Over a month on from the Rugby World Cup Final and the post mortems are just about complete. Global TV audiences of 4 billion have been reported, social media round-ups published, teams of the tournament have been selected by all and sundry, and the New Zealand Herald has discovered some other sports to write about. Only England seems relentlessly stuck in review and recrimination mode, with new personnel and processes being announced on a weekly basis. While the RFU sifts through the carnage of dwarf-throwing, ferry jumping, ball-swapping and under-performing, here’s a slightly lighter examination of the brand marketing activity that surrounded the world’s third biggest sporting event.

In the previous Synopsis, Synergy’s new head of content, Colin Burgess, outlined the key ingredients for successful content that will illicit the deepest audience engagement: authority, authenticity – and the holy grail of all marketing – making it memorable. Applying those criteria to sponsor content during the Rugby World Cup goes a long way to explaining why activity might or might not have resonated with rugby fans.

Authority first. This is largely determined by the content’s provenance – it needs to be produced and delivered by a trusted and credible source. Some brands activating around the Rugby World Cup have a natural advantage in the authority stakes for various reasons:

1) Their inherent role in the game and on the pitch (the likes of adidas, Nike and Gilbert)

2) Through their long-standing presence as a rugby sponsor (see O2, Guinness and Heineken)

3) By their connection with the host nation (for example Air New Zealand and Tourism New Zealand)

Throwing in a few brand ambassadors is another well-trodden path to creating or supplementing a brand’s natural authority and giving the content a credibility boost. A great example of this, and fantastic use of owned media, came from Air New Zealand, who painted their fleet black and produced a safety video featuring members of the All Blacks team. Nearly 1m online views for a 4 minute safety video. Job well done.

On to authenticity and content that connects through personal or social relevance. To get the kitemark of rugby authenticity, sponsors adopted a variety of techniques:

1) Showing an understanding and empathy for the particular humour, culture and spirit of rugby fans

2) Playing on the history and heritage of the game and previous tournaments

3) Tapping into events as they happen in the tournament to become part of the narrative of the Rugby World Cup

Below are Synergy’s nominations for the brands that most successfully delivered authentic content during the World Cup, embodying those three techniques.  But in keeping with rugby’s community spirit, please add your own nominations for the best brand content around the 2011 Rugby World Cup in the comments section below:

O2, with a tradition of giving free pies and pints to customers at Twickenham, adapted their customer proposition to fit early morning rugby viewing. Ashton donning an apron, Jonny making tea (after numerous practice sessions, no doubt), and Jonno with the control (no comment…). Relevant content from a long-standing rugby sponsor. If only it had been Guinness not Greene King in the breakfast packs…

Steinlager proved that an ambush marketer can still exhibit authority (what is more relevant to All Blacks supporters than beer, and a Kiwi brand at that?), authenticity (connecting through the collective anguish of New Zealand’s Rugby World Cup chokes) and a brilliant creative idea (reviving the Steinlager white can)…

Wilkinson Sword showed their quick thinking and wit by creating a pre-Final advert encouraging Lievremont to shave his ridiculous moustache.

It was precisely the fact that these campaigns came from a place of authority and authenticity that made them the most memorable.

But, all in all, the Rugby World Cup will not go down in the Sponsorship Hall of Fame as a high-water mark of sponsorship activity.  So what was missing from sports marketing activity and particularly content around Rugby World Cup 2011? The answer is ‘just about everything’ from the 4th Era of Sponsorship: interactivity, genuine collaboration and contribution from fans within brand campaigns (beyond the standard encouragement to tweet a hashtag…), exciting use of mobile, and memorable, game-changing innovation.

