5.3.2010 - Dress to impress: five ways to attract a sponsorship sales agency - posted by William Fenton

The growing cuts in government funding are leading to increased interest in sponsorship as a revenue generator from the public sector. With little in-house expertise, organizations are turning to rights-marketing agencies for assistance with securing sponsorship.

But what they perhaps haven’t realized is the agencies will select the properties they represent just as carefully as a sponsor will evaluate an opportunity. With demand for sponsorship sales skills way ahead of supply, agencies will only take on the very best of what they are offered.

So, before approaching an agency, or writing a sponsorship sales tender brief if you are in the public sector, you will need to ask yourself:

1. Is this a property with something genuinely different and valuable that sponsors could not purchase elsewhere?
2. Are there realistic expectations of sponsorship income based on the value to a sponsor, not just the figure needed to plug the hole in the budget?
3. What is the timeline? Even small sponsorships have a 6-12 month sales cycle.
4. Is there a solid, well established team (preferably with previous successful experience in dealing with sponsors) for the agency to work alongside in the sales process, and who will eventually service the hard-won sponsors?
5. Is this an exclusive opportunity or are there other agencies involved?

Most of all, experienced agencies know that in order to have the best chance of sales success there is significant preparation work to be undertaken. This not only includes packaging up the sponsorship itself and valuing it but also in researching prospects properly and preparing and transferring skills to the rights-holder to service sponsors effectively (to increase retention). Selling sponsorship is a collaborative experience with the rights holder fully involved, and being asked to pay a retainer is a sign that the agency is reputable and is not taking short cuts. Whilst agencies are motivated by sales commission, rates usually vary between 10% and 20% and are balanced against the retainer to represent fair value for the work required.

So, before entering the fray, a little up-front investment in understanding how sponsorship works will give any new sponsorship opportunity a competitive edge when it comes to attracting a sales partner.

26.2.2010 - Champagne tastes on a mild beer income - posted by Pippa Collett

Whilst revenues expected to exceed £1 billion hardly qualify as a mild beer income, it seems that Premier League clubs have lost sight of the basic principle, as espoused by Mr Micawber in Dickens’ David Copperfield of:

“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”

This is all the more incomprehensible when you consider that many clubs are owned by multi-millionaire entrepreneurs. These people obviously know what it takes to make a bob or two in their own boardroom but appear to leave all business sense behind when they enter the stadium.

The announcement today of Portsmouth FC going into administration is both a good and a bad thing. Bad for creditors, who will lose their shirts, and for fans who will face the ignominy of relegation and the inevitable loss of their best players. Good as a wake up call to other clubs to balance the books before they face the same fate. The Premier League simply cannot continue with its current asset ratio when income to service the debt is predicated on gate, sponsorship and merchandise revenue streams that are all under recessionary pressure.

Clubs also need to look at player wages. Whilst I can understand that players want a cut of the broadcast revenues their talent generates, they need to take care that their greed does not exceed the clubs’ ability to pay.

But if you target the UK in isolation you will hear the same arguments as our bankers with regard to bonuses. The difference is that football has FIFA and FIFPro . Maybe, like teenagers, it is time for some tough love to teach the talent that they are not the only thing that matters. Pity we don’t have the same opportunity in global financial services really.

25.2.2010 - Steady as she goes - posted by William Fenton

 

The recently published World Sponsorship Monitor (TWSM) Annual Review 2009 is packed with insights on the industry and how it is weathering the economic storm.

The report shows that whilst the last quarter of 2008 was the darkest point, sponsorship has more than held its own, especially when compared with the fall in advertising revenues over the same period. New deals in 2009 rose 15% year-on-year and the ratio of sponsorship withdrawals (which remained at 8%) to new and renewed deals has therefore not fallen off a cliff as some industry commentators were anticipating.

It does however note that there has been a decline in the number of $10 million + mega deals and a huge fall off in high price naming rights deals, many of which had previously been concluded by banks.

Interestingly, the two industry sectors most hit by recession, banking and cars, remained in the top five sponsorship spenders, while insurance consolidated as a major user of sponsorship. Only retailers were noticeably in retreat.

TWSM pointed out the ever growing presence of the so called “BRIC” countries, with Russia (bolstered by Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics deals) and China especially well represented in the list of the biggest deals of 2009.

To subscribe to The World Sponsorship Monitor, go to http://www.theworldsponsorshipmonitor.com/online_purchase.asp

24.2.2010 - Upstaging the bride - posted by Pippa Collett

I interrupted my wall-to-wall enjoyment of the Winter Olympics (thank you Eurosport!) last night to attend the final England v. Australia match in the Co-operative International Netball series at the O2. It was very exciting, with England leading until the final quarter and an average of nearly a goal a minute to keep you on the edge of your seat to the last whistle.

But from a sponsorship point of view it was somewhat lacking. Co-operative have been a big supporter of netball for a while now but, apart from the inevitable court-side signage, a few small flags amongst the crowd, a programme ad and a half-time competition prize of a £100 voucher, there did not seem to be anything that really explained why co-op have invested in netball. Perhaps it passed me by, but it felt like a missed opportunity to remind me of the co-op’s values and either strengthen my loyalty or make me re-evaluate current purchase decisions in their favour.

On the other hand, Shock Absorber, the undergarment for the active woman and official suppliers of upper body support for the England Netball team, appeared to have no visible signage but used the pre-match and half-time slots to drive home their message. Using the compère to ask multiple choice questions like “What percentage vertical bounce reduction does a Shock Absorber provide?” to engage the audience and communicate product benefits, supplemented with vouchers for free product as prizes, this brand benefited from virtually zero wastage amongst an audience made up almost entirely of women. They only lacked a suitably supported dance troupe to lead the audience in the Macarena at half time to complete the package.

In the current economic climate I want to see all sponsors maximise returns from their sponsorship investments, not by merely making a lot of noise but by really capturing the audience’s imagination to achieve brand and business objectives. Maybe Co-op did a lot in store or with suppliers and employees but, on the night, they missed out on impacting both the bottom line and the balance sheet.

15.2.2010 - Google almighty? - posted by Graeme Davies

I’m not sure how many of you happened to run a Google search on Friday evening but had you done so you would have noticed yet another clever ‘themed’ homepage from the folks at the world’s number one search engine. As the world event this time was the Opening Ceremony in Vancouver, Google’s homepage was of course Olympics themed. Interestingly it wasn’t just some vague reference or arty picture but it clearly featured a black and white version of the Olympic rings in all their glory.

I’ve read quite a few stories recently about the ‘IOC Police’ and the lengths at which they have gone to protect the rights of official sponsors and of any unauthorised association with the Games. But Google is not an official sponsor – so why have the IOC decided to give this ‘right of association’ to one of the world’s most dominant companies FOR FREE!!

Presumably the IOC’s argument would be that the benefit of such high profile activity on Google helps to achieve recognition and promote the Games. But couldn’t you say that promotional activity by McDonald’s or Coca-Cola and the reach their activities have also serve this objective…and they are expected to pay for their rights!

You could also argue that no official sponsors compete with Google or that the benefits to the other sponsors (not just the Games) outweigh the negatives of ‘lost’ sponsorship revenue that Google could have paid. But as I see it the reasoning is simple…whilst thinking of themselves as the world’s most attractive sponsorship property the IOC have admitted that they value the partnership with Google more than the other way around.

So what can we expect in 2012? Maybe it’ll read: Google…sponsored by the Olympic Games!

 

4.2.2010 - Size doesn't matter - posted by William Fenton

Clever MLB Sponsorship Has Green Fingers
Lawn care might not be the most talked about product but it is estimated to be worth around $10 billion a year in the USA. To attract the nation’s many baseball fans to its products, The Scotts Company and the MLB linked up to make Scott’s the “official lawn care company of Major League Baseball”. This is great leverage of the sport’s biggest asset, the fanaticism of the fans. Now baseball supporters can sow "Grounds Keepers’ Select” seeds in their own backyard and make their lawn a tiny replica of such baseball temples as Fenway Park in Boston and Chicago's Wrigley Field.

Small is still beautiful
An amusing sponsorship with a serious point that is worthy of copying was Lucozade, who are a big sponsor of the Premier League. They are treating local club side Coton Green like a mini-version of one of their bigger sponsorships but paying just £3000. Coton Green receives a season's supply of Lucozade Sport products, a sponsored kit, and training sessions from Premier League coaches and advice from sports scientists. The idea was activated using a competition on radio station TalkSport.

29.1.2010 - Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers - posted by Pippa Collett

I always enjoy awards judging as it gives me the opportunity to get the inside track on a number of high profile projects as well as discover some hitherto hidden gems.

This year’s Hollis Awards have been no exception. Overall the quality was good. Several entries explained their previously impenetrable rationale and there were some inspirational activation campaigns amongst the 15 categories.

But, to Voltaire’s quotation that titles this piece, the big gap is still in setting SMART objectives and following these up with relevant evaluation. Only a tiny number of entries had clearly defined targets. Rather more had some sort of evaluation statistics, but these almost exclusively related to input measures (e.g. how many people were exposed to the campaign) rather than outputs (how this impacted their thinking about a brand), let along outcomes (did they change their behaviour as a result?).

The ‘rule’ in sponsorship still seems to be that the discipline is hard to measure and money is better spent on activation. Fortunately there are exceptions. I cannot give much away today but ‘watch this space’ on 10th March and I will name those projects I think are demonstrating best practice in 2010.

18.1.2010 - Global consumer trends for 2010: the role sponsorship can play in rebuilding consumer confidence (Part 2) - posted by Pippa Collett

5. Media evolution- customized communication
Micro-blogging, social networking and interactive media have exploded into consumers’ lives, and as confidence in usage grows, people will incorporate new media forms more into their daily lives. In the UK, nine in 10 adults have a computer in their home and in the US, four in 10 Americans have at least one social networking profile.
As people use new media to change and simplify daily tasks, they’ll question the nature of authority and effective use of advertising. Companies must work harder next year to truly engage, attract and interact with consumers, as media quickly evolves.
The brand winners will be those that really understand how media is evolving. For ‘boring’ brands, leveraging consumer passions around sponsored assets through interactive channels will be critical in demonstrating consumer understanding.

6. Ethical responsibility
Ethics will play a large part in rebuilding brands. Environmental and ethical issues still attract attention: nearly half of UK adults view them as important and 90% of Americans buy green products at least sometimes.
For businesses to rebuild brands through ethical efforts, they’ll need to connect with consumers, giving them an emotional reason to buy.
As consumers demand more from the companies they do business with, they’ll want ethical responsibility to be a chief concern, creating more scrutiny on ethical claims than ever before.
Sponsorship needs to tread carefully in this more ethical world, avoiding greenwash whilst not being afraid to leverage sponsorships that provide a genuine demonstration of ethical values.

7. Stability
The past year left its mark: consumers are shying away from the spending binges of the past few decades and finding that moderation and preparation are possibilities.
Mintel predicts 2010 will be a year for increasingly seeking balance and readjusting to the “New Economy.”
As people accept the economy as it is now and embark on more balanced spending, they’ll also stabilise other areas of their lives: food, diet, beauty.
Brands need to take this into account when making sponsorship investment decisions, and especially when withdrawal is in the frame. Whilst a sponsorship adopted in the ‘fat’ years may now be sub-optimal, brands may be well advised to stick with it to preserve the status quo. Equally, smart brands will leverage the opportunity to acquire sponsorship assets at lower prices to invest and demonstrate their long-term commitment.

Learn how trends are evolving at http://www.mintel.com/trends2010

18.1.2010 - Global consumer trends for 2010: the role sponsorship can play in rebuilding consumer confidence (Part 1) - posted by Pippa Collett

Mintel predicts some key consumer behaviour trends for the year ahead, looking at how last year’s adversity created a new set of values. Having reviewed these trends, I believe sponsorship has a significant role to play in helping brands win as people’s strengthened resolve and changed behaviours shape new lifestyles.

 1. Resilience: The New DIY Mentality
In 2010, Mintel expects consumers to demonstrate resilience—an ability adjust to any change brought on by the recession.
People will face this year with better attitudes and strengthened resolve, learning new skills like cooking and DIY repair to cope with the “New Economy.” Already, some 13 million Brits say they’re cooking from scratch more often, while a quarter of Americans made their own home improvements to save money.
As many people still face unemployment, 2010 may see them looking to online educational tools to develop professional and social skills. Sponsorships that harness consumers’ new resilient, education-driven mentality will benefit businesses, whether that is widening access or educationally-based activation programmes.

 2. Reviewing and re-evaluating : Brands Have to mean something
The past year gave consumers cause to re-evaluate every aspect of their lives, looking for value and savings.
Mintel research shows that in the UK, over half of Brits buy more on promotions and 28% have cut back on treats and luxuries. In 2010, expect shoppers to keep reviewing as they hunt out the best deals and realise where they can get by on less.
Value initiatives are important and they’ll remain so. However, consumers will purchase more expensive products if they are convinced of the products’ value. Brands that engage consumers effectively stand to be successful despite price barriers, and sponsorship is an ideal platform from which to create meaningful dialogue.

