particular playing field, an audience of 111 million is pretty difficult to argue with.

By Lucie Bartlett on February 9th, 2011

Tags: Advertising, Alcohol, American football, Branded content, Broadcast sponsorship, Cheryl Cole, NFL, Television, Television audiences

No comments

Who better than Patrick Nally, for many the originator of modern sports sponsorship, to offer the latest contribution to our ‘What’s the Greatest Sports Marketing Innovation?’ debate? Earlier this week Patrick threw his hat into the ring, not only offering us insight into his role in the inception of the industry, but also to give us his own nominations for the top spot.

In a wide-ranging interview, Patrick talked about his formative years working with Horst Dassler to create the first FIFA World Cup global sponsorship packages which became the template for the IOC, IAAF, F1 and most sports marketing deals today.

You can watch the full interview on our YouTube channel here, or below. 

So where do you stand? What do you think is the greatest sports marketing innovation of the modern era? Let us know your thought in the comments box below, or in the original blog, before the big vote starts later this month.

By Lucie Bartlett on December 2nd, 2010

Tags: Football Sponsorship, Formula 1, London 2012 sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship, Olympics, Ryder Cup, Sponsorship, Synergy, Television, What's the Greatest Sports Marketing Innovation?, World Cup

No comments

Mihir Bose needs little introduction as an award-winning journalist, author and broadcaster. From 2006- 2009 he was the BBC’s first Sports Editor; prior to that he was Chief Sports News Correspondent for the Daily Telegraph. He has written 22 books, including an award winning history of Indian cricket and the first history of Bollywood, and presented numerous programmes for radio and TV. Currently, he contributes a weekly ‘Big Sports Interview’ to the London Evening Standard and is working on a book on the power of modern sport.  

So, we were delighted when Mihir agreed to give us his take on our on going ‘What’s the Greatest Sports Marketing Innovation?’ debate. Who or what did he think were the big game changers? Had we missed anything crucial off our list?

Synergy: So, Mihir, having looked at our initial list, what do you think is the greatest sports marketing innovation of the modern era?

Mihir Bose: Well, it’s a very impressive list, starting with 1960 when Arnold Palmer and Mark McCormack shook hands. Is that the greatest? That’s a bit hard to say. It’s an innovator, but the first is not necessarily the best.

Certainly, the Horst Dassler and Patrick Nally one, of creating a sponsor (for a shoe really, in effect) and a world event. As a result of that, and the effect it’s had on football, is very impressive. Also, I would say very, very impressive is the Nike creation of the shoe for Michael Jordan. And that is impressive on two counts: firstly creating a shoe for a sportsman, but also for the first time in America, making a black player an iconic television star, which hadn’t been done. It sort of broke through – if you like, it’s the Barack Obama moment of sport – it broke through that barrier there.

Synergy: Do you think we’ve missed any that deserve a place on the final shortlist?

MB: The only one that’s missed out on this list, I would say, is the Indian Premier League, which started in 2008. I think that took cricket – domestic cricket – to a different height. Domestic cricket nowhere in the world pays money, it’s international cricket that brings in the money, and I think the Indian Premier League, combining Bollywood with money, large dollops of cash, is an innovator.

Synergy: Conversely, and possibly controversially, do you think we have included any which don’t deserve to be there?

MB: I would say that the ECB one, of introducing Twenty20. The ECB did introduce Twenty20 but it actually didn’t make the most of the marketing; it allowed the Indians to make the most of it. Maybe partly it reflected the English market and so on… but that’s the one I would say I wouldn’t bring in.

And also perhaps 1981, the boxing match, where sports viewing of that kind was born. I’m not sure that pay-per-view works – it works in America, but it doesn’t work [in the same way] around the world. It’s an important concept, but if you’re talking of the ten best events, or right at the top, I would say that has had a limited appeal.

Synergy: So, returning to our main question, what game-changer has had the biggest effect on the industry to date?

MB: The biggest? That is always very difficult to say. But probably television. I think this list shows that there has been, since the 70s certainly (round about ’78 or ’79 – Ecclestone came in ’79) an incremental awareness, and a steady increase of the awareness of what television can do.

Sports and sponsorship is not a new entity – ever since sport started there has been some sort of sponsorship – but television has added a completely new dimension, and the use of television to increase revenues and highlight sportsmen and women; I think that has been the big factor.

And I suppose if one looks at it, perhaps in some ways the biggest moment, was not merely the creation of the The Olympic Partner (TOP) sponsorship program – but the marriage of television and money that enabled the production of the 1984 Los Angeles Games, following the boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics when the Olympic Games looked like it was going to collapse. The Olympics, the ultimate amateur thing (where you play not for money, you can’t advertise on kit, winners don’t receive money, just medals) was transformed: perhaps that marks the single moment when world sport realised the importance of marketing and the importance of sport.

Synergy: So can we conclude that TOP program would be your choice for the greatest modern sports marketing innovation?

MB: I’d say yes. That is the ultimate one, where you retain the outer crust of the amateur ethos (the athletes stay in an Olympic village, they don’t earn any money, there’s no advertising in the stadium) and yet it brings in a lot of money.

And the IOC, the way it’s run, the sort of ambush marketing it has, and that sort of thing, it’s run like a corporation – in fact, it’s run like a McDonald’s franchise. It comes to London and it has told London what exactly the London bid committee can or cannot do. It showcases the ultimate marriage of man and sport; the idea that sport is for everyone, anyone can pick up a running shoe and just run and win the 100m. That’s not quite the case, but that simplicity of sport that makes it so appealing, combined with the fact that if you win the 100m, you could become a very, very rich man – or a rich woman if you win the women’s race! - that concept I think makes it the single most important sports marketing moment.

With thanks to Mihir Bose. www.mihirbose.com. http://twitter.com/mihirbose.

By Lucie Bartlett on December 2nd, 2010

Tags: Ambush campaign, BBC, Cricket, ECB, India, Indian Premier League, London 2012 sponsorship consultants, New Product Development, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Olympics, Sponsorship, Sponsorship consultants, Synergy, Television, What's the Greatest Sports Marketing Innovation?, World Cup

No comments

Those of you who’ve been following our ‘What’s The Greatest Sports Modern Marketing Innovation?’ debate will know that we’ve had an array of thought-provoking comments, including numerous suggestions for innovations that didn’t feature in our initial shortlist. And although it doesn’t make the cut in our debate because it falls outside the post-1960 rule, one of my favourites was from Jeremy Edwards of Xtreme Information on the world’s first-ever TV ad – which aired during NBC’s broadcast of a Brooklyn Dodgers v Philadelphia Phillies baseball game in 1941.

Jeremy commented:

‘Superimposed over a test pattern, the creative displayed a Bulova watch over a map of the US with a voice-over that simply said – “America runs on Bulova time!” Depending on who you believe, it either cost Bulova $4 or a whopping $9. Did this precursor open the gates to the whole sports sponsorship industry?”

Here’s the ad itself - short, shaky and sadly voice-over free:

I wonder how the audience reacted and what the ad did for Bulova’s sales? In case you’re interested, Bulova is still around today: founded in 1875, then as now it’s based in Queen’s, and was acquired by Citizen in 2008.

Personally, I wouldn’t say the ad opened the gates to modern sports sponsorship: TV advertising, absolutely. But from now on, whenever I see the ads in a break during a live sports broadcast – or indeed any live event – I’ll always think of Bulova.

By Tim Crow on November 26th, 2010

Tags: Advertising, Default, Media, New Product Development, Television, What's the Greatest Sports Marketing Innovation?

No comments