Let’s hope brands were keeping their powder dry for 2012, and the unprecedented marketing spend we are going to see around the Olympic Games.  And let’s also hope that by Rugby World Cup 2015, we’ll be seeing more innovative, truly engaging and memorable content than this:

By Tom Gladstone on December 6th, 2011

Tags: Advertising, Brand marketing, Branded content, Content, Default, Rugby, Rugby World Cup, Synergy, Synopsis, World Cup

No comments

Three cheers, then, to the IRB for publishing a weekly round-up of Rugby World Cup-related social media activity by fans. As I tweeted yesterday, all rights holders should be doing this – a point echoed by numerous sponsors, who contacted me to say they’d now be making the same point to the rights holders with which they contract.     

But here’s the thing. One of the IRB social media round-ups highlighted an issue I’ve had for many years with the marketing of the Rugby World Cup.

I’ve always been uncomfortable with the IRB describing the tournament as the world’s third biggest sporting event behind the Olympic Games and FIFA World Cup (which it routinely does – see the penultimate paragraph here for example).

It’s a very clever marketing soundbite (which many rugby journalists now routinely repeat) but it doesn’t stand up to detailed analysis.

The IRB anchors this claim primarily on those old chestnuts of cumulative TV viewers and TV footprint, but those are currencies which only matter to sporting officialdom: most brand marketers aren’t remotely interested in them as a measure of either audience engagement or value.

The reality is there’s a vast chasm on this notional list between the top two and the Rugby World Cup in terms of audience criteria that really matter to brands: things like the number of unique viewers, the number of fans engaging online, and the number of countries in which the event/sport has salience (mass appeal).

And against these more meaningful criteria, there are plenty of sporting events which have a bigger reach and/or footprint than the Rugby World Cup. To quote just a few examples, the F1 World Championship, the Indian Premier League, the NFL, and the UEFA Champions League.

And none of this should be a surprise because when you consider rugby’s footprint.

It’s salient in only eight major markets (the IRB Tier 1 countries Argentina, Australia, England, France, Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, South Africa) with a combined population of 309 million (4.4% of the world’s population) in only one of which (New Zealand, the smallest market at 4 million) it is the number one sport.

All of which is illustrated nicely by this IRB infographic, showing the location of the last 1,000 Tweets mentioning #rwc2011 during the Rugby World Cup opening ceremony.

So, hat-tip to the IRB for blazing a social media trail among rights holders. But please, don’t play the ‘biggest’ game – play the best.

By Tim Crow on October 5th, 2011

Tags: Default, Rugby, Rugby World Cup, Social Media, Twitter, World Cup

No comments

Like the vast majority of sports fans watching the events unfold at Royal St George’s, I found myself willing a Darren Clarke victory – this despite a fairly uneducated £5 pre-tournament punt on Phil Mickelson. The emotional pull of seeing a people’s champion claim the Claret Jug was stronger than the rational tug of reversing my losing streak on Betfair. Sport has a particular ability to evoke strong emotions through its personal stories of courage, inspiration and determination, through its inherent unpredictability, excitement and drama.

Those emotions are an essential component of successful sponsorship – and are as relevant across other sponsorship platforms (music, film, fashion, art) as they are in sport. How often do we hear rights holders, brands and sponsorship agencies (guilty as charged) talk of ‘engaging consumers through their passion points’ to justify sponsorship investments? It has become the de facto rationale. But what substantiates that principle, and are sponsors embracing it to make a genuine connection with consumers?

Shared Passions

The stated ambition of many sponsors is to create that emotional connection with their target audience through a shared passion. The theory goes that an emotionally engaged audience – whether they are football fanatics, art lovers, bog snorkelling aficionados, or Gaga’s ‘little monsters’ – is an audience that will be more receptive to brand messages, and more likely to think positively about a brand associated with their passion.

Sound thinking or codswallop? Well, there is plenty of research supporting the notion that the higher a consumer’s emotional engagement with an event, the more effective their recall of sponsors. If you want proof, just read Bal, Pascale and Plewa’s research study in the Sept 2009 Journal of Sponsorship (Volume 2, Number 4). Or take my word for it. Their analysis of the emotional response elicited by a sponsorship event confirmed what we would probably all take as read – that ‘positive sport-related emotions contribute to sponsorship efficiency, favouring the recognition of sponsors’. Which makes sense – an emotional experience is more likely to crystallise into memory than an experience without emotion. I remember where I was when Wilkinson dropped THAT goal in 2003 with patriotic emotions riding high, but have no recollection where I watched the 2010 World Cup Final as an impartial observer.