 3. Prove it – accountability
Because consumer confidence worldwide took a hit last year, 2010 will see increased demand for proof and results. People are tracking more areas of their lives through online forums, comparison sites and micro-blogging sites, so transparency is no longer a differentiator for brands; it’s a requirement.
We’ve become a society of doubters, sceptical of nutrition claims, the motives of “green” companies, and the competitiveness of bank rates.
Mintel predicts that in 2010, brands will need to pull out all the stops to gain consumers’ trust. Trust is not given lightly but engaging consumers through relevant sponsorship activity is a proven route to rebuilding relationships.

4. Escapism
The past year has meant a huge amount of economising and scaling back on previously normal treats and experiences. While consumers have become accustomed to staycations, small indulgences and cooking at home, Mintel predicts they’ll start occasionally breaking free from the tyranny of value in 2010.
Escapism will resonate both in and outside the home as consumers splurge on big purchases. Savvy brands are already capitalising on people’s desire to escape by offering new experiences like 3-D media and audio literature.
This trend has special relevance for sponsorship activation: sponsorship-related ‘money can’t buy’ experiences will be all the more important in empathising with this desire to escape everyday drudgery.

23.12.2009 - Return of a champion - posted by Pippa Collett

It seems that Michael Schumacher will be back in Formula One for the 2010 season, joining fellow German Nico Rosberg at the newly branded Mercedes team.

Whilst some may judge him to be past his prime, this is a smart move by Nick Fry and Ross Brawn. First, they will be in Bernie’s good books for providing a catalyst for re-igniting Germany’s interest in Formula One, one of the sport’s traditional key markets, and beyond. Second, the engineering team will benefit from his immense experience behind the wheel of Formula One cars, most recently with arch-rival Ferrari. Third, he might even win some races.

But fundamentally, the biggest benefit may come from Michael’s ability to attract and connect with Mercedes B2B audience. His maturity and experience beyond the Formula One circuit makes him a huge asset in engaging with captains of industry. Mercedes should not miss the opportunity to sweat this asset as hard, if not harder, off the track than on it.

This, along with the F1 pushing into developing markets, where status symbols for the emerging middle classes are all-important, and Petronas’ footprint in these markets, is key to Mercedes’ F1 investment strategy. With the other manufacturers all but gone from F1, Mercedes has a unique window of opportunity to leverage the platform largely free from OEM competition.

They say that those who invest in a recession come out of it strongest – I have every confidence that Nick, Ross, Mercedes and Michael will make a great business school case study in years to come.

12.12.2009 - Killing the goose that lays golden eggs - posted by Pippa Collett

Rather like the financial markets, the media, in their desire for instant gratification, have effectively derailed – at least for the moment - the long term gravy train that is Tiger Woods. They have traded of the long term benefit of being able to fill many pages with details of Wood’s sporting prowess for years to come for the nine days’ wonder that is Tiger Woods’s private life.

Whilst there might be an argument from the media that bread today is better than jam tomorrow, the intense coverage of his transgressions and the provision of a platform for alleged amours to merely amplify the issue for their own, and the media’s benefit, has potential implications for the media’s relationship with sponsors. Don’t forget, sponsors are also often major advertisers as well.

Of course, probably the worst hit in this debacle is Accenture. It was ironic that, on the day Tiger announced his retirement from golf for an indeterminate period, I happened to be catching up on some periodicals on the way to the airport. In one magazine, the inside cover had an “It’s what you do next that counts” Tiger ad. Clearly we are all now more than aware of what Tiger did next, and I don’t think it is what Accenture had in mind when aligning their brand with him. Further on there was another ad relating to recruitment: “Finding fulfilment at every step. Just another day in the office for a Tiger.” From what I know of Accenture, I don’t think they would be encouraging employees to follow in Wood’s recent footsteps, although it has to be said it did not appear to affect his work.

When someone trades on their personal brand to generate income, I would argue that they have a duty of care to their sponsors to remain true to that image. Tiger has proven that even the “safest” individuals can go off the rails and potentially damage the brands associated with them. Sponsors planning celebrity endorsement will need to review and refine the small print in their contracts to ensure harsh penalties should their ambassadors drift off course. They would also be wise to contingency plan for how best to respond to a variety of misdemeanours as the one thing they can be sure about is human nature!

6.12.2009 - Soccer Is A Global Business - posted by William Fenton

Further proof of the globalisation of soccer came in November with both Premiership clubs, Manchester City and Manchester United signing deals that leverage their brands on behalf of telecom operators in countries far from the UK. Manchester United has linked with the African network Globacom, which enjoys a presence in Nigeria, Ghana and Benin. Whilst the other Manchester club, Manchester City, owned by Abu Dhabi, appointed Etisalat the exclusive Telecommunications Partner of Etisalat's operations.

Manchester City chief executive Garry Cook explained the basis of the deal. "The profile of the club is already growing globally, and the ability to effectively expand this growth with tailored communications forms the core of our agreement with Etisalat. This strategic opportunity allows us to connect to passionate football fans around the Middle East and African regions, providing customised Manchester City content through mobile communications channels."

One of the themes we at Sponsorship Consulting are tracking is the growth in the youth development component of elite level sports sponsorships. The Etisalat sponsorship contains a development scheme for players in the UAE whilst players from West Africa will have a chance to enter Manchester United’s youth programme.

It is an acknowledged fact amongst the various sport federations that youth talent development programmes would not be possible without investment. Globacom are said to be paying as much as $5 million a year whilst Etilsat’s contribution for Manchester City is probably at a similar level. Much of this financial aid is driven by the huge development in mobile communications in the developing world. It is no coincidence that Telkom Kenya paid $175,000 to name the Council for East and Central Africa Football Associations (CECAFA) Senior Challenge Cup using the Orange brand. This latest competition adds to Orange's domination of soccer sponsorships on this continent through its multi-million dollar deal with governing body CAF, which sees it backing the African Nations Cup, the African Champions League, the African Confederations Cup, the Super Cup, the African Nations Championship and the African Youth Championship for the next eight years.

 

 

6.12.2009 - IndyCar Roars Back to Life - posted by William Fenton

This series appears to be regaining its health after patching up a 12 year old row that caused a ruinous split in open wheel racing in the US Furthermore, they have broken new ground in sponsorship terms, acquiring a clothing company rather than the traditional title sponsors such as oil, tyres or fuel. In a sense the current depressed market and the fact that IndyCar was not too cluttered by other sponsors, certainly compared to NASCAR, allowed the title sponsorship deal to happen. Phillips-Van Heusen’s Izod brand had been IndyCar’s official apparel in 2008, and after what were apparently quite gruelling negotiations the deal was signed last month. The value has been reported as being between $40-50 million for at least five years. The lesson here is the persistence of the rights holder and the desire to service the sponsor so well that stepping up to title sponsor became possible. Also admirable is that Izod will activate away from the race tracks and in locations like Macy’s which helps is great for IndyCar. As Zak Brown of Just Marketing International said "It's lifestyle, it's trendy, it's fashion, and as you go down the list it's about as good as you could get."

IndyCar have also exposed the Eureka Chemical Company to sponsorship for the first time by having their Fluid Film brand as title sponsor of qualifying day at Infineon Raceway’s IndyCar Series weekend. Although it is a relatively small sponsorship, it is significant as the chemical industry is notoriously hard to market and sponsorship is a good way of showing the benefits of chemical products to end users.

Finally, the series is blessed with two very marketable female competitors. Sarah Fisher recently renewed with AAA Hoosier Insurance, and Angie’s List and Dollar General also sponsor her team. Danica Patrick goes one better by having her Twitter page sponsored by Twitter and is considered likely to move to NASCAR where she could command some significant endorsement deals.

30.11.2009 - Reflections on 15 Marketing Society Insights (Part 2) - posted by The Sponsorship Consulting Team

9. Our world is increasingly dominated by fashion and style, which is merging with entertainment – marketing directors need to become style directors said John Hegarty…and sponsorship directors need to follow their lead, but not substitute style for substance if they are to deliver real results from sponsorship.

10. In 1859 Arthur Guinness signed a 9,000 year lease on the St James brewery in Dublin and the remarkable 250th anniversary celebrations this year saw 200 million fans of the black stuff in bars across the world raise a toast to Arthur …and we bet many of those fans will have been touched, engaged and loyalised through Guinness’s outstanding sponsorship activation programmes.

11. There are many ‘green fakers’ out there who say one thing and do another – the implicit and the explicit do not always match up and we need to understand the implications of this for marketing. Sponsorship is not immune to being used as greenwash but its highly public nature means the audience are not slow to ‘out’ sponsors that do not practice what they preach.

12. Stelios wishes he hadn’t believed his own bulls**t in the dotcom era and opened his internet cafes. He now says if something seems too good to be true – it is. Sponsorship needs hard work and a long term view compared to other marketing disciplines but has greater potential to create value on the bottom line or in the balance sheet – slackers looking for quick wins need not apply.

13. Shoppers look at a label in a supermarket for 5-7 seconds. Fans are exposed to sponsor brands for 90+ minutes and, whilst exposure alone does not equate with brand-building, maximizing visibility at an event in which the audience is truly engaged is a crucial first step in creating a brand relationship.

14. Each of us on average owes 19 months pay in debt. Unfortunately many rights-holders are in a similar position so sponsors need to choose their partner with care.

15. London Mayor, Boris Johnson, has high hopes for the London Olympics. Sales of Tsingau beer quadrupled during the Beijing Games and sales of condoms doubled during the Sydney Olympics. We are investing in Fulton – email us at info@sponsorshipconsulting.co.uk with the correct product category and you may receive a reward if you are right!

27.11.2009 - Reflections on 15 Marketing Society Insights (Part 1) posted by The Sponsorship Consulting team

The Marketing Society had the audacity to hold their 50th Anniversary Conference on the same day as Future Sponsorship. For those who have not yet developed the skill of being in two places at once, here are the 15 key learnings from The Marketing Society and Sponsorship Consulting’s comments in italics:

1. Between the ages of 10 and 11 the average child spends about 900 hours in class, 1200 with family and friends and 2000 in front of a screen, according to neuroscientist Susan Greenfield. So any brand that assists in getting the little darlings away from those screens, whether they are aimed at the tweens or their parents, will be much appreciated – no surprise that McDonald’s has recently announced a four year extension to its eight year Community partnership with the Football Association.

2. The consumer of the future will have a shorter attention span, reduced empathy, less sense of identity and be less risk averse. All good news for new or challenger brands but established brands will have to work harder to see off young pretenders – use digital and viral via new media platforms to energise traditional sponsorship relationships.

3. The ‘cacophony of content’ could get worse before it gets better – and monetising user generated content is no longer being pursued as the holy grail of online. Sponsorship has the ability to cut through the clutter and smart sponsors will encourage user-generated content to amplify their key messages.

4. When it comes to the future it’s not about being right, it’s about being ready, says futurologist Tamar Kasriel. Whilst 02 took innovative sponsorship to a whole new level at the top end, when it comes to demonstrating adaptability, smaller and cultural rights-holders are leading the way – the V&A, Barbican and Design Museum, along with football clubs like West Brom, Plymouth Argyle and Bristol Rovers are ones to watch.

5. Brands and the media today are controlled by the consumer. As marketers we need to embrace the chaos and work out how to manage it. Actually, we don’t think you can ‘manage’ it any more, but investing in community partnerships, and a good dose of humility, will carry you some distance when your brand temporarily raises consumers’ ire – compare RBS’s withdrawal from Formula One to e.on’s exit from the FA Cup.

6. ‘Expectation inflation’ has eaten away at our happiness. In the US, the ‘happiness index’ has actually risen since the recession. We are sure that the greater ‘flexibility’ in pricing and benefits packages has also increased the happiness index amongst sponsors – right-holders are having to adjust to the new realities of the current buyers’ market – see our blog on recent deals coming shortly that references this in the context of IndyCar Racing.

7. Successful companies are showing that consumers can and will take over every point in the supply chain. The same is true of the sponsorship chain, so sponsors and rights-holders need to move on from controlling rights to leveraging assets.

8. People would pay more attention to the emergency announcements on planes if they were sung as opera. We have already commented on how sponsorship can cut through but we suggest airlines invest in developing opera appreciation before implementing this idea!

SEE PART 2 FOR THE FINAL 7 POINTS AND PARTICIPATE IN OUR FUN COMPETITION!

20.11.2009 - Sir Jackie Stewart, Sponsorship Ambassador - posted by Graeme Davies in Scotland

Yesterday saw the thrilling (if somewhat wet!) start to the RACMSA Rally of Scotland, the final round in this year’s Intercontinental Rally Challenge (IRC) and the return of top-level motorsport to Scotland’s countryside.

I was fortunate enough to attend a small event focusing on the business case for bringing an event of this nature back to Scotland at which Sir Jackie Stewart spoke about his experiences of the business side of sport. Sir Jackie gave a ringing endorsement of the sponsorship industry and just what it can deliver to businesses; coming from such a Scottish legend the audiences listened intently.

What was interesting to me was how Sir Jackie approached it. There was no sentimental “buy Scottish” message, no discussion on the beauty of motorsport or the importance of nurturing young talent etc etc…instead he presented a hard nosed business case on what sponsorship (on either a global or local level) could deliver for business.

