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 BA 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, Olympics, Vancouver 2010, Winter Olympics

No comments

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, 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

One Games ends: the road to another begins. Since the curtain came down on Beijing 2008, VANOC has launched an array of Vancouver 2010 initiatives, including a new Vancouver 2010 brand identity, a new motto (‘With Glowing Hearts’), and the release of the first tranche of Vancouver 2010 tickets.

Another recently-launched initiative is ‘The Vancouver 2010 Club - A Patron’s Programme’, a limited-edition high-rollers’ Olympic experience, which includes premium tickets, a car and driver, a concierge service and a place in the Olympic Torch Relay. VANOC is marketing 100 of these packages at C$285,000 (£140,500) each, and is reporting strong demand.

VANOC has rebuffed inevitable criticism of the concept by pointing out that the tickets involved do not come from the public allocation, and that the scheme is underpinned by philanthropy, as each package automatically donates 100 event tickets to the Vancouver 2010 Charitable Ticketing Fund, which is distributing 50,000 tickets to underprivileged children.

I applaud VANOC’s initiative. It’s a win-win for all concerned, and is simply a logical extension of a major NPD trend of recent times - products and services created specifically for the super-rich.

And what all commentators on the scheme have missed is that without this type of philanthropy, the Olympics would not have been re-born.

Two-thirds of the funding for the Athens 1896 Games, the first of the modern era, came from private donations, and the largest expense of the Games, the refurbishment of the Panathanaiko Stadium, was financed by a single benefactor, George Averoff.

By Tim Crow on October 24th, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, Brand marketing, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, New Product Development, Olympic Torch Relay, Olympic sponsorship, Olympics, Vancouver 2010

No comments

Before Beijing 2008 began I wrote a post speculating about what the legacies of Beijing might be for the Olympics, for London 2012, and for brands. Now that the Olympic flag has been handed to London 2012, what initial conclusions can we draw?

1. From a UK perspective, Beijing was the latest in a long line of single-issue Games - but the issue wasn’t, in the end, China. It was, of course, Team GB’s brilliant performance. This has created numerous legacies, all of which can be filed under ‘Feelgood Factor’. Right now, we feel good about Team GB, London 2012 and The Olympics. Of course it’s too early to say, using one of Boris Johnson’s many wonderful new soundbites, that “Olympo-scepticism” has been totally blown away, but I think we can say with some confidence that thanks to ‘The Great Haul of China’ it will be a minority sentiment from now on.

2. The Olympic brand survived the China crisis. Concerns about regime policy and authoritarian stage-management never went away, but were ultimately overshadowed by a technically superb Games which delivered both breathtaking spectacle and an array of legendary performances. The most important performance of the lot in a global context? My vote goes to Usain Bolt. Not just for what he did, in the event which above all defines the Games, but for what he didn’t do: three of the previous five Olympic 100 metre champions tested positive for drugs. Usain prefers chicken nuggets.

3. The London 2012 brand evolved significantly. Beijing 2008 grafted two new elements into London 2012’s DNA: Team GB and, by very different means and in his own unique way, Boris Johnson (and since you ask, I’m a huge fan of both). Finally, do you know anyone who doesn’t like the new London 2012 logo featuring Union jack colours?

4. And what of the brand marketing contest around Beijing 2008 in the UK? To my mind there were three clear winners: adidas, via their kit sponsorship of Team GB; Powerade, the only Team GB sponsor to commit to a brand campaign throughout the Games, as my colleague Sara vividly described in her post a few weeks ago; and British Airways, who skilfully leveraged Team GB’s homecoming

By Tim Crow on August 27th, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, Brand marketing, China, Default, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Sponsorship consultancy, Sponsorship consultants, Team GB, Vancouver 2010

1 comment

I have mixed feelings about Culture Secretary Andy Burnham’s announcement that post-Beijing, the Government will be launching a new initiative, called ‘Medal Hopes’, in a bid to raise £79 million from private sector sponsorship, plug a hole in the 2012 Olympic sports funding plan, and ensure athletes do not suffer funding cuts as they train for the London Games.

Like most Brits, I’ve rejoiced in the brilliant performances of Team GB in Beijing, applauded the fact that increased public sector funding of our Olympic sports has been a major factor in these performances, and welcome any initiative to attempt to ensure that what we’ve seen in Beijing 2008 is repeated in London 2012 – and, let’s not forget, Vancouver 2010.