Sponsor Engagement

But how do sponsors get in on the act, and stake a claim to those memories? Being visible within a passion point might increase the chances of being in a consumer’s mind, but it doesn’t win a place in their hearts. There has to be active emotional involvement, not just proximity or visibility. Engagement not impressions. Too many sponsors assume that an increased awareness of their sponsorship, and that magical associative power alone, will alter consumer perceptions. Perimeter boards, media backdrops, shirt sponsorships and the like certainly have a reinforcing role to play, but I’m yet to hear a sponsor say “that perimeter board really helped me emotionally connect with my target audience”.  The abundance of advertising we are seeing in the run up to 2012 that says ‘I’m an Olympic sponsor’ is failing to tap into the rich emotional tapestry of the Olympics.

So what should sponsors do to capitalise on their consumers’ emotions beyond just ‘being at the party’? To start with there needs to be some sense of brand relevance to the passion point. How else can a brand claim to ‘share’ that passion? Authenticity could be driven by brand characteristics, product relevance, company heritage, or geography. Lack relevance, and brands risk looking as incongruous as Budweiser’s relationship with that king of soccer competitions, the FA Cup. The central thought in Neill Duffy’s book Passion Branding is another worthwhile principle: leverage the relationship between a brand and its consumers around a consumer passion to create value for all involved in the relationship. Sponsors need to think beyond their brand to deliver a benefit for consumers – be that entertaining content, a unique experience or simply a memorable emotional pay-off.

Many brands are successfully engaging consumers on an emotional level, in a relevant passion point, and contributing to their enjoyment of that passion. Some capitalise on a moment of high emotion, some tap into the core emotional sensibility of the passion point. Whether anchored in anticipation, pride, patriotism or celebration, they all exhibit genuine empathy and understanding. A few examples below…

In the build up to the 2006 FIFA World Cup, Carlsberg’s Old Lions campaign tapped into England fans’ anticipation of the tournament through a nostalgic lens and a pitch perfect creation of pub football camaraderie.

Fast forward four years to the 2010 FIFA World Cup, and Coca-Cola’s activation single-mindedly focused on football’s moment of greatest emotion – celebrating a goal. From reliving the greatest celebrations in World Cup history, recording a World Cup celebration song, to touring the FIFA World Cup around the globe, they fuelled fan emotion with the ‘What’s your Celebration’ campaign.

Talking of celebration, O2’s Rugby World Cup victory parade in 2003 gave rugby fans the opportunity to express their support, their joy and their pride to the returning heroes.  Not only that, O2 armed all England players with mobile cameras to record the experience and share it with consumers, and gave some lucky fans the chance to win a place on the parade bus.

But not all emotional engagement is grounded in joy and positivity. Bupa’s activation of their Great North Run focuses on the participants’ moments of greatest physical and emotional need. The Bupa Boost Zone at the typical ‘low’ point for runners 80% through the race, and at the finish, provides massages, sustenance and music to inspire and re-energise runners.

What next?

Social media is making the emotional engagement opportunities around sponsorship that much more immediate, and much more of a dialogue opportunity. The response to celebratory moments in particular is now fairly instantaneous, and can propel brands to the heart of the emotional moment. Harness the emotions correctly, and your consumers will add the catalyst of conversation. After all, people are more likely to talk about things that illicit an emotional response. As a final plea to sponsors, I defer to Mark Harrison, Chair of the Canadian Sponsorship Forum:

‘You can’t manufacture emotion. It’s already there. When you find it – just find a way to trigger it; tap into it; fuel it; and watch it grow into something remarkable.’

