Seemingly building a reputation within brainstorms for throwing out the term ‘Augmented Reality’ (AR) without much back up, I started to question if I fully understood the capabilities of this increasingly fashionable term.

Defined by Wikipedia as ‘a live direct or indirect view of a physical real-world environment whose elements are augmented by virtual computer-generated imagery’ I realised I was not really any the wiser.

Having experienced examples using a ‘magic symbol’ where one can hold up a piece of card in front of a webcam and before you know it, a space rocket is taking off in the palm of your hand;  JLS appear with an exclusive performance; or even a fashion show of models appear on the table before your very eyes (all on-screen, yet seemingly in front of you).

All a bit of fun plus added wow factor (as long as you have a webcam), however as I researched further, I found some interesting ways AR is increasingly becoming part of brand activity.

Hugo Boss livened up their Christmas window displays with a sales promotion through an interactive game to drive people in store.

Fashionista use AR to allow customers to ‘virtually try on clothes’.

A really fun example is by Yahoo, which was simple and engaging, and was installed during the Winter Olympics in Vancouver.  Through motion detection, passersby appeared on screen to be dressed in various accessories from hats and scarves, to sunglasses or rain hats.

AR is clearly developing fast. As a late adopter in many forms of technology I don’t own an iPhone – yet – however am curious around the AR capabilities it offers.  iPhone users can download various applications that use the phone’s camera and GPS capabilities to gather information about the surrounding area. Then information about pretty much anything programmed such as restaurants or bars, overlay on the phone’s screen. In the Netherlands you can even point the phone at a building, and the Layar application will tell you if any companies in that building are hiring, or it might be able to find photos of the building on Flickr or to locate its history on Wikipedia.

It is thought that soon we will be walking or driving down the street with augmented reality displays, which will be viewed through what, looks much like a normal pair of glasses, with informative graphics appearing in our field of view, and audio will coincide with whatever we see. These enhancements will be refreshed continually to reflect the movements of your head.

I continue to be intrigued by the merging of the physical and virtual world, and look forward to seeing how far this can go…and to buying myself an iPhone!

By Samantha Pillage on August 9th, 2010

Tags: Brand marketing, Branded content, Communications, Experiential marketing, Olympics, Vancouver 2010, YouTube

2 comments

I wasn’t surprised by Wednesday’s announcement of Procter & Gamble’s TOP sponsorship agreement with the IOC. If you read my August 2009 blog on P&G’s sponsorship deal with the NFL, and subsequently followed P&G’s wonderful ‘Proud Sponsor of Moms’ activation of its USOC partnership across Vancouver 2010, you probably weren’t surprised either. It was an inevitable next step in the colonisation of a new(ish) piece of Olympic white space by P&G – using sport to market to women.

P&G’s strategy is as simple as it is brilliant.

1. Large numbers of women watch sports, but because sports marketing is so male-oriented, no one is talking to them: P&G decided to own that white space.

2. There are certain sports, and certain events, which very large numbers of women watch and enjoy. In the US, the NFL is the most popular; globally, it’s the Olympics.  P&G decided to own those events for its brands.

If you’re not familiar with how P&G activated its USOC deal around the Vancouver Olympics, celebrating the unsung role played by Mom, it’s worth your time. Here are a couple of sports from the campaign, created by W+K in Portland.

Evidently, the campaign paid off big time for P&G, apparently generating $100m in incremental sales. As the company’s North American VP Kirk Perry said on Wednesday at the launch of the IOC partnership.

“We had a terrific run in Vancouver, and realized the potential on a global basis. It became obvious the next step wasd to expand to other markets around the world.’

It will be fascinating to see how P&G’s move into this white space impacts on the Olympics, and maybe on sports marketing as a whole.

How will other Olympic sponsors react now that they know what P&G’s thematic territory will be around London 2012?

How will P&G’s competitors react – will we, for example, see them move into ambush sponsorships with Olympic sports?

Will other traditionally male-oriented rights owners attempt to get in on the action and create new female-oriented sponsorship platforms?

Will male-oriented sports sponsors re-engineer their marketing to appeal more to women? On which subject, take a look at this fascinating piece by Janie Curtis from Forbes.

And finally, I wonder how former IOC TOP partner Johnson & Johnson is feeling about P&G colonising the Olympic white space they pioneered with their ‘Thanks Mom’ campaign around Beijing 2008?