Brand building, awareness raising, advocacy, relationship building, networking, hospitality, employee motivation, B2B sales, promotions platform – Sir Jackie touched on them all and outlined just what a well thought through and well executed sponsorship can really deliver.

Some of the case studies were certainly impressive. Highland Spring currently supplies bottled water to British Airways, a deal first done when they both sponsored Sir Jackie’s first racing outfit. Hewlett Packard still supply Ford Motor Company with IT services, a partnership that grew out of their days at Stewart F1, and RBS now handle large chunks of the Ford pension fund, having been introduced again whilst mutual sponsors.

Sir Jackie had nothing to sell; he wasn’t looking for sponsorship from anyone in the room. He has obviously seen during his life just what sponsorship can do for business and the proud Scot in him wants Scottish businesses to learn from his experiences. Let’s just hope they do!

13.11.2009 - Delivered By You - posted by William Fenton

FedEx’s partnership with The European Rugby Cup deserves praise.  This provides a “money can’t buy” moment to the lucky rugby fan who will deliver the Heineken Cup to the winner's podium at the Stade de France in May.

FedEx has renewed its sponsorship, which started in 2005, and refreshed it with this “FedEx Rugby Dream Day“ initiative which is absolutely contemporary in using sponsorship to deliver the benefits bought as rights straight to the fans. Jean-Pierre Lux, President of ERC summed it up nicely in saying.” The feeling of carrying the Heineken Cup across the pitch in front of 80,000 fans towards the winning team at the podium will be an incredible moment for the winner. This really is a sensational prize, not just in rugby but across sport in general."

11.11.2009 - What's in a name? - posted by Pippa Collett

Naming rights to stadia, arenas and other iconic buildings are a valuable marketing tool, but are usually most effective when applied to buildings that have not had a strong emotional pull and/or a strong identity. Football stadia fall into the first category as a club's 'hallowed ground' and, unless you are creating a new home as in the Emirates stadium, it is hard to gain traction with fans or the media for a name change. The other issue is a practical one - a long name that includes a brand reference will inevitably get shortened and you may not like the moniker that becomes popular as a result.

Sportdirect.com @ St James's Park is a clever PR stunt but I believe it is actually damaging long term brand equity and will make it even more difficult to sell naming rights going forward. The LG Arena, on the other hand, may actually be enhancing the Arena's brand equity as, by branding a building whose identity was largely overshadowed by its parent NEC brand previously, LG is helping to create some differentiation. ‘The LG Arena’ is also reasonably short and snappy, making it easy for the media and the public to adopt.

The O2 is still the best-in-class example of naming rights sponsorship that has been successfully implemented, in spite of the dubious history of the building itself. The fusion of a great brand, the physical shape of the building and how this plays to the sponsor’s brand, and the ability to integrate brand experiences within the structure, fabric and operations is exemplary.

Of course, The O2 does have to debrand for the duration of the Olympics in 2012. However, I anticipate this will cause more confusion and frustration amongst visitors, and more column inches in PR coverage by the media for ‘the brand that cannot be named’, than accepting that O2 might gain superficial benefit from some level of association with the Olympics for which they have not paid LOCOG!

19.10.2009 - A Sponsor For Life? - posted by By William Fenton

Today saw the announcement that Staples Inc., the office supplies store group, has extended their sponsorship of the AEG-managed Staples Center “in perpetuity”. According to the Los Angeles Times, the original deal, signed in 1999 for 20 years, was worth $120 million, but no details have been made available on the cost of a “lifelong” commitment.
The definition of “perpetuity” is something of an open book – from prison sentencing we all know that a “life sentence” may not be quite what it seems. Are we talking about the lifetime of the building, the Staples company or something else?
Perhaps more fundamental is the lack of robust data to support the sponsorship renewal decision being put into the public domain. You have to sell a lot of A4 paper and HB pencils to cover this investment, let alone justify it to shareholders. Where are the KPIs and success criteria? I am sure there are many venues around the world which would benefit from sharing the success criteria on this deal.

5.10.2009 - Rumba in Rio 2016 - posted by Pippa Collett

On Friday evening the International Olympic Committee (IOC) finally awarded Latin America its first ever Olympic Games, after three previously unsuccessful attempts. For a city that is perhaps the party capital of the world, delivering their theme of “live your passion” should not prove too difficult for Rio de Janeiro. When you add spectacular scenery, emotional ambience and world class facilities that will be created for the FIFA World Cup in 2014, you have an intoxicating cocktail that clearly, in the final analysis, the IOC could not resist.

Whilst the Rio team’s anticipated sponsorship income is only a quarter of that planned by London 2012, as a BRIC country I imagine there are several brands salivating at the opportunity to engage the audience of one of the largest, fastest growing, but stable economies of the world. A number of international brands will aim to leverage the opportunity to penetrate or consolidate their market position (even better if they can afford a double-bill that includes FIFA2014 as well).

Taking a broader perspective, and following on from Beijing (2008), Sochi (2014) and now Rio (2016), it seems inevitable that India will shortly add itself to the Olympic host nations roster. If I was overseeing Mumbai or another major “I” city, I would be working hard on my bid for 2020, safe in the knowledge that, regardless of the “safety” or superiority of a bid from a more mature market, the IOC recognises that, to have a future, it must attract and engage with a more youthful audience, which India, like Rio, can deliver.

15.9.2009 - Are you enjoying the show? - posted by Sarah Armitage

Last Sunday morning the Blackberrys and i-phones of media and marketing execs were buzzing with excitement over the Government’s sudden decision to look at lifting the ban on product placement in UK television.  Whilst brands in programming currently exists - Heinz Tomato Ketchup popping up regularly in Corrie and Michelob being beer of choice in Hustle - the lifting of the ban has significant potential impact on editorial integrity, particularly in such troubled economic times.

I love spontaneity and action but I think the broadcast industry needs to take a collective 'moment' before we all jump in at the deep end of this opportunity. So many questions come to mind.

First, as a sponsorship consultancy, sponsorship is understandably close to our heart, so first up for me is “if my brand sponsors programme X, can my brand now feature in editorial?” It would seem penal if the sponsoring brand cannot be incorporated into a storyline, and positively criminal if any other brand had that opportunity, whether inadvertently or by design, without the client at least having first right of refusal.

However, assuming my brand continues to sponsor because it has proven an effective tool to date, how will my client feel about product/commercial activity, especially competitors, in ‘their’ show? Are they going to loose share of voice? After all, part of why the brand signed up to sponsorship was to stand out from the ad break clutter and establish a unique relationship with the show’s audience … and enjoy what the show says about the brand.

Leading on from this I’m keen to understand how the industry is going to control how many, how often and how overtly products feature in programming.  Let’s not be naïve - money ‘influences’.  Marketers’ stand-point will be “lots, please” based on the budget to pay for it. The broadcasters will want to optimize revenues, as will production companies, where they get a split.  With no control, the chances are that viewers will switch off and then we have all lost out. We need to look to where it is allowed (e.g. US, most of Europe), listen to the broadcast industry and then draw up a commercially viable framework that works for the industry … and viewers.

We must also bear in mind that UK programming currently represents best practice in terms of global quality and integrity, so programmers should be forgiven if they maintain the integrity of their output such that they do not jeopardise the multi-millions of international dollars for only domestic gain.

From my musings you probably think I’m anti-product placement. I’m not. But I am a firm believer in leveraging the commercial opportunity offered by programming, provided it is done with integrity.

The fact that Boyd now drives an Audi, was a Lexus, doesn’t interrupt my viewing but subtly lodges in my memory and if I was considering a new car, I’d think more about the messaging of this activity. Provided the viewer is put first, let Pandora’s Box be opened. However I recommend we refer to it as brand integration as it suggests blending with editorial.

Some final thoughts: isn’t it interesting that, just when the commercial industry is damning the BBC for being too dominant and pressure is being applied to revise CRR, the Government makes a sudden U-turn on placement?  Might this appease and/or distract the commercial world?  Will sponsorship, and now placement impacts, be included in CRR?  Probably just my cynical mind at work! 

9.9.2009 - Homecoming Scotland - posted by Graeme Davies in Scotland

Anyone who has been to Scotland in the last year will have noticed the celebrations taking place throughout 2009 to mark Scotland's first ever Homecoming year, inspired by the 250th anniversary of Robert Burns' birth. As a Scot myself, I’m very fortunate that 2009 has also marked my very own homecoming; I have moved back to Edinburgh, after five years in London, to open Sponsorship Consulting’s new Scottish operation.

And what a wonderful return it has been. From where I’m sitting, despite the dark skies and rain outside my office window, I believe the future looks bright for the Scottish sponsorship industry.

The summer festival season is now over and it has been more popular than ever. The Fringe enjoyed record attendance with ticket sales up 21% on last year; the Edinburgh International Book Festival and others also reported strong growth.

The recent economic crisis, and alteration to the “status” of some of Scotland’s biggest sponsors (you can probably guess about whom I’m referring), will undoubtedly mean that changes are afoot but Scotland definitely presents some wonderful sponsorship opportunities.

No sooner have the Edinburgh Festivals ended than we must shift attention further west to Glasgow which is hosting the MOBO Awards at the end of September. In fact alongside the annual festivals, sports matches, music events and the world’s biggest Hogmanay party, there are many exciting opportunities calandarised through to 2014. During that year we shall welcome the world’s best golfers to the Ryder Cup and then athletes from all over the world to the 2014 Commonwealth Games, re-inforcing Scotland’s position on the world stage.

With the latest statistics showing a decline in advertising and marketing spend and yet an growth in sponsorship activity, brands are increasingly realising that sponsorship offers an interesting and cost effective way to target consumers – and Scotland certainly has a strong portfolio of great properties!

3.9.2009 - Getting away from it all?! - posted by Pippa Collett

I have recently returned from two weeks of fabulous sunshine in Menorca, a quiet and remarkably unspoilt island compared to its better known and more heavily exploited neighbours, Mallorca and Ibiza.

I did virtually nothing except indulge my passion for novels, a random selection, mostly other people’s cast-offs.  Much to my surprise, at least 3 incorporated sponsorship into the storyline, from NASCAR and the New York Yankees (John Grisham, I think) to blowing up the title sponsor’s hospitality box at Newmarket races (Dick Francis)!

With future holidays in mind, has anyone got suggestions of other works of fiction that incorporate sponsorship? Please email them to info@sponsorshipconsulting.co.uk before the end of September and I will create a reading list, downloadable from our Resources section, in time for the Winter holiday season!

12.8.2009 - I love 2012! - posted by Pippa Collett

I am an unashamed fan of the Olympics, summer or winter, as a spectacle that brings the world together, an opportunity to enjoy sports that normally gain little media coverage and for the inspiration of what can be achieved, whether that is a personal best, a gold medal or an opening ceremony of the size and complexity of Beijing.

But I love 2012 even more because of how it is transforming this great city.  For so long British stoicism has put up with transport, traffic and other infrastructural problems that relate to 2000 years of legacy systems. Then some nutters (and I say that in the most positive way) decided to fly in the face of British cynicism and have a flutter on bidding for the Games.

Four years on and we are already seeing how this great event is forcing change for good.  It may be painful in the short term, as those who need the Victoria Line at the weekend will testify, but Londoners will enjoy the improvements long after the Olympic “circus” has moved on.  All those “little” jobs that have been put off for years are finally getting done and London is blooming as a result.

Meanwhile, although we have not seen a lot from our Olympic sponsors, you can rest assured that they are working hard on their Games contributions, particularly those relating to the systems and infrastructure that are aimed at delivering “the best games ever”. At the same time sponsors are also leveraging Olympic equity to transform themselves internally so that, hopefully, customers will also enjoy an enhanced experience of these brands in the long term.

Three years from now it will all be over, but thank you Seb and the 2012 team past, present and future, for taking on the British and winning. There is at least one citizen who appreciates your efforts.

30.7.2009 - Wasting a good crisis - posted by Pippa Collett

We have seen several corporations leverage the current economic environment as a reason for exiting sponsorships over the last few months.  Unfortunately, based on how they have handled their withdrawal from F1 this week, it seems that BMW is clearly unaware of the golden opportunity that a recession provides for making a graceful exit.
Dr. Norbert Reithofer, Chairman of the Board of Management of BMW AG, states that it is a positioning decision: 'Premium will increasingly be defined in terms of sustainability and environmental compatibility. This is an area in which we want to remain in the lead. In line with our Strategy Number ONE, we are continually reviewing all projects and initiatives to check them for future viability and sustainability. Our Formula One campaign is thus less a key promoter for us'.
There is no doubt that shipping all that kit around the world leaves a fairly heavy carbon footprint.  However, my Shell experience suggests that, in relative terms, F1 cars are at the forefront of fuel economy – after all, the more k.p.h. you can squeeze out of a litre of fuel, the lighter you can ride and the further/faster you can go.
The sustainability argument for exiting F1 might be defensible if it were not for the fact that BMW will continue to support a number of other motorsport activities. In the same press release BMW confirmed that they remain committed to the touring car series and young driver promotion programme in Formula BMW, the American Le Mans Series, endurance races, close-to-production customer sports and the World Superbike championship.
To further clarify, or not, their position, Dr. Klaus Draeger, the member of the Board of Management responsible for development, said:
'It only took us three years to establish ourselves as a top team with the BMW Sauber F1 Team. Unfortunately, we were unable to meet expectations in the current season'.
So, is it a sustainability issue or would the decision have been different if they had stayed with Williams? It seems that the lack of coherence around BMW’s F1 exit decision might be reflective of a muddled strategic approach to F1 and other motorsports in the first place.