I have no doubt that ‘Medal Hopes’ is well-intentioned. But based on Mr Burnham’s comments about what the scheme will be offering prospective sponsors, I do have serious doubts about the scheme’s viability, potential value to sponsors and, as such, whether it can realistically generate £79m. To explain why, let me concentrate on what Mr Burnham is reported to have said.

“This will be the only official route for an association with the team preparing for 2012.”

I’m assuming Mr Burnham has been misquoted here. If this is how ‘Medal Hopes’ is going to be positioned to the private sector, confusion will inevitably follow, because there are already three well-established routes for sponsors into an association with our Olympic teams and athletes, all of them official:

·           Sponsor London 2012, which confers a number of rights, but in particular is the only way a brand can become an official sponsor of Team GB.

·           Sponsor one of the National Governing Bodies of an Olympic sport. This confers no rights to Team GB or London 2012, but is clearly in the same territory, and there are already many of these deals in place.

·           Sponsor individual athletes. Again this confers no rights to Team GB or London 2012, but is in the same territory and is a much-used tactic.

A related and massively important issue here of course, is that ‘Medal Hopes’ must be seen as complementary, not competitive, to these three existing revenue streams, all of which provide vital funding for London 2012, Team GB and the athletes.

“This Olympics has gripped people in a way I have never seen before. Everyone wants a piece of it. [Medal Hopes] is about saying to business – ‘get on board, join the effort’ - contribute regionally, nationally or whatever level you can.

A laudable rallying cry, but one which misses the essential point about how Olympic sponsorship is sold, and why it’s so valuable.

In relation to sponsorship, everyone cannot have a piece of The Olympics. It’s a premium asset, sold only to one brand in each category. They, and only they, are allowed to associate themselves directly with the Olympics. And these rights are fiercely protected by the Olympic authorities and worldwide legislation, which makes any attempt by non-sponsors to associate themselves with the Olympics punishable by law. This includes the UK, where as one of its commitments to IOC in return for winning the right to stage London 2012, the UK Government enacted new legislation expressly designed to prevent non-sponsors from passing themselves off as Olympic sponsors.

So, Mr Burnham’s rallying cry will no doubt have excited the private sector about Olympic sponsorship. But how will they react when they discover that, however much they want a piece of the Olympics or Team GB sponsorship pie, it’s not available to them unless a) they’re not a competitor of an existing sponsor, and b) they have the significant resources required to become a sponsor?

“The offer is an association with the athletes preparing for the Olympic Games.”

Exactly what ‘the offer’ is Mr Burnham didn’t make clear, and it’s possible to envisage non-sponsorship scenarios where businesses could be matched with the less well-known athletes – for example as employers. But as I’ve covered above, this wouldn’t come with a piece of The Olympics or Team GB attached. And in the case of our new Olympic heroes, many already have individual sponsorships in place, offers from new sponsors will already be flooding in and being signed, and the market value of all of them will now be out of reach of most businesses.

“There is also the possibility of naming rights of some of the Olympic venues (post Games) and this is something that needs to be explored with other stakeholders.”

I agree with Mr Burnham that this is a potentially significant source of revenue. Venue naming rights agreements can be worth tens of millions of pounds and more.  But there are two problems with this proposed solution.

First, BOA Chairman Lord Moynihan has already raised the issue that naming rights to the Olympic venues can only be sold by arrangement with the BOA if the rights are to include use of the word ‘Olympic’, which reverts to BOA ownership in the UK after 2012. Second, and most importantly, these proposed venue sponsorships would not start until 2013 at the earliest, and in these straitened times I find it hard to believe there is a potential sponsor out there who would be prepared to start paying for a sponsorship until it starts. But DCMS need to raise the athletes’ £79 million well before 2012, starting now.

To re-iterate, I have no doubt that ‘Medal Hopes’ is well-intentioned and I applaud any initiative designed to support our Olympic athletes. But I have equally no doubt that if ‘Medal Hopes’ is going to succeed, it needs to be both attractive to UK businesses and complementary to the activities of London 2012’s other stakeholders. For that to happen, when it is finally announced, it will need much more clarity - and, I suspect, a radical re-think in the meantime.

By Tim Crow on August 22nd, 2008

Tags: Beijing 2008, DCMS, London 2012, London 2012 sponsorship, London 2012 sponsorship consultants, Olympic sponsorship, Olympic sponsorship consultants, Olympics, Team GB, Vancouver 2010

No comments