By Tim Crow on July 30th, 2010

Tags: Default, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship, Olympics, Vancouver 2010

4 comments

One of the many things I love about social media is the way it enables us to re-imagine how we use old media. This year I’ve seen Nike do this brilliantly twice – first in Vancouver during the Olympics, and now in Johannesburg for the World Cup – using the same technique of integrating social media with giant outdoor spectacular ads to create ’socialised spectaculars’.

In Vancouver, as part of its ‘Force Fate’ campaign, Nike leveraged Canadian hockey fervour and its sponsorship of the Canadian hockey team, by inviting fans through Facebook to create their own inspirational ads featuring their favourite player , and then running giant projections of them onto the Sears Building on Robson Street in downtown Vancouver throughout the Olympics. Here are a couple of pictures I took of the executions.

They became a must-show for Canadian TV and a must-see, must-photograph and a  must-share for fans – Nike took pictures of the projections and sent them to the people who created them so that they could share with their friends.  Does it get any more social than that?

Four months later and 10,000 miles away in Johannesburg, Nike has repeated the trick at the World Cup as part of their ‘Write The Future’ campaign, but made it bigger in every way.

‘Write The Headline’ has global appeal by featuring Nike’s stable of football icons from around the world. The social media element is much broader too – fans can get involved through Twitter (#writethefuture), QQ (a Chinese chat programme) and Mxit (a South African IM app) as well as Facebook. And the ad is state-of-the-art – a dynamic LED installation that dominates the Southern Life building which towers over Johannesburg and can be seen for miles. Up to 100 headlines are selected each night and transformed into player animations, and when a fan’s message is used Nike sends them the animation.

Give it a try in the Write the Headline Facebook app, and check out the promo film.

By Tim Crow on June 24th, 2010

Tags: Advertising, Default, Digital marketing, Facebook, Football, Olympics, Vancouver 2010, Winter Olympics, World Cup

No comments

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

Yesterday, FIFA announced the stellar line-up – an array of international and African artists – for a ‘Kick-Off Celebration Concert‘ in Soweto on June 10 to mark the opening of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa. Predictably, the story generated worldwide coverage. But I couldn’t help feeling that FIFA has got its PR strategy on this wrong, and could learn something from the Olympic Games.

Shakira and Alicia Keys will help kick-off the 2010 FIFA World Cup

Back in February, I blogged from Vancouver on what a huge story the Vancouver 2010 Opening Ceremony became in the week leading up to the ceremony itself. This was because the VANOC took the opposite approach to FIFA, by deliberately not revealing details of who would be performing in the Opening Ceremony, or indeed anything about what the show would be like – which naturally generated a tidal wave of media and consumer speculation and discussion, and made the Opening Ceremony one of the most eagerly-anticipated events I’ve ever encountered.

Bryan Adams and Nelly Furtado performed “Bang the Drum” at the 2010 Winter Olympic Games opening ceremony

My mind went back to this when FIFA made their announcement yesterday, and I couldn’t help but feel that FIFA has missed a trick by announcing their line-up. Had they adopted the approach taken by VANOC, I’m sure it would have created the same level of buzz and anticipation that we saw in Vancouver – maybe even more. Sure, there will be buzz around the FIFA gig, but nowhere near as much as there would have been if we didn’t know who was going to perform.

By Tim Crow on March 18th, 2010

Tags: Football, Football Sponsorship, Music, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Olympics, Public relations, Vancouver 2010, Winter Olympics, World Cup

No comments

Those little red mittens came to symbolise the 2010 Olympic Winter Games in Vancouver. At $10 a pair, with half going towards Canadian athletes (though I’m not sure by which specific route), they were the must-have item for those attending the Games.

As I left the Air Canada lounge for the flight back from Vancouver last week, I fell into step behind a group of passengers who were debating the success of the mittens and what London 2012 should produce that might perform a similarly symbolic role. One of them thought it a good idea to produce a specially commissioned football shirt. I thought at the time that this was a silly idea; on reflection I think it would be borderline catastrophic. Here’s why.

The mittens performed a number of roles, some obvious and others less so, but all of which were entirely relevant to the occasion: they kept your hands wrapped in fleecy warmth; they branded the Games as they featured in their deep red multitudes in TV coverage of every Olympic event; and they allowed viewers to show their appreciation and applause for competitors as they clapped their mitten-clad hands together or held them to the sky.