By Tom Gladstone on July 26th, 2011

Tags: Betfair, Brand marketing, Branded content, Communications, Content, Default, FA Cup, Football, Media, Olympic sponsorship, Rugby, Social Media, Sponsorship, Sport, Synergy, Synopsis, World Cup, YouTube

4 comments

Recently I’ve spent a lot of time recalling the history of sports marketing and sponsorship. To start 2011, we ran our poll on the greatest sports marketing innovation of modern times. A few weeks ago the Sport Industry Group asked Dom Curran and I to contribute our memories of the last ten years of sport to help celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Sport Industry Awards, which took place last Wednesday night. And also last Wednesday, I attended Sportcal’s 20 Years of Sport conference, the highlight of which was a tour de force presentation by my old friend Patrick Nally on the origins of the modern sponsorship template which he created, and his view of the future.

Listening to Patrick talk of those early days and his work with Horst Dassler reminded me of one of the most remarkable incidents in the history of sports marketing to date, which took place in those early days, and which I only came across for the first time recently.

Back in 1974, adidas was the kit sponsor of the legendary Dutch national football team led by maestro Johann Cruyff.  Leading into the 1974 World Cup, which was marked by financial disputes between players and their federations, Cruyff, who had a personal sponsorship with adidas’ bitter rivals Puma, refused to wear a Dutch shirt with the now-legendary adidas three stripes. Incredibly, the Dutch FA backed down and alowed Cruyff to play in a specially-made kit with only two stripes. Here’s the proof, from Holland’s 1974 World Cup match versus Argentina:

Now that’s what I call player power!

By Tim Crow on May 17th, 2011

Tags: Ambush campaign, Default, Football, Football Sponsorship, Sponsorship, What's the Greatest Sports Marketing Innovation?, World Cup

No comments

Having spent the last 30 years working in the sports industry, I am sometimes asked, 'what is your most memorable moment?'.

While the obvious one was seeing England win the Rugby World Cup in 2003, the actual one was a day in 2004 as the Assistant Tournament Director for the Benson and Hedges International Open.

My mobile rang and a voice said ‘Is that Fiona?’. 'Yes...' I said. This was followed by those immortal words ‘This is Seve’. Wow I thought! But  before I could gather my thoughts and reply he said ‘Where’s my driver? I am in the arrivals hall at Gatwick and there is no sign of her...’

A brief conversation followed about  how drivers were not permitted in the baggage hall, but safe to say she was definitely waiting for him in arrivals...

There will only ever be one Seve. Everyone who was lucky enough to see him play or meet him will always remember that day.

By Fiona Foster on May 10th, 2011

Tags: Celebrity, Golf, Rugby, World Cup

No comments

A highlight of our daily PR Team paper-reading this morning had to be the below from Ryan Air.

Gaining a good half / three-quarter page space in both the Telegraph and the Independent, this most basic of tactical advertising had us all giggling. And most of us are pretty mad-keen cricket fans too.

So having watched in horror England throw away the near-certain win against our Irish friends across the water, it was refreshing to find humour in our anguish. Though as funny as ambush campaigns may be to the observer, we can’t imagine Emirates (official partner of the Tournament) would be too chuffed about another airline gaining traction with what is essentially a World Cup ad…

Top marks to Ryan Air for a cheap (production), basic, low res ad with a wicked sense of humour. Not many other brands would have the nerve, nor the impact.

By Lucie Bartlett on March 4th, 2011

Tags: Advertising, Ambush campaign, Aviation, Cricket, Travel, World Cup

1 comment

The 10th ICC Cricket World Cup launched yesterday with a multimillion pound opening ceremony including a good old croon from that well known cricket lover (?!) Bryan Adams. I have to say I am in total agreement with Dan Jones about Bryan not quite fitting the bill, but at least the weather didn’t destroy the shindig.

The spotlight is well and truly on the ICC after last week’s tribunal found Salman Butt, Mohammad Asif and Mohammad Amir guilty of corruption. Match fixing is not something anyone in sport wants to see, so the question is: what is the ICC doing ahead of this tournament to stop corruption?