8.7.2009 - Follower or leader? Henley Royal Rowing Regatta - posted by Pippa Collett

On a glorious English summer’s day last week I enjoyed the ultimate English summer excursion, a trip to Henley Royal Rowing Regatta.

Henley is a total anachronism: it may have made it to the 21st Century but has the feeling of being from another age, c.1922.  The dress code for the Stewards’ Enclosure is strict – women must wear dresses or skirts, and on no account should these be short enough to show their knees, and men must wear jackets and ties – as are the rules regarding the non-use of mobiles and blackberries.  This also applies to their attitude to sponsorship where less is more with a preference for none at all.

This year Invesco Perpetual was the only brand in evidence, primarily around Leander with a few pin badges escaping along the river bank. With the place packed with the cream of English society this makes a lot of sense for one of the largest investment managers in the UK, although they missed a trick in terms of wider audience engagement – after all, very few at Henley actually have much interest in the rowing.

There is a part of me that applauds the Henley approach to sponsorship – by not getting fat on the proceeds of sponsorship in “good” years they have not developed the event beyond self-sustainability when faced with leaner times.  This is a lesson that many other rights-holders are learning the hard way in the current recession, with significant cutbacks in delivery having to be made in order to stay in business, let alone remain in profit.

We hear that financial services bonuses are back on track, with record payouts planned for this year.  Some rights-holders are looking forward to the return of the good old days of a sellers’ market in sponsorship.  My counsel to them is to thoroughly review their business models, aiming to be less reliant on sponsorship funding in order to create a more sustainable future.  Even if the good old days do return, rights-holders should remember Pharaoh’s Dream, as immortalised by Elvis impersonators the world over, and save surpluses for the next recession – because one thing is sure, there will be another one!

3.7.2009 - Grass roots of the Silver Ferns - posted by Graeme Davies

Back home in the UK we‘re all pretty used to supermarkets handing over some kind of voucher along with your till receipt whether it be for computers, sports kits or some other educational aid. However, in New Zealand I‘ve come across an interesting alternative.

Netball is huge down here, and the New Zealand Silver Ferns are sponsored by supermarket chain New World. I probably wouldn’t have known about this had it not been for the TV adverts and in-store activity promoting their latest leveraging initiative and so I curiously logged on to www.getsponsored.co.nz/

As I’ve said, the idea is nothing new; collect tokens for every dollar you spend and exchange for ’goods’…yawn, yawn. But, cleverly, New World has linked this to their netball sponsorship with amateur team-members working together and whichever collects the most tokens in any region gets its own New World “sponsorship deal”.  OK, we’re not talking cold hard cash but I don’t know many amateur teams who would turn down coaching, VIP tickets, new adidas kits etc.!

What I liked about this initiative is its ability to engage with family passions. I think was still at school when Tesco launched their ‘computers for schools’ scheme but I don’t remember hassling my mother to change her shopping habits; the idea that her weekly shop might help get one more computer for the school IT room wasn’t very motivating to me.

But linking this initiative to a team sport I can imagine having quite a different effect. The competitive nature of netball will surely have transferred into an off-pitch challenge as to which team can win the sponsorship deal, with team members rallying around their friends, families, associates and communities to try to get as many tokens as possible. At the end of the competition New World had over 2000 teams entered and, whilst I don’t have their sales data, from the evidence I saw I’d guess that was accompanied by increased trade.

So hats off to New World for taking a potentially old-hat idea and reinvigorating it with a sponsorship twist…and good luck to the 12 winning amateur teams. I just hope New World will keep in touch with them going forward…if someone playing for one of these teams today were to become a Silver Fern themselves it’d be a PR dream!

25.6.2009 - Invasion of the value snatchers? - posted by Jackie Mills

As a dweller in the world famous SW19 postcode I can confirm that Wimbledon fever has undoubtedly kicked in for another year. Although the media cannot decide whether to devote more column inches to Andy Murray or RBS’s hospitality bill, my interest is more motivated by how the official sponsors are coping alongside the non-official experiential marketers in engaging the never-ending queue for tickets returns.

Whilst some health & safety party-poopers may have tried to disperse the queue early in the week, a quick trip down Church Road confirmed that, from the outside at least, Evian (an official supplier) was comfortably rubbing shoulders with the likes of Corona and Ricola to service the refreshment needs of these tennis die-hards. It did not feel like proactive ambush marketing, just like everyone getting together to have a good time.

With the London Olympics drawing closer, it is a good opportunity for rights-holders to observe how one manages official sponsors versus hangers-on. Official sponsors will want exclusivity (or category exclusivity at the very least), with benefits inside the perimeter but it would be foolish for the LTA in this instance to attempt to over-police activity beyond their own boundaries. That said, in the same throw of the dice, it is also an aspect which needs close monitoring in case it turns into overt ambush marketing of official sponsors.

I'd be interested in feedback from any of the official sponsors after the championships to hear their perspective of this issue...along with their opinion on ROI achieved for their sponsorship pounds.  Blossom Hill, Robinsons, Evian, Haagen-Dazs: please get in touch!

19.6.2009 - History repeating? - posted by Pippa Collett

The reason we are apparently taught history in school is so that we can learn lessons from the past and apply them when facing similar situations in future. It seems that the FIA and FOTA should reflect on the acrimonious divorce between the US’s Indy Racing League and ChampCar in the 1990’s before they kill the golden egg-laying goose that is Formula One.

What began as a tussle over the Indy name resulted in split audiences, reduced TV coverage and lower sponsorship funding. It took twelve years before the situation got so bad that the egos involved were able to behave more rationally, resulting in re-unification last season. However, in the interim, overall levels of interest in open wheel racing in the US had fallen, an issue F1 itself has been grappling with in terms of building its own franchise states-side.

F1 is a sport, not a legal requirement. The smaller teams are not compelled to turn up and, as evidenced by Brawn GP’s success, can play David to the bigger teams' Goliath. Clearly team budgets are an issue but there seems to be consensus about controlling them – the challenge is around how this is to be achieved.

In the meantime, World Rally or A1GP will be looking at how NASCAR benefited from IRL and CART’s little tiff to see what opportunities a rift in F1 might present for claiming the WOUSA motorsport high ground. F1 needs to think hard before it leaves the door open for a usurper and lets history repeat itself.

17.6.2009 - Maker Difference - posted by Pippa Collett

I attended the Cockpit Arts open evening last week, an opportunity to re-awaken my creative side or, as my husband puts it, spend money on pretty, useless things – with the punctuation being my interpretation of his words!

Cockpit Arts has two sites in Holborn and Deptford and is apparently the UK’s only incubator for designer-makers. A wide range of fashion was on sale with jewellery in abundance, but there were also other creative concepts including ceramics and digital projection. Their manifesto is to “maker” difference to lifestyle, landfill, finances and creativity in the UK, with the emphasis on the latter.

What interested me was their approach to partnership. It was refreshingly naïve without being ignorant. The bottom rung is becoming a Friend, but this is split into Lonely, Bountiful or Fairy Godmother/Sugar Daddy tiers. Deeper partnership opportunities are available including Awards and Research categories.

Whilst this may not present a mainstream sponsorship opportunity, Cockpit Arts definitely provides scope for a brand’s sponsorship agenda. The Holborn site may be a little hard to find, and the “corporate hospitality” facilities are somewhat utilitarian, but engaging with the artisans, with the possibility of private demonstrations, creativity development amongst employees and bespoke commissions for corporate gifts is a potent experiential combination.

15.6.2009 - Wine, women and science - posted by Pippa Collett

Those who follow Sponsorship Consulting on Twitter will know that I had the good fortune to attend the Science Museum’s centenary dinner on Thursday. This was actually a fun event and I can confirm that Professor Rapley’s generosity challenges that of any of his London rivals when it comes to both the hospitality and the setting.

The first surprise of the evening was the bold move of launching a £100 million appeal to renovate the museum in the depths of a recession. The plans are impressive and definitely aim to cement a positioning as the museum of the future, leveraging the proposal to pedestrianise parts of Exhibition Road to best advantage.

The second surprise was that the Science Museum was able to announce that they had kicked off with a £4m+ sponsorship from Life Technologies. Having managed capital fundraising projects myself, I know the psychology of having good news to get the fundraising ball rolling and I am sure that, between sponsorship, trusts and foundations, the Science Museum has a good chance of reaching its goal.

However, the third surprise of the night was less to do with the Science Museum and more to do with science itself. I had the pleasure of sitting with Dame Margaret Weston, an ex-Director of the Museum and highly inspirational for any woman in business. She was such a good example of getting what you want if you are determined enough – she turned down the WRNS because she wanted to “do more” during World War II, instead securing an apprenticeship with GEC.

My discussion with her was followed by speeches and, shortly afterward, guests departed clutching a goodie bag provided by L’Oreal. When I sifted through mine the following morning, I was at first somewhat insulted that most of the products included anti-ageing agents. A cup of coffee later I realised what a smart sponsorship this was – people invited to a celebratory dinner with a fundraising underbelly are likely to be older, more wrinkley and more wealthy than average, therefore more likely to require and afford these top of the range products.

Even better, on reading the programme I learned that L’Oreal created the Women in Science awards to make female scientist role models visible with the intention of encouraging more women into the profession. Suddenly the whole relationship made perfect sense, both cerebrally and commercially. It may have lacked the best communication approach and assumed no offence would be taken but, ultimately, here was a CSR sponsorship leveraging a commercial sampling opportunity to good effect.

The only gap in this campaign is the feedback loop – what did I think of the products and will I actually buy any when my generous sample packs run out? I look forward to that particular market research phone call in several years when I have grown old enough to have a need to test the products provided!

20.5.2009 - Sponsorship still under pressure - posted by William Fenton

   While most people are wondering if we are in recovery, and just when that will feed into sponsorship, anyone involved in day to day selling of sponsorship will confirm that only the most special opportunities are worth pitching at the moment. It is painful to hear just how tight budgets are from companies in every sector, cars, FMCG, foods and almost everyone else.

A recent study supports this market feedback. According to Asia Sponsorship News, about 70% of all sponsors across the Asian region plan to cut their sponsorship budgets as a result of the global financial crisis. 51% are expecting budget decreases in the order of 10%-24% while only 19% expect decreases of less than 10%. The study indicated that budget cuts will be across all aspects of sponsorship including rights fees, direct marketing, activation, corporate hospitality, talent endorsement and creative production.

However, the survey also showed that overall declines in spending across Asia were expected to be lower than in Europe and the US. This indicates that many global companies still see Asia as their growth engine in the medium term.

The idea of staying with sponsorship rather than making cuts was backed by a study in Ireland by Dublin Consultancy Onside showing that three-quarters of Irish adults believe that in today's economy it is more important than ever for companies to invest in sponsorship and would like to see brands either maintain or increase their current levels of investment in sponsorship. 22% called on companies to actually increase their spend on sponsorship of sport in Ireland while almost 4 in 10 felt it is the right time to spend more of a company's overall marketing euro on sponsorship of their favourite causes or not-for-profit organisations.

So, there will be rewards from relationships built up now but it looks like hard work for a good while yet. The silver lining is that the greater consideration of whether and what to sponsor in the current environment raises the standard overall and will pay off long term.

14.5.2009 - Stating the obvious - posted by Pippa Collett

At Soccerex today a new opinion poll of football clubs, sponsors, agencies and other bodies looked at a variety of commercial challenges within the sport of football. One conclusion was that fans need to be treated more like paying consumers and that their continued loyalty shouldn't be taken for granted.
Soccerex, in association with sports marketing agency NSP Sport, polled the views of over 100 senior figures from within the European football industry. The analysis by SKOPOS market insight showed that over 80% of all respondents felt understanding and monetising fan behaviour was important as the credit crunch continues to bite into consumer spending.
One respondent that asked to remain anonymous said: 'Today's fans are already more like traditional consumers than 'supporters'. If the price isn't right or the product not good enough, they'll walk.'
Well it’s about time football clubs woke up to the fact that, in this multi-connected 24/7 world, fans won’t stay fans forever if they are not getting sufficient fodder to feed their fanship. Gone are the days when you supported your local club because that’s what it was – local – and probably the only place you could reach on a Saturday afternoon. Fans are increasingly sophisticated and looking for something more from their club than a one-way relationship.
Some clubs have circumvented the issue of addressing local value delivery by embracing multi-market potential. This will pay dividends as long as the club’s ownership and/or financial structure props up performance on the field.
But what happens when a club’s financial performance fails? Whether this is relegation from the Premier League or the impact of the credit crunch on key financial arrangements, it will find itself in disarray. If a club has not invested, emotionally and financially, in its core fan base, whether they have a local or emotional link, the funding deficit spiral is only going one way.
I am aware of at least one Premiership club looking for Asian funding to support its development in the immediate future. Perhaps their energy would be better spent re-engaging with their current and potential fan base to build brand equity that will carry them forward to a more sustainable position in the long term.