I’m led to believe that the mitten is also a traditional Eskimo garment, which has positive cultural overtones relating to the native population; and they also supported a worthy cause, looked great and were priced accessibly.

Contrast these benefits with the message that a football shirt would send. It would reinforce (mostly) ill-founded foreign views of British sports fans as an ill-mannered rabble; its symbolic function is to divide us into tribes rather than unite us in support; it is unlikely to be cheap to buy; and it sure as hell won’t protect us from our weather.

I think the right souvenir garment – London’s version of Vancouver’s red mittens – is a stellar idea, but what should it be? Suggestions on a postcard please (or in the comment box below) as to what we might produce for London 2012.

By Scott Garrett on March 2nd, 2010

Tags: Advertising, Football, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship, Olympics, Sales promotion, Vancouver 2010, Winter Olympics

1 comment

I’ve been with Synergy clients and colleagues here in Vancouver for over a week now taking in the 2010 Olympic Winter Games. This is the seventh Games I’ve attended, and as always it’s been a fascinating experience, but this time with a heightened sense of importance and uniqueness, because we’ll be applying the insights we develop here for our clients to their London 2012 sponsorship strategies.

With this in mind, here are a just a few examples of how the Olympics has played out here in Vancouver and Canada, with some thoughts on the associated implications for London 2012.

1. The Weather

This has of course been a major theme in the Vancouver 2010 story, both around the world and here in Canada, with the effects of one of the warmest winters ever in BC impacting heavily on the events in Whistler and Cypress Mountain. But it’s been less of an issue here than you might expect, because so many major events – in particular ice hockey, of which more later – are being staged in indoor venues in the Vancouver metropolitan area.

Whilst the weather is of course a much less critical factor in the summer Games than in the winter edition, there’s no doubt that a wet summer in two years’ time – and let’s face it, a wet summer is hardly a rare event in the UK – would have a major effect on the overall image and experience of London 2012.

2. Olympic Scepticism

Vancouverite scepticism is not getting in the way of the party, but it’s always there in the background. Games-time has brought with it a huge surge of excitement and celebration, but there is a palpable undercurrent of scepticism about the effects and benefits of the Olympics here. It’s characterised by what Vancouverites would be the first to admit is their opinionated mindset, and framed by Canada’s proud tradition of free speech. I’ve experienced it every day, face-to-face, in the news and in social media, across a wide spectrum of topics, such as Government policy, the economy, tax, house prices, and travel disruption.

Recognise any similarities with the UK?

3. The Opening Ceremony

Fuelled by a tidal wave of rumours and a surprising lack of leaks from inside the dress rehearsals, last week everybody here was talking about the opening ceremony, in particular who would perform (apart from Rush, most of the rumours I heard turned out to be true) and who would light the Olympic flame (who else could it have been but Wayne Gretzky). The post-ceremony debate was equally fascinating. Whilst the consensus was “brilliant show” (and it was – the minor technical problems did not detract at all) there was also a significant debate about to what extent the ceremony truly represented Canada.

We’ll see exactly the same things happen in the UK around the London 2012 opening ceremony: indeed if anything, the pre-show rumours and the post-show debate will be even more intense.

4. Bad Luck, or Bad Games?

Although every Games has its problems, Vancouver 2010 has of course already had more than its fair share. They have ranged from the unfortunate to the tragic and – depending on your point of view – resulted from either misadventure or mismanagement. Inevitably this has become a major media theme worldwide, with the most strident criticism of IOC and VANOC coming from the UK, as well as some early – some would say too early – comments by UK journalists that this is ‘the worst Games ever.’

The Canadian media and Canadian consumers aren’t denying that there are problems – quite the reverse. But it’s hardly surprising that many have reacted furiously to some of the more extreme criticism from the UK. If London 2012 comes in for similar criticism from another country’s media, we’ll see exactly the same reaction in the UK.

5. In Canada, It’s All About Ice Hockey

Ice Hockey – just ‘Hockey’ here – is king in Canada. Think football in the UK, cricket in India or gridiron in the USA in terms of its dominant popularity. And so it follows that for Canada, this games is going to be defined by whether or not Canada wins the hockey gold medal. Of course, every Canadian success is going to be a cause for national celebration, as it was when Alex Bilodeau won Canada’s first-ever gold medal on home soil – an occasion I was lucky enough to witness at first hand – in the freestyle skiing moguls. But hockey is what really matters. So it was that on Tuesday night, after Canada beat Norway, the energy and noise in the streets and the bars of Vancouver went way up, to the levels we see in the UK when England play a big FIFA World Cup or UEFA Euro match.