BBC Sport Editor David Bond best summaries the latest measures on his blog. To combat the problem the ICC has introduced the following rules ahead of the World Cup:

•     It has changed its rules on “communication devices” during the 45 days of the World Cup. This is longhand for a Twitter ban and is designed to stop players tweeting potentially valuable inside information on a match before they arrive at the ground

•     There will be a ban on laptops for players, with team management limited to four per dressing room and only one allowed to be connected to the internet

•     Security officials will be given broader powers to monitor players, although the ICC is not going into any more detail on this as they don’t want to alert the fixers

My personal opinion is that attempting to hinder players’ access to social media outlets, such as Twitter, is not going to stop corruption but then I’m also hoping there is a lot more than just a Twitter ban going on behind the scenes to ensure the illegal gambling cartels are being closed down.

And for those Twitter fans amongst us, I really hope that the match fixers haven’t destroyed our access to some of the funniest Tweeters in the sporting arena. For the next installment of our Follow Friday Twitter specials, here are my favourite follows in the cricket world:

The players:

•     Graeme Swann – @swannyg66 A true Twitter and cricket legend – Head Boy

•     Jimmy Anderson – @JimmyAnderson9 Often the butt of many Swanny jokes but really is Head Prefect

•     Tim Bresnan – @TimBresnan Telling you like it is

•     Kevin Pietersen – @kevinpp24 Conned by a naughty EBay phoney but bailed out by Chairman of the Governors, Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan)

•     Stuart Broad – @StuartBroad8 The school sweetheart

•     Steve Finny – @finnysteve The new boy on the Twitter block, picked on by the Twitter ‘sixth formers’

The TMS team:

•     Jonathan Agnew – @aggerscricket Geek turned unsuspecting cool kid in the Twittersphere – he snared Lily Allen (@lilyroseallen) – credit where credit’s due!

•     Alison Mitchell – @AlisonMitchell Everyone’s favourite lady in the common room (press box)

•     Malcolm Ashton – @tmsscorer Bridges the cricket/rugby gap: his nephew is swallow-diving rugby hero Chris

•     Adam Mountford – @tmsproducer

•     Emma Agnew – @MrsAggers The Yummy Mummy

The snappers (photographers to the uninitiated):

•     Gareth Copley – @GarethCopley

•     Phillip Brown – @dudleyplatypus

•     Tom Shaw – @tomshaw72

Best of the media rest:

•     David Lloyd – @BumbleCricket

•     Tim Abraham – @skysportsmrtim

•     Lawrence Booth – @the_topspin

•     Dean Wilson – @CricketMirror

•     John Etheridge – @JohnSunCricket

By Caroline Ayling on February 18th, 2011

Tags: Cricket, FollowFriday, Social Media, Twitter, World Cup

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

Two weeks ago we decided to open up to the world a debate we’d started here at Synergy: what is the greatest sports marketing innovation of modern times?

It’s a debate that seems to have captured your imagination as much as ours, creating a raft of comments by global industry figures from brands, rights-holders, the media and more. We’ve even been privileged to have our old friends Patrick Nally and Michael Payne, both leading contenders on our initial list and in the subsequent debate, offer their thoughts.

So, two weeks on, we thought it was time to round up the comments to date.

The View From The Brands

Ralf Hussmann, Global Sports Marketing Director at BMW turned the argument on its head, arguing that most of the innovations listed mainly pour more cash into the pockets of rights holders, selected athletes (and dare I say it, the odd agency). Instead, Ralf argued for the evolution of sport over the last fifty years via sports platforms, teams, rights-holders, broadcasters and sponsors to bring the audiences and fans closer to the games they follow. As Ralf summarises “…sports is – besides competition – entertainment and that’s what people want. Only because of this sustainable interest sport works well as a marketing tool.”