5.5.2009 - Slippery surfaces - posted by Pippa Collett

The newly formed British Winter Sports Group was launched last week. It comprises twelve of Britain’s Winter Sports disciplines, all of which have World Cup programmes and strong, club-based, grass roots programmes in the UK.

This coming-together has been driven by the need to acquire sponsorship funding for success, primarily with a long term view orientated towards Sochi 2014, but with an opportunity for brands to bask in reflected glory of any medal-winning performance at Vancouver 2010.

The Group is looking for commercial partners to support athletes and integrate with the Olympic disciplines of Alpine, Freestyle and Cross Country Skiing, Biathlon, Snowboarding, Bobsleigh, Bob Skeleton, Luge, Curling, Figure Skating, Ice Hockey and Short Track Speed Skating.

Ideally they seek a “white knight” to take title sponsorship of around £10 million over 5 years, leveraging the marketing potential and a unique association with a diverse range of sports where the investment made will make a demonstrable difference.

In the current marketplace this seems like a big ask but, if we break it down into key benefits available to sponsors, it starts to make more economic sense:

1) brand building – the resurgence of interest in skating through Dancing on Ice and the potential to exploit success from 2010 offers appropriate brands significant brand-building opportunities.
2) commercial success – over 2 million, primarily ABC1, Britons ski each year, Ski Club of Great Britain has a database of around 150,000, there are 10 million visits annually to the UK’s 64 ice rinks and Curling has a cool schools programme with over 5000 participants. Converting even 1% of that lot is 121,550 new customers.
3) Stakeholder engagement – whether it is employee team-building on the bobsleigh run in Bath, entertaining local councilors at a Figure Skating Fest or creating an ice hockey Midnight League to reduce local crime rates on a Friday night, the combination of options on offer from the Group definitely corresponds to the concept that the whole is greater that the sum of the parts.

So what it really comes down to is brand matching. Bringing the disciplines together results is a plethora of values with which a brand might associate itself: competition, winning, health, energy, pride, integrity, excellence, dynamism,
achievement, passion, participation, value for money, escapism, hedonism, youth and much, much more. Whilst associating your brand with going downhill fast on a slippery slope may something of a risk in the current market, the advantage of the Winter Sports Group offer is that it provides a variety of alternative brand positionings to embrace.

It must be hard to have signed away your Olympic rights to LOCOG so that London could win the summer Olympics in 2012. But my personal experience suggests that there are opportunities outside the official that can often be more exploitable as a result.

4.5.2009 - Why, oh why! - posted by Graeme Davies in Asia

  Here in Asia I have been aware of a number of sponsorships that immediately seem to make sense; Petronas sponsoring the broadcasts of Formula 1, for example, or my personal favourite Tiger Balm's sponsorship of the tigers at Singapore Night Safari. There are also some others that, having now seen the local marketplace, are more easily understood, such as Chang Beer's sponsorship of Liverpool FC, especially when I found out that Liverpool are to travel to Thailand in the off-season.

Like at home, there are other sponsorships that just don't seem to click straight away but what I have noticed is that brands here actually seem to be better at explaining WHY they are sponsoring something. A great example of this is HSBC's support of the Asian Five Nations rugby tournament and a TV advert I recently saw - to view yourself visit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr2monV-wV4
OK, so it may not be the best advert ever (and I'm not sure what it's says about the modern role of women!) but hats off to HSBC for explaining its rationale for supporting this competition.

I have long been an advocate of sponsors proactively explaining the purpose of a particular sponsorship to their stakeholders, rather than simply relying on them working it out for themselves. There are some good examples - I can remember a long time ago HP running campaigns explaining why they were supporting Williams F1 and the National Gallery - but it's still too rare. Perhaps in the past this wasn't always considered important but the current economic environment demands greater accountability. As a shareholder I myself have begun to keep a closer eye on what "my" companies are spending money on. If shareholders are not engaged around the motives underpinning sponsorship investments, the Board should not be surprised if they come under pressure for throwing money away!

28.4.2009 - Recession and sponsorship: the new realities - posted by William Fenton

At the 11th Think! Sponsorship Conference yesterday the atmosphere was surprisingly upbeat given the negative publicity sponsorship has been receiving recently. Whilst IEG’s figures suggest a definite slowdown in the growth of the sponsorship market, their forecasts are that it is still growing, unlike the nose-dive taken by advertising, so things are not as bad as the media might make out.

This appears to be driven by several things:
• Growing brand share is even more important in a shrinking market, but sponsorship is well placed to provide protection against share erosion.
• The recession is impacting activation budgets but this is forcing sponsors to focus their resources on key value drivers rather than simply undertaking any interesting activity that is suggested.
• They say that necessity is the mother of invention and current budget strictures are encouraging considerable creativity to come to the fore.

The general feeling is that the recession has merely accelerated a process that was already happening. The main trends are:
• Much greater focus on partnership between sponsor and rights-holder, with emphasis on aligned goals, possibly backed up by performance-related pay coming into play in sponsorship agreements.
• A strong and growing interest in the value-in-kind and/or marketing-in-kind components in a sponsorship agreement from sponsors as they look to make the relationship more meaningful without requiring large cash investments.
• An acceptance that fans will no longer tolerate sponsors that do not make a genuine contribution to enhancing their experience through the partnership.

Whilst there have been a number of high profile sponsorship withdrawals, the volume of sponsorship deals is actually holding up well. However, there is a shift in what and how brands are sponsoring. In particular, there is less interest in higher level packages and negotiating periods are being stretched by brand procrastination. It will be interesting to see how things develop over the next six months as we enter the key Autumn budgeting period.

13.4.2009 - Brand guardians beware! - posted by Graeme Davies

From here in Thailand I’ve started to wonder how the brand managers of global corporations can ever enjoy a holiday in Asia! The big global brand names can be found in so many places out here but I’m pretty confident that a large number of these don’t always follow those carefully prepared brand books we’ve all become used to. What is perhaps more concerning is how these brands are often positioned…two examples follow to demonstrate what I mean.

On the infamous Khao San Road in Bangkok the competition amongst bars is such that pretty, scantily dressed girls are hired to go out, chat to tourists and try to tempt them in to their specific drinking establishment. Each of these girls however is fully branded with a different beer or spirit brand - from Heineken to Jack Daniels. Having chatted to a couple of these girls (all in the line of duty you understand) and having resisted the temptation to buy one of their ‘buckets’ of cocktails let me put it this way…I’m not sure the “drink responsibly” message that almost every alcohol brand promotes in the UK had quite got through! I’m sure they do increase sales for their specific drinks and enjoy the commission they get for doing so. However are these girls the best choice of brand ambassadors?

For my second example, let me paint you another picture. A Thai building site, workers balanced precariously on thin pieces of wood, flip-flops have replaced steel toe-capped boots, not a hard-hat is in sight, one guy is leaning having a cigarette chatting to a lorry driver on what appears to be barrels of diesel. A large cement mixer lorry is pouring it’s latest load of concrete into the basket of a crane whilst a worker crouches pretty much directly underneath. At this point I glance again at the lorry - which not only is adorned with the name of a multinational aggregate brand but the sticker in the window of the lorry is clearly displaying the company’s slogan demonstrating it’s commitment to health and safety!

Of course companies need to operate in a way appropriate to the local market and ensure their profitability but it does make you wonder to what extent these “brand guardians“ really influence what goes on in various countries. Surely a brand built on its commitment to health and safely should be able to demonstrate that more meaningfully than simply through a window sticker?

31.3.2009 - Hollis Rewards - posted by Pippa Collett

There was a wide variety of sponsorships recognized at Monday’s Hollis Awards with entries involving sport, culture, arts, social, education and youth-focused platforms. Of course, there was also the usual mumblings over various decisions, but that is the nature of these events.
Sponsorship Consulting’s client, Deloitte, won best arts sponsorship for Deloitte Ignite, a performing arts festival based at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden. Others, including Shell and Unilever, were shortlisted in the education and corporate sponsorship categories respectively.
However, I am always open to learning from others and the Hollis Awards are a good opportunity to spot great case studies. This year my personal favourite was Morrisons “Let’s Grow” campaign, aimed at teaching children where fruit and vegetables really come from. A new twist on the ‘computers/sports kit for schools’ concept, vouchers could be collected at Morrisons’ checkouts and swapped for seeds, gardening equipment and even greenhouses. No only did an impressive number of schools participate, the sales uplift was pretty significant as well. This is a great example of a sponsorship that satisfies both a commercial and social agenda. Of course, I am sure the kids would like it even more if livestock were involved in its next iteration!
I am also pleased, if somewhat envious, that Castrol won the European Sponsorship Assocation’s International Award for its Euro 2008 campaign. When I was at Shell we got very close to sponsoring the Champions’ League but were not able to quite close the deal. Castrol demonstrated that, although the product has little to do with football, they were well able to use customer insight to identify how to turn this football platform to advantage.
The recognition of Chris Townsend from LOCOG as Personality of the Year for his role in securing so much sponsorship for 2012 was well justified. He has set the benchmark pretty high for future contenders – but I have always liked a challenge!

27.3.2009 - Vince is convincing - posted by Pippa Collett

I was with my ex-colleague from Shell, Vince Cable, earlier this week discussing the legacy we can expect from the current economic crisis. He pulled no punches when he said that there will be a lot of losers, with unemployment forecast to top the 3 million mark in the UK and around 50% of this summer’s university leavers unlikely to get a job. However, he also felt that there would be a more positive outcome through people rethinking their lifestyles and rebalancing their expenditure patterns with a greater emphasis on savings.

The challenge is that, coupled with non-existent interest rates for savings, trust in our financial institutions is at an all-time low. So, whether you have savings now or would like to start putting something away in future, finding a safe home for your money, let alone one that offers more than microscopic returns, is a real issue. Only the Bank of England can address the latter, but how are financial services providers going to rebuild trust in both consumer and commercial markets?

This is one agenda item that I think sponsorship is particularly well suited to address. A carefully conceived and thoughtfully implemented partnership with an organisation that has no trust issues, whatever the sector, would be a valuable step on the road to trust recovery.

Of course, just badging any old sponsorship opportunity will not do. The Edelman Trust Barometer 2009 highlights that authenticity in the relationship, alignment with addressing societal problems such as education, climate change or healthcare, and demonstrable added value will be the keys to success.

It won’t change things overnight – we all know from personal experience that trust, once lost, takes a very long time to rebuild – but investing those executive bonuses in non-profit projects would send a powerful message that business leaders are ready and willing to share the pain they have created and invest in re-building what they so casually destroyed.

20.3.2009 - Same, same...but different - posted by Graeme Davies

I write this from a slightly different location to my previous entries as I am currently on a short career break travelling around the world. As well as being a great adventure, this trip is also giving me a great opportunity to learn more about how sponsorship manifests itself around the world - which I hope to share with you over the coming months.

Out here, this saying is often quoted to tourists (and to be found on a lot of t-shirts). Apart from the obvious, from what I’ve seen so far this saying also suits the sponsorship industry perfectly.

The ‘same’ is best demonstrated by the big global players who have evidently managed to reach the furthest corners of the world with one, well positioned, sponsorship deal. This was illustrated when we found ourselves in the middle of the Mekong Delta, in a town very seldom visited by Western tourists (to the point that EVERYONE stared at us!). However, within five minutes I had spotted AIG and Samsung adorning the shirts of their respective Premier League clubs. It just goes to show how some sponsorships really can be global in reach.

The following day brought one of the more ‘different’ experiences. In the same small Vietnamese town we came across a young guy wearing what first appeared a standard Man U shirt with AIG written clearly across the front. What we then noticed was that firstly, it was pretty obviously a fake, and also that it was completely lacking any mention of Manchester United. Now I know this guy might not have been exactly AIG’s target audience but I couldn’t help wondering if AIG would be a) ecstatic at this brand cross-over or b) pretty concerned that there was little realisation that AIG and Man U were separate organisations…let alone be able to tell you what AIG do!

This reinforced the care with which sponsors must choose their partners. Audiences can very quickly begin to consider your brands as one and the same. The upside is that a sponsor can share in any success, but sponsors may be equally exposed to damage by any rights-holder failings.

25.2.2009 - Italian job - posted by Pippa Collett

The swamping of Venice, not by seawater but by Coca Cola, has caused consternation in the Italian media. How could this iconic city stoop to such commercialism? The fact that the 2.1m-euro sponsorship fee will go towards safeguarding the city’s artistic heritage is apparently not a good enough excuse.

I’m afraid I am fully on the side of the Mayor of Venice, Massimo Cacciari. The current economic conditions require a paradigm shift in thinking and, as long as they do not actually paint the town red, the authorities will have achieved a triple win – cash to conserve the crumbling palaces and churches that are the essence of the city’s attraction as a tourism destination, easily accessible beverages for thirsty tourists and sales for Coke. This is a winning combination and I look forward to seeing this partnership entered in ESA’s European Sponsorship Awards next year!