Will London 2012 be different in the UK? Yes and no. We’ll see, I’m sure, huge support for all of Britain’s athletes, and national celebrations when a gold medal is won, particularly in the blue riband events. But although medal success will definitely be a key measure of how UK consumers judge the success of the Games, the focus will be spread across most of the Olympic sports rather than just one.

By Tim Crow on February 18th, 2010

Tags: London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, London 2012 sponsorship consultants, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Olympics, Vancouver 2010

No comments

Last week saw two bad-news stories break on Olympic sponsorship by the automotive industry.

First was the news that the IOC had ended its long search for a global Olympic sponsor in the automotive category, exclusively scooped by Around The Rings. The only thing that was surprising about this story was that it took the IOC so long to go public on it.

This followed hard on the heels of General Motors – a major domestic sponsor of Vancouver 2010 - announcing that it was closing 245 dealerships in Canada in the run-up to today’s filing for bankruptcy protection, which unsurprisingly led to speculation in Canada that GM would not be able to meet its commitments to the Vancouver winter games - claims strenuously denied by VANOC.

Will the post-recessionary automotive industry be prepared to fuel each Games’  habitual Games-time requirement for thousands of vehicles? (VANOC’s fleet requirement from GM, for example, is 4,600 vehicles, a not untypical figure, on top of which GM is also paying $14m in cash.)

Unless there’s a major overhaul both of the package of rights on offer by the Olympic Movement and of the approach of auto sector brands to this type of sponsorship, we doubt it.

We’re yet to see any evidence that previous Olympic sponsorships by automotive companies have justified the investment – and this reported statement by VANOC Deputy CEO Dave Cobb, commenting on the GM situation, perhaps partly explains why:

“Not sure we were expecting that much promotional activity at a dealer level, the sponsorship is with the corporate entity and not the dealerships themselves.”

By Tim Crow on June 1st, 2009

Tags: Default, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Vancouver 2010

No comments

Refreshing to see BOA Commercial Director Hugh Chambers, quoted in the Telegraph this morning, playing down expectations around the revenue-generating potential of Team 2012.

A smart move – much in contrast to Andy Burnham’s announcement of the Medal Hopes scheme which Team 2012 has replaced – as is Chambers’ advocacy of alternative, non-sponsorship based, funding models I’ve suggested previously, in particular a London 2012 version of Vancouver 2010’s Own The Podium programme which I wrote about back in February.

By Tim Crow on April 1st, 2009

Tags: BOA, Default, London 2012, Team GB, Vancouver 2010

No comments

Given that the announcement by Andy Burnham of Team 2012, the replacement fundraising programme for the ill-conceived Medal Hopes, was very long on PR and positioning but very short on detail, I give Team 2012 only a cautious welcome.

On the plus side, it’s good to see the various stakeholders in London 2012 are working together – a rarity in British sport. And it would be extremely churlish not to applaud the motivation behind the scheme, which is to ensure that all our Olympic sports and athletes have the best possible chance of success at London 2012, including the eight Olympic sports that were hit hardest by the budget shortfall that Medal Hopes failed to plug.

I’m also encouraged that the announcement promises that Team 2012 will include alternative funding models I suggested last year - creating a non-ambush entry point for smaller businesses to 2012 using the Team Business West Midlands model, and sourcing private donations using the Vancouver 2010 Patrons Programme model - as an alternative to Medal Hopes.

But until the full details of the scheme are revealed, questions remain about the nature of the rights being sold, and the implications for London 2012’s global and domestic sponsors.

Perhaps the biggest question, however, is why it has taken DCMS so long to begin sorting out a job it was tasked with back in 2006 by the then-Chancellor Gordon Brown?

Contrast this with Vancouver 2010’s equivalent Own The Podium programme, launched in 2005 with adequate national and regional Government funding, on track in every respect, and currently completing the job with a clever and perfectly-timed fundraising appeal to the Canadian public, $20.10 for 2010.

By Tim Crow on February 27th, 2009

Tags: Default, London 2012 sponsorship, London 2012 sponsorship consultants, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Team GB, Vancouver 2010

No comments