With perhaps a hint of bias, but also some justification, Nike EMEA Comms Director Charlie Brooks supported our original Air Jordan suggestion as well as Ronaldinho’s Nike ‘crossbar’ viral, marking the moment when brands moved from TV ads played online to dedicated viral content strategies; and in the same vein Betfair’s Leo Thompson argued for the creation of Betfair itself given its revolutionary effect on sports betting and the fight against corruption – although to be fair, Leo also nodded in the direction of the Palmer-McCormack handshake and Patrick Nally’s creation of the first FIFA sponsor package.

For Lee Bailey of Guinness it’s the creation of the Super Bowl, which continues to hold the US in thrall in contrast to, notably, the decline of the FA Cup; Tim Ellerton of Heineken backed the formation of the UEFA Champions League (‘…It transformed European football as we know it…the game has changed from winning trophies to getting into the top 4′); while Simon Banoub of Opta backed Twenty20 Cricket (‘…as a game changer I can’t think of anything more significant’).

The View From The Media

Guardian Sports Editor Ian Prior was torn between Nike’s Air Jordan launch and the Palmer-McCormack handshake: ‘IMG set the template for the athlete as corporate entity…You could argue that Air Jordan took that idea to its logical conclusion, except that it created the super athlete as global brand icon and principal driver of product sales.’

Ashling O’Connor from The Times was in the vanguard of several contributors who have nominated Kerry Packer’s World Series of Cricket in 1977: ‘Changed the way cricket is played…and created the template for broadcasters to negotiate exclusive rights…Without it would we have had Sky and the Premier League? A total game changer in every way.’

Roger Blitz of the Financial Times suggested, in the shape of Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali, the first modern superstar to have created his own brand: ‘…the greatest sports marketing phenomenon of all time [and] he did it all himself, through his own narrative.’

David Owen, Inside The Games columnist and former FT sports editor ighlighted Chris Brasher’s role in pioneering marathons and the rise of ambush marketing  (‘…whoever masterminded the first successful ambush must have been a sports marketeer of genius’) but ultimately opted for the Palmer-McCormack handshake: ‘The start of the industrialisation of sports marketing’.

But for Wall Street Journal columnist and Platform magazine editor Richard Gillis it has to be ’…Dassler-Nally and the creation of the rights package for the 1978 World Cup. Virtually every rights holder’s commercial structure, from the IOC down, is still based on it.’

The View From the Rights Holders

Michael Payne, former IOC Marketing Director who features on our initial list for his role in helping to create the IOC TOP programme, nominated four innovations: Patrick Nally and FIFA; Mark McCormack and athletes; the advent of the dedicated sports channel; and ‘the introduction of ‘brand discipline into sports marketing – pioneered by IOC to build further value (slight self interest here).’

Paul Vaughan, Business Director of the RFU, argued the case for media innovations, in particular internet streaming of sport: ‘Every major broadcaster simulcasts on these channels now…to supplement ‘normal’ broadcast delivery.’

Former ECB Commercial Director Terry Blake put the case for Twenty20 cricket – invented, of course, by the ECB in 2003 - pointing to the fact that within 5 years it had ‘created a new global fan base [for cricket] and…three very different and highly valued formats.’

And John Feehan, Six Nations & Lions CEO, echoed the views of Michael and others in backing the Palmer-McCormack handshake.

The View From Academe

Be sure to check out Professor Simon Chadwick’s guest blog where he nominates Red Bull’s multi-faceted sports marketing strategy.

What’s next?

So where do you stand? Let us know your thoughts in the comments box below or at the original blog, and if you think we’ve missed anything, what you believe we should add to the final long list before the big vote which starts next month.

Your votes will then decide the top ten and critically your number one innovation of the last fifty years.

And in the next week look out for more high-profile industry figures having their say on the debate via Synergy’s YouTube channel.

By Dominic Curran on November 24th, 2010

Tags: Ambush campaign, Barclays Premier League, Betfair, Brand marketing, Branded content, ECB, Indian Premier League, New Product Development, Olympic sponsorship, Sponsorship, Sport, UEFA Champions League, Viral Marketing, What's the Greatest Sports Marketing Innovation?, World Cup, YouTube

No comments