18.2.2009 - History repeating itself? Lessons from Lockerbie for sponsorship - posted by Pippa Collett

The recent sponsorship renewal announcements by RBS and Lloyds banks and their subsequent vilification by the media for wasting taxpayers’ money reminded me of another mis-handled media event. This had terminal consequences for the brand in question.

As a student I had the opportunity to review the different approaches of Pan Am and British Midland Airways to handling the media in the aftermath of two tragic plane crashes only months apart. Pan Am adopted a big corporate attitude and resolutely attempted to distance itself from the disaster with a “no comment” approach. It was later confirmed that this crash was as a result of a terrorist act.

British Midland, a minor airline by comparison, demonstrated real humanity through the media. Its chairman, Sir Michael Bishop, acted as spokesperson from the site of the crash, repeatedly emphasising his personal sorrow and the company’s determination to get to the bottom of the story, whatever the cause. This turned out to be pilot error.

The problem with Pan Am’s approach was that, in distancing itself from the crash in the media, it distanced itself so far from its customers that it went out of business. Meanwhile British Midland continues to trade successfully and regularly wins awards for customer service.

I cannot comment on whether RBS or Lloyds are correct to renew their partnerships with celebrities or the Chelsea Flower Show respectively as I have not been party to the deliberations that led to these decisions. However, the way they have engaged with the media around these decisions has definitely damaged these brands and the sponsorship industry as a whole.

Correctly conceived and flawlessly executed, sponsorship is a powerful marketing tool through which brands and corporations can interact with a variety of target audiences. Ensuring that the media is properly informed as to the reasons behind sponsorship decisions can amplify sponsorship success. Lack of proper media engagement is likely to result in key messages being poorly communicated at best. At worst, look to Pan Am.

6.2.2009 - Premiership football: bucking the trend posted by Pippa Collett

Deloitte has reported that, regardless of the harshest economic environment since the Premiership was established, English clubs will have spent a record-breaking £177m during the January transfer window to boost their teams’ performance in the second half of the season. This is £26 million more than last year and amounts to more than the combined spend of the Spanish, Italian and German leagues. It is also a staggering 400% increase on the spend by clubs in the introductory January transfer window in 2003 of £35millon.
Manchester City’s new owners were obviously keen to have their presence felt, spending an estimated £50 million on a package of players including West Ham’s striker Craig Bellamy, defender Wayne Bridge from Chelsea, Shay Given from goal at Newcastle and Hamburg’s Nigel de Jong. Tottenham Hotspur was not far behind at £45m, spent on buying back previous players to re-join the squad at White Hart Lane.

But what makes clubs so bullish? "With the majority of their revenue streams already secured for the current season, whilst clubs are not recession-proof, they are relatively recession-resistant," said Paul Rawnsley, director in the sports business group at Deloitte.
This is clearly reflected in the £1.78bn Record Premier League TV deals secured with BSkyB and Setanta for the next tranche of live British rights.

"The live UK rights are the largest contribution to the revenues we distribute centrally to the clubs and this deal gives them the stability to plan and invest in the most important aspect of our business – the football – everything else flows from that" commented the Premier League's chief executive, Richard Scudamore.

It’s a good thing that the numbers stack up for TV then, because clearly Premiership clubs are losing their lustre as a sponsorship opportunity. Although Newcastle United is just about hanging onto the nationalised Northern Rock and West Ham has secured a half season deal with SBOBET following the collapse of XL Airways, Manchester United is seeking a replacement to AIG, West Brom is campaigning without a shirt sponsor and a number of others are less than secure.

The reasons behind this vary but the underlying trend is a fundamental desire by sponsors to improve returns. Shirt sponsorships are all very well when there is money to burn on gaining brand awareness but, as O2, T-Mobile and Thomas Cook have learned, there is often a more lucrative relationship that does not involve the vanity of emblazoning club shirts with your brand.

This trend is also evident in Formula One. Although contracts tend to be longer, five rather than three years for those teams at the front of the grid, several major sponsors are questioning returns including Credit Suisse,ING and, of course, RBS.
Where companies are locked into contracts that may have appeared reasonable under “business as usual” conditions, current circumstances may yet generate new models and a secondary market in sponsorship rights. If I was a rights-holder (with the possible exception of the IOC and FIFA) I would certainly be interested to explore how current sponsors could alleviate their financial commitments by introducing me to a syndicate of new sponsors today that have the potential to be major sponsors tomorrow.

14.1.2009 - New Formats - the answer to any problem? posted by Pippa Collett

As the world’s leading snooker player, when Ronnie O’Sullivan commented to The Guardian that “[snooker] is dying unless something happens…”, you have to believe he knows his subject. He is not the first to identify that there is something wrong with how a sport is delivering to at least one of its constituents, and several visionaries have come up with a variety of solutions.

The undisputed leader in the quest for ‘refreshment’ in recent years has been cricket with the Twenty20 format. This sport has really set the benchmark against which others can aspire but already had the advantage of a stadium-based format.

More challenging is an attempt to ‘concentrate’ sports with a larger footprint in order to improve the live audience experience, widen its potential fan base whist also making it easier, and therefore more lucrative, to televise the event. One example is the Race of Champions, which brought motorsport into a stadium environment, most recently at Wembley where World Rally’s Sebastien Loeb was crowned champion.

Another is that supposed bastion of the upper classes, three day eventing. British Eventing recently sanctioned the inaugural Express Eventing International Cup, which aimed to capture the best of an equestrian three day event format into around 6 hours at the Millennium Stadium, Cardiff.

This was an interesting experiment: the dressage phase was definitely lifted by the music, but 4 minutes plus interference from Lord Lloyd Webber and Arlene Phillips was too long if you are looking for a “short format”. The lunch break entertainment of Jodie Foster and Tara Palmer-Tomkinson was not very entertaining: Jodie went slow and safe, Tara’s experience of studs did not seem to include those in horses’ hooves!

Finally into the jumping phase: the length of the combined show-jumping and cross-country course proved too much for many to memorise, resulting in multiple eliminations for loss of way. Ollie Townend finally showed how it could be done with a blistering, winning round.

I applaud eventing for having a go at a new format; I am sure that the competitors enjoyed the atmosphere and the 5,000+ crowd clearly felt frost-bite was a small price to pay (on top of tickets, parking, no/poor food or hot beverages and, much more critically, no equestrian shopping) for the intimate experience. Whilst this event appeared to secure limited sponsorship from Musto and Sky this time round, it certainly has potential.

Ronnie is right – snooker does need an overhaul, especially if it wants to attract strong audiences going forward. After all, new, targetable audiences are extremely attractive to potential sponsors. However, it is more about really understanding the key drivers of the audiences you are trying to engage, and then focusing on how you can deliver against those needs, rather than the more tactical creation of headline-grabbing prize funds. I look forward to the outcomes of any discussions, but a little glamour would not go amiss.

19.12.2008 - New Year's Resolutions posted by Pippa Collett

New Year’s Resolutions

The deepening recession does not spell disaster for sponsorship. Rather it should be viewed as an opportunity to spring clean your sponsorship portfolio. The Sponsorship Consulting team recommends three New Year resolutions:
1) Dump the junk – undertake a robust review of all your sponsorships to provide data-based evidence for exiting poor performers and focus resources on turning good sponsorships into great ones.
2) Employees as advocates –customer contact staff are often an under-utilised resource. Invest in ensuring that all employees are able to articulate your key sponsorship messages and you will reap rewards on the bottom line.
3) Enjoy some sale shopping – rights-holders are working hard to be more creative about the types of involvement they might offer sponsors, and at what price. Review gaps in your portfolio to see whether there is the opportunity to pick up a bargain with potential for growth as the economy recovers.
The Sponsorship Consulting team hope you have a happy holiday season and look forward to a fresh and exciting 2009!

8.12.2008 - With apologies to Kennedy posted by Pippa Collett

I was discussing opportunities with the Toyota Formula One team last week and was very impressed by their sponsor-friendly approach. What might have been considered progressive, if not downright unnecessary by F1 competitors, in the boom is paying dividends for Toyota in the economic downturn. They really want to understand what their sponsors are trying to achieve and be an integral part of the delivery: cash and dash is definitely not their mantra.

Whilst some elements were peculiar to their specific operation, there were several ideas that other rights-holders should seriously consider as enhancements to their own sponsor offering.

1) Team Bible – this is both an online and hard copy collection of information about motorsport, F1, the FIA, the Toyota team, personnel profiles, sponsorship assets etc. Rather than leaving new sponsors to figure it all out for themselves, and possibly making costly errors, Toyota really works at getting their partners down the learning curve. Whatever genre a rights-holder represents, they will be more expert in their industry, environment and operations than their sponsors. This concept translates into almost all other sponsorship situations and would be perceived as significant added value.
2) Campaign management tool – an online form for soliciting promotional approvals, which builds a database of exploitation ideas for other partners to draw from. As partners are complementary rather than competitive this reduces time and resources spent “re-inventing the wheel” when it comes to sponsorship activation. Particularly in times of reduced budgets, this will play a valuable role in stimulating sponsors’ activation ideas. Of course, it does not have to be online, but building an easily accessible portfolio of successful exploitation of sponsorship platforms for new sponsors to review is a powerful marketing tool.
3) Annual Sponsor Conference – by getting their sponsors together, Toyota fosters the generation of co-marketing programmes for the shared sponsorship platform but, more importantly, enables sponsors to look at cross-business opportunities that generate hard financial returns.
4) Annual Feedback Survey – Toyota solicits feedback on whether sponsors are happy with their outcomes and suggestions as to what more Toyota could do. Less sophisticated rights-holders might consider this a high risk approach. I would argue that, if this is the case, they already recognise at some level that they are not delivering value for money to their sponsors.
5) Performance related fees – these relate to performance against sponsors’ objectives rather than success on the track, although these are not mutually exclusive. This aligns the team with delivering results not only for themselves but for their sponsors.

As the financial crisis deepens I would urge any rights-holder to review how they interact with their sponsors with a view to identifying ways in which they can improve their service offering. As President Kennedy said (with modifications) rights-holders must “ask not what your sponsors can do for you, but what you can do for your sponsors”.

26.11.2008 - Online Sponsorship – why? posted by Jackie Mills

A common mistake with online sponsorship is that it is just a case of mirroring existing ‘real world’ sponsorship agreements. Whilst this is of course possible, there are many more opportunities to expand sponsorship online (even without a budget bursting expense).

Take for example a sporting event such as the UK’s rugby or football Premierships. The great thing about online sponsorship opportunities is that they enable sponsors such as Guinness or Barclays the increased opportunities for fans to engage with their brands. The Guinness and Barclays names will be prominent when fans are searching online for information about their Premiership teams.

Below is a screen-grab from the Barclays Premier League Football website. The advantage of Barclays online sponsorship over other online mediums such as the Budweiser banner-ad is that the sponsor (Barclays) has the benefit that their brand name is already familiar and associated with the rights-holder brand (The Premier league) in the ‘real world’ – thus building on the existing relationship and trust. 

 

24.11.2008 - The recession compass for rights holders posted by Pippa Collett

Recession - what recession?

A potential client highlighted that my recent comments about seeing the recession as an opportunity focussed solely on sponsors. As a rights-holder, they were more interested in my thoughts as to what opportunities the current economic climate might present for themselves. Never one to resist a challenge, here are just a few of my thoughts in which rights-holders can positively leverage the current economic downturn:

1. The inertia amongst many brands reluctant to take on new sponsorships at the moment provides an ideal opportunity to reallocate selling time in the short term. Use this previous “selling time” to instead conduct a review of your sponsorship offering and how it compares in the marketplace to identify how your approach could be improved. The lack of “business as usual” often provides the catalyst for a conscious shift in thinking internally that changes the way a rights-holder sees itself and its sponsorship offering. A fresh approach may open up opportunities to attract different types of sponsors for your new or re-defined sponsorship assets.

2. Now is the time to influence the threat (real or imagined) of sponsors using the excuse “recessionary cut-backs” to exit their investments to persuade your board to invest in key benefits that will enhance your sponsorship offering. I have long said that “cash and dash” relationships are dead, but the recent prosperous years have led some rights-holders to ignore their part in delivering ROI for sponsors. Whether you have been trying to improve sponsor branding in the face of an un-flexible operations managers or enhance your hospitality offering when the caterers perceive a pie and pint is sufficient, the risk of losing sponsorship revenue is a great way to focus senior management minds on priorities.

3. With people in several sectors having almost literally nothing to do at work (including anyone to do with the housing market, construction or automotive sectors) now is a good time to invite them to informal focus groups around sponsorship. You will gain invaluable insights into how your brand is perceived and possible enhancements to your sponsorship offering. More importantly perhaps, you will also be building your network of contacts, their awareness of your properties and an appreciation of your willingness to listen that will create value for the future.

13.11.2008 - Recession - what recession? An alternative perspective. posted by Pippa Collett

I was invited to present an award at the Sport & Business Awards in Poland last week and it was a timely reminder that there is more than one view of the world. Whilst the UK is paralysed as it waits anxiously to see how the recession develops, the atmosphere in Warsaw was much more upbeat. “We see it less as a problem and more of an opportunity” said Krzysztof Kropielnicki, Vice President of the Sport & Business Forum.

During the long queue to get through security (some things are no different!) I reflected on how this approach might be adopted by sponsors and concluded that:

1. The economic downturn presents a unique opportunity to prune the sponsorship portfolio, getting rid of dead wood in order to allow the remainder to flourish. This is a great time to eject weak sponsorships so that resources can be focussed on turning good projects into great performers. A thorough evaluation of each sponsorship in a portfolio will unequivocally highlight strengths and weaknesses and expose underperforming pet projects for all to see. Even if contractually you cannot exit, you will be armed with the ammunition you need to ensure that activation money is not wasted on unredeemable sponsorships within your portfolio.


2. Even for those sponsorships that are performing above the hurdle rate, it is worth reviewing each package of sponsorship assets, and your sponsorship contracts, to see if anything more can be squeezed out of them. This should be done in conjunction with recommendation No.3 below as identifying all possible assets which may spark new activation ideas.


3. Tightening marketing budgets will also force a review of sponsorship activation spend. This should also be viewed as an opportunity to re-focus resources on the elements of your activation programme that drive the most value. It may also generate more creative approaches – small budgets often force more ingenious solutions.


4. As brands strip down their underperforming sponsorships, over-supply in the market will drive down prices. Somebody else’s problem child may be your star in the making. Now is the time to look at your sponsorship portfolio to see if anything coming onto the market will fill a gap - this could be the time to grab yourself a bargain!


5. Lower initial investment levels have the added advantage that their economics are stacked in favour of generating greater ROI. The creation and implementation of a tightly targeted, results-orientated activation plan will create a win-win result for both the corporation and you if you have negotiated a performance-based bonus!

3.11.2008 - Hamilton hammers home posted by Pippa Collett

Lewis Hamilton waited until the last bend in the last lap of the last round of the F1 season to clinch the Drivers’ Championship for himself and the Constructors’ Award for McLaren. If I didn’t know better I would assume this was a staged performance with Mr Ecclestone in the role of F1 master puppeteer. But nobody can take away from Hamilton’s success, even if he did leave it to the last few seconds to deliver the goods. McLaren and Hamilton’s individual sponsors should be proud of achievements and implementing plans that capitalise on this success.

However, success is merely a table stake in today’s cutthroat product endorsement business. Not only must you achieve cut-through performance (which Hamilton has, at least in the UK if the number of minutes/column inches dedicated to reflecting on his achievement is taken as a guideline) a celebrity must be perceived as a media darling as well. Hamilton is often criticised for not being open to media interviews whilst on the grid – well excuse me, but do we see any marauding reporters staking out the start line at the Olympics 100 metres final? I think even Usain Bolt might have balked at that level of media intrusion before he sauntered his way to the 100m Gold medal in Beijing.

Hamilton is a cool customer, and personally I prefer the media personality of Kovaleinen, but ultimately Hamilton has delivered for McLaren, their sponsors and his personal endorsement partners. I have not yet seen viewing statistics for last night’s coverage, but I am sure that there will be a significant positive impact by the Championships going “to the wire” that will provide a halo effect for all involved.
Whilst at Shell I enjoyed the Ferrari/Schumacher glory years. I look forward to seeing how well Hamilton can replicate Michael’s success whilst also introducing a new generation to the passion and dedication of Formula One. There’s nothing like following a winning F1 team to keep your Sunday afternoons alive!

24.10.2008 - Employee engagement – the key to success. posted by Graeme Davies

Earlier this week Giles Morgan, Global Head of Sponsorship at HSBC, told me that the most interesting finding from some internal research around sponsorship was that, although many employees could name one or more sponsorships HSBC were undertaking, they had very little understanding as to the rationale for these investments. This was not new to me – back in 2001 at Shell I discovered the same issue and embarked on an intensive programme to help colleagues at all levels have the “right” answer to the “Ferrari – so what’s that all about?” question.

It is bad enough when front line staff cannot articulate the basic premise for a sponsorship to friends down the pub, or even customers, when times are good.
But, at a time when many employees will be suffering uncertainty of employment, this lack of understanding will not help an appreciation of the “my job or that sponsorship” conundrum.

Today I had the great good fortune to spend time with one company that is investing heavily in creating understanding around their rowing sponsorship – Siemens. I was at the finals of the Siemens Indoor Rowing Regatta, the culmination of a series of heats at Siemens’ offices all around the UK. Around 80 competitors, their families and colleagues turned out to cheer individual performances and the team relay finale. The atmosphere was electric, but fundamentally all attendees understood that, amongst other objectives, uniting people from more than 20 disparate business units was a key KPI for this sponsorship investment.

Everyone celebrated personal stories, from the mum who never thought she would achieve anything but was prepared to “have a go” to one of the adaptive rowers who simply didn’t care about the competition, he just wanted to improve on his own heat time. Perhaps the most moving was a woman who, last year to the day, underwent surgery for breast cancer and thought that, as a result, she would never be able to participate in the Regatta. Luckily she had a partner who had a different perspective and today he was proved right as, having won her heat, she went on to win a silver medal, awarded to her by Zac Purchase, the Gold medal winning rower in Beijing.

Whilst many CEOs pay lip service to employees as their biggest asset in the corporation’s Annual Report, today I saw one company making this a reality.
Siemens is not immune to the global downturn but with a well informed and cohesive base of employees I believe they’re in a better position to weather the storm.

1.10.2008 - That’s not just corporate responsibility, that’s M&S corporate responsibility! posted by Graeme Davies

Firstly please excuse the pun in the title…I couldn’t resist. However as corny as it may be I found out last night that M&S takes the ethos central to their advertising campaign right through their business, including into their corporate responsibility.

I happened to be with Sir Stuart and some of his senior management this week discussing about how M&S has tackled the issue of corporate responsibility by developing what they called Plan A…and what I’m sure a few competitors called brave!

Of particular interest to me was how Plan A has been communicated since it was launched early in 2007. Clearly there was a need to inform customers, investors and other stakeholders of what M&S was doing but M&S seems to have also managed to explain why. To me as a customer, this has been achieved through simple messaging, clear design but also directly through staff; to date millions of coat hangers have been reused as a result of staff not asking “would you like the hanger?” but “would you like us to recycle this hanger?”.

Personally I feel this is an area in which many companies could do much better. It’s all very well having a CSR policy, implementing new environmental schemes or starting up social initiatives but often companies large and small fail to tell anybody why they are doing it! I’m sure part of this is fear; fear that they might be held to account or fear that they might have to stop these initiatives in tough times (something Sir Stuart is clear that M&S will not be doing in this uncertain economic climate). I believe companies should actually be more afraid of what stakeholders will think if they fail to communicate properly; investors thinking profits are being squandered or NGOs/government believing CSR efforts are simple greenwash.

We at SCL have a strong history of working across the CSR agenda (community, marketplace, workplace and environment) and specifically in assisting clients on how to better communicate their CSR initiatives. In order to avoid this sounding like a pure sales pitch, feel free to give me a call at any time if you would like a free, no obligation discussion around your CSR communications challenges.

25.9.2008 - Keeping it legal? Leveraging the Olympics posted by Pippa Collett

LOCOG’s feathers were ruffled again this week, this time by the Chartered Institute of Marketing. The CIM’s latest Shape the Agenda paper, unveiled at a briefing at their Cookham campus this morning, states:
“The Olympics Act is a restrictive piece of legislation…executed in a heavy handed, blanket way…[by] a body that seems keener to protect large international companies than support its own grass roots businesses and entrepreneurs.”
I admit I have been somewhat selective with their text, but this gets to the heart of the matter. How can SMEs gain some benefit from the Games when faced with the threat of a £20,000 fine if they are unable to prove themselves innocent of transgressing the legislation (in itself, a reversal of the presumption of innocence enshrined in English law for hundreds of years)?

I also happened to receive an email today quoting Three Rules for Turning Stress into Success (it’s amazing what cyberspace junk mail delivers!). The first rule is “Accept the Unchangeable”.
I believe there is very limited scope, and even less appetite, to amend the draconian protections of the Olympics Act 2006. I am therefore advocating that we all focus on the future rather than bemoaning the past. By this I mean channelling our energy and creativity into how to work within the legislation, or far enough outside it so as not to make waves that may rapidly turn into a LOCOG legal tsunami.

Shameless plugging of Sponsorship Consulting whilst blogging is not my normal practice, but for once I am making an exception. We have already advised a wide range of corporations on their non-LOCOG Olympics association options. Some are currently quite high profile, Siemens’ sponsorship of the Amateur Rowing Association and the GB Rowing team being one example. But the Sponsorship Consulting team’s ingenuity extends far beyond the obvious, with lots of ideas on how to benefit, many of which require remarkably modest hard cash to implement.

If you want to know more about how you can leverage London 2012 without being a LOCOG sponsor I will happily tell you, but you will have to call me first!

9.9.2008 - Banana Apocalypse posted by Oli Bridge

The week’s catastrophic events for Lehman Brothers and their repercussions throughout the financial world have acted as a stark reminder that many of our greatest and grandest financial institutions are not floating on very thin ice, but rather, thin air. The cult of unsubstantiated equity in investment banks has left many people falling into the abyss.

Against this backdrop, the Financial Times continued to publish its “How to Spend It” supplements last week. The poor employees of Lehman Brothers may be reportedly buying 30 bananas with the remaining money on their canteen cards, but the FT obviously feels that some of its readers are still after a little bit more!

Edward Hood defined in a previous blog why fans continue to buy the shirts of their favourite teams in their droves, even when they are losing. His assertion was that consumers constantly “live in the supreme belief that the next encounter will be the turning point”. It not surprising then that advertising continues unabated in the broadsheets that our ‘falling men’ open up each morning. The advertisements adorning the pages of our printed media stand in the face of the gloomy recession-centric content smattered across the adjacent pages. They bring with them not only an ‘escape’, but a vital injection of ‘hope’ into a waning consumer confidence.

In this context, one thing is for sure, advertising and sponsorship opportunities are more important to consumer confidence than ever. Moreover, those that offer a vision beyond the boundaries of a deep recession will be indispensable to the market. London 2012 is the apotheosis of this model, because for many the event invokes hope of a renaissance, and crucially, a time outside of the tide-pull of current crises.

If many analysts are correct, and we cannot expect an upturn until 2010 at the earliest, we needn’t just hang around until then, but stare the slump right between the eyes and plough on regardless of media negativity. Now is the perfect time to accelerate into the future, and not flounder in the present.

29.8.2008 - Keeping up with the Jones’s posted by Pippa Collett

From the first moment of the Opening Ceremony till the final firework, Beijing 2008 was a stunning success for the Chinese. Of course, having the largest population in the world from which to select one’s athletes (more than 20 times bigger than that of the UK) helped, as well as a “money no object” approach to the budget, but I have to admire the scale of both their imagination and execution.

The question now in everyone’s mind is how will LOCOG follow that? The eight minute segment in the handover ceremony featuring a London bus and an aging rock star might not be considered as a terribly auspicious start. The economic downturn, coupled with the most cynical media in the world, will ensure a tough budgetary environment where utility will triumph over design. LOCOG cannot compete on the same staging playing field, so they need an alternative platform to make London 2012 memorable.

One solution, inspired by the 10k open water swimmer, Natalie du Toit, and the BBC’s multi-channel streaming, is to combine the Paralympics fully into the Olympics, running Olympic and Paralympic disciplines concurrently and amalgamating Opening and Closing Ceremonies.

I imagine this might pose some logistical challenges but these would not be insurmountable. If LOCOG really wants to live up to its ambition to create a Games that will touch people as never before, this integrated approach would send a strong statement about inclusivity to the world.

11.8.2008 - Nice Nike or savvy Speedo? posted by Graeme Davies

If you’ve watched any of the Olympics so far you can’t fail to have noticed that the swimmers in Beijing appear to be blowing all previous competitors out of the water (excuse the terrible pun!). Even during the heats we saw national, Olympic and even World Records tumble during the climax event of an amazing year for this sport.

There are of course a number of reasons for the various successes the famous Water Cube has seen and I wouldn’t want to take anything away from the supreme athletes participating. However, a number of these individuals (Michael Phelps and our own Rebecca Adlington to name but two) have been assisted by some new technology entering the sport in the form of the Speedo LZR technology.

Great publicity for Speedo, not so good for Nike! You see prior to the Olympics the impact of the new LZR technology was already obviously and so Nike took the unprecedented decision to allow athletes that it sponsors to wear their competitor’s equipment in both trials and at the Games itself. Certainly it wouldn’t have been a decision they took lightly but to some extent they were in a loose-loose situation. As I see it Nike had to either A) admit defeat and allow Speedo suits to be warn as they did, or B) run the risk of their athletes being disadvantaged throughout…meaning anything short of Gold would have resulted in the media placing the blame being firmly at the door of the nearest Nike Store!

I therefore commend Nike for making this call – although I also praise Speedo (and it must be said their partner Nottingham University) for developing the technology in the first place! But have we seen the last of these brand battles?

As so many sports become increasingly competitive, with hundredths of seconds separating winners and losers, technology is becoming more important. Similarly top-flight athletes in almost all sports now rely on financial deals with kit suppliers to keep them in pasta and sports drinks.

Do the manufacturers therefore need to ensure their equipment is helping each athlete achieve their maximum potential or do the governing bodies need to be quicker off the mark to ban developments that unfairly assist some but not all competitors?

5.2.2008 - Hollis highlights sponsorship creativity posted by Pippa Collett

What is it about America that is so attractive? If it is not the sub-prime crisis or the Obama/Clinton/ McCain/Romney presidential road show then it is The US Super Bowl attracting unprecedented column inches in the UK media over the last week. Either way, I am reminded just how much the US dominates the global economy.

This is also true in sponsorship terms, whether it is a UK headquartered bank, Barclays, agreeing a $400m naming rights deal with the New York Jets arena or the ability of The University of South Carolina to negotiate a $50 million nine-year contract to make ISP Sports and Learfield Communications the multimedia and advertising rights holder for its athletics programme. I am sure that The O2 and Oxbridge would never aspire to equivalent figures even in their wildest dreams.

There is no doubt that the US has a lot to teach the European practitioner in leading the sponsorship agenda, but I think that Europe has something to offer in return. A scarcity of resources encourages creativity and, whilst headline-grabbing financials do exist this side of the pond, we see progressively more imaginative sponsorships and leveraging concepts.

There was evidence of this as I judged the Hollis Awards recently, where several smaller partnerships attracted my attention for their ingenuity in maximising the relationship for mutual benefit. However, this did not come at the expense of seeking appropriate returns from sponsorship investment – I was heartened to see an increase in quantifiable sponsorship evaluation. I was also struck by the real synergy demonstrated by many entries and their sponsors. Look out for Western Union and the MOBOS, Marstons with English Cricket Board and flyKandi with Monarch, just some of my personal favourites, at the Hollis Awards on 3rd March.

1.2.2008 - Brand Beckham and the FA posted by Pippa Collett

The news that Beckham has not been chosen for Fabio Capello’s first England squad is another nail in the coffin for England’s sponsors. Not only have they lost the opportunity to exploit their sponsorship in the run up to the European Championships through the team’s inept on-pitch performance, failing to select Beckham for the match against Switzerland adds insult to injury. One wonders how long the FA’s partners will hold off demanding re-negotiation of contracts or take the decision to pull out all together.

It seems that Lord Triesman, the FA’s new independent chairman, has his work cut out if he is to pull together the disparate strands that represent football at all levels in this country. The key to success will be developing a sound strategy that balances commercial interests against the social remit.

With attendance levels in the Premiership running at an all time high and many of the clubs proactively promoting themselves (and their sponsors) abroad, it could prove economically challenging for the international team to re-emerge from the shadow of this growing global phenomenon.

25.1.2008 - Will BT bite off more than it can chew? posted by Pippa Collett

The news that global telecoms giant BT has entered an exclusive sponsorship negotiation period with the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games (LOCOG) may have surprised some after Orange’s name had been very much in the frame over recent weeks. The modern challenger brand that is Orange fits well with the values of London 2012 compared to the behemoth that is BT. That is, of course, until one remembers that, through a series of sales, the much loved “British” brand Orange is now owned by BT’s biggest rival and foreigner to boot, France Telecom. In addition, BT has been working hard to sharpen its image, assisted by online sponsorships with a series of cultural institutions including Tate, and an Olympic link could provide valuable leverage in rebuilding consumer liking for the brand.

After TOP sponsor Atos Origin, the telecoms contract must be the most complex to scope, particularly at a time of unprecedented change in this industry sector. The key to success for both parties will be their ability to imagine industry developments in 5 years, an extended time horizon for virtually any corporation, where the next 13 weeks tends to be the limit of vision. Convergence in communications is rapidly blurring the distinctions between voice, video and data services over fixed line, mobile and broadband and bringing the category into conflict with the already- contract broadcast providers

It is not that difficult to see what LOCOG wants – guaranteed “connectivity” and the association with the “B” in BT to underline national credentials, especially when it is likely that one or more premiere partners will be “offshore” (e.g. Russia’s Gazprom in the Oil & Gas category). For BT it is likely to be primarily about showcasing their capability to deliver huge, complex, mission critical communications services to a select number of global corporations.

However, an Olympic-sized investment is too big to lay on only one corporate division if a positive return is to be realised. A fully-rounded leverage plan that incorporates all touch-points will be required. Consumer programmes, stakeholder engagement, employee development activities and corporate social responsibility are all levers to be pulled in the pursuit of “profit” on this deal. Check back in 2013 to see how I rate their performance.

24.1.2008 - SCL Blog: F1 spending restrictions posted by Graeme Davies

Max Mosley this week announced the FIA’s intention to impose budget capping on F1 teams from 2009 onwards; something that has long been rumored on the pit-lane although many people never thought it would come to fruition. There are still a lot of unanswered questions, but what might be the impact on the sport, the sponsors and the teams? Let’s discuss just a few of the issues…

Firstly, the FIA proposal is not as black and white as it might first appear. Currently the concept limits spending on certain developments but leaves the teams free to invest as much as they like (or can afford) on salaries, engine development and promotional/marketing activities. Engine regulation is already progressing so this doesn’t leave too much flexibility for teams to plough millions into gaining competitive advantage here. However, one of the supposed reasons for imposing limited spending is the “green” agenda. If this is where the FIA really want to go (and it certainly would be apposite and help to lessen/delay criticism) then surely emissions regulations would work better?

So what about the sponsors? Well, if you’re looking to align your brand with the glamour of F1 then you might not be too concerned; the Formula One circus shows no signs of retracting its annual global touring schedule and budget capping is unlikely to lessen the celebrities that turn up to each race! If, however, historically you have chosen F1 as a technology showcasing opportunity then the new spending rules may lessen F1’s appeal over, say, the America’s Cup.

Team bosses seem to be mostly supportive of the FIA’s plans but then perhaps this isn’t all that surprising; many teams are now run by motor manufacturers, most of whom have entered F1 with the hope of instant glory but have yet to deliver as well as they’d hoped. In addition, the recent EU legislation on carbon emissions may mean manufacturers are planning to focus R&D budgets on emission reduction technologies before new F1 developments. Some teams will presumably just redirect funds to other areas of their business, but will it also mean that more will be spent on the unrestricted areas; even bigger salaries and additional marketing activity. In a time of declining public sense of defining themselves by nationality, might we soon see people divided not by their country of origin but by whichever F1 team they support….and would that make Bernie Eccleston our global leader!?

4.1.2008 - Get with the programme: A new paradigm for pitchers posted by Pippa Collett

Advertising agencies approached to pitch for LOCOG’s communications account have their underwear in disarray over Chris Townsend’s apparent desire to position the winning agency as a sponsor rather than a supplier. The main difference is which way the cash flows – outflows to suppliers versus inflows from sponsors.

Knowing Chris and the budgetary mountain he has to climb I am not at all surprised at his approach, except that he did not dream it up before LOCOG paid Wollf Olins a staggering £400,000 for the controversial 2012 logo. A reverse pitch process for the “Creative Communications” sponsor category might not only have saved the entire creative budget but resulted in net cash inflows to LOCOG as well. Deloitte is rumoured to be paying around £15 million in cash and consultancy for the privilege of being “Professional Services Supporter” – why not replicate this model across LOCOG’s procurement portfolio?

Frankly, as a UK taxpayer, I applaud any initiative that reduces the Olympic funding burden on me. So I welcome “Official Anything” where the cash flows into LOCOG rather than out of the taxpayer’s purse. I hope that the procurement team at the ODA are also getting to grips with the concept – Official Infrastructure Design Partner (Architects), Official Delivery Partner (Construction companies), Official Security/Lighting/Seating/Concrete/Astroturf etc. Provider works for me.

The wider issue for our advertising agency brethren is which other prestigious accounts will view this initiative with more than passing interest. But maybe this is what they need as the incentive to really embrace sponsorship as a marketing tool, so far mostly limited to forays into broadcast partnerships. Advertising agencies need to get to grips with sponsorship as an alternative to the 30 second spot. Sponsorship offers the potential for a much stronger, deeper relationships with a target audience than advertising, even if it is harder work.

WPP et al. do not need to worry yet – in a free market economy there are few properties where demand exceeds supply – but the Olympics raises an interesting question and all those in the marketing services community need to think this through this new paradigm. Brave and forward-thinking is the ad agency that proactively embraces sponsorship within its own marketing mix.

26.10.2007 - How much impact do poorly performing teams have on sponsors? posted by Edward Hood

The last two weeks have made for painful viewing for any Brit who has half an interest in sport. First it was the three lions losing on the plastic pitch in Russia, then Les Blancs succumbed to the stampeding Springboks in Paris and finally Lewis Hamilton suffered engine setbacks in Sao Paulo.

However do these failures, and I use the word lightly, by our national heroes signal troubled times for the endorsements which sit alongside them? Does lack of performance plant the seed of commercial doubt in sponsoring languishing teams?

Recent figures released by the RFU denoted that like-for-like sales of O2 branded merchandise is up 43% from 2003, when England won the World Cup, with over 40,000 shirts alone flying off the shelves and on to the back of England’s wellwishers. Nike, the Official Shirt of England Rugby, was even forced to come out and publicly say that once the last ones have gone then that’s it – no more available. Even the old retro-style collared rugby shirts are now in short supply.

Similarly the recent purchase of Umbro by Nike (for nearly £300 million) has sent out a very clear message to the footballing world. Win or lose, there is money to be made in branded shirts. Umbro’s relationship incorporate shirts worn by club teams as well as the nation side, however the biggest and presumably most profitable is the national team’s shirt sales, something which one can only assume is a very lucrative business. This fact is further compounded when one thinks that there is a strong chance that the team may not even make it to the Euros in 2008.

Finally Vodafone McLaren Mercedes did not have a winning driver at the end of the 2007 FIA World Championships - they did not even have a winning team having been famously ousted for the ‘Ferrari-gate’ scandal. However due to their new Stevenage sensation - Lewis Hamilton – sales of branded Vodafone, Santander and other sponsor-branded goods are sure to remain sky high.

Fans may be fickle - English fans especially – but hope springs eternal. They live in the supreme belief that the next encounter will be the turning point, the chance for national revenge to be played out. This alone is the answer to the question of whether brands should continue to invest in being the official shirt supplier. The chance will always come around to inflict retribution and once again place the national team on the pedestal from where they all too often fall. It is in these moments when fans reach for their shirts and don their ‘badge of belief’, joining their comrades in waging war on the opposition, something which will happen time and time again.

6.9.2007 - ESA European Sponsorship Awards: a new approach. posted by Pippa Collett

I have long been a proponent of evaluating sponsorship based on Return on Objectives, and am therefore delighted that the European Sponsorship Association’s re-launched Awards are taking a step in the right direction. Rather than follow the traditional formula of awards by property category (sport, arts, grass roots etc) the ESA Awards have been restructured to reflect a sponsor’s key audiences – consumers, business to business, community and employees.

The traditional model arose initially from the perception that, as sports properties were more expensive than cultural sponsorships, more money was invested in their exploitation, making it ‘unfair’ to compare sports with cultural or other exploitation programmes. This model also reflected the lack of robust sponsorship selection processes (Chairman’s Whim Syndrome) and has persisted through the vested interests of rights-holders.

ESA’s new formula starts to address these issues by challenging potential entrants to adopt a more customer centric approach. This is not without risk. I imagine there will be several sponsors of the “throw enough money at it and some of it will stick” variety that will struggle to construct a coherent and persuasive entry, at least initially.

But, in the medium term, ESA’s approach will contribute to increasing the professionalism of sponsorship in Europe. I applaud their efforts and look forward with interest to the outcomes in November.

28.8.2007 - Market Research: information does not equal insight. posted by Pippa Collett

As someone who has commissioned award-winning research and also been exposed to some very expensive but totally useless pieces of work, I recently received a presentation that definitely falls into the latter category. I won’t mention any names but clearly it was sent out as a marketing tool for the market research company that had produced it. The document research purported to be a media benchmark for the Rugby World Cup 2007 and had “media measurement with perspective” as a secondary heading. I dived in with interest, anticipating some “perspectives” on this topic that will dominate this autumn’s sports coverage.

The problem with bad research does not usually rest in the methodology or the data. All reputable research firms usually have this well in order – sample sizes, control groups, questionnaire structure etc. It does not even usually lie in the presentation of the data – I am sure we have all seen beautifully prepared market research documents with many pages of clearly constructed charts. No, in my experience, where most market research firms wholly fail to deliver is in the synthesis of the data to produce actionable insights.

I looked at the charts in the presentation. Heineken appears to be doing well with double the share of voice of the next partner, Emirates. Adidas only got 7% of the measured coverage, but this is nearly 3 times more than BNP Paribas, Credit Agricole or Banque Populaire. The issue is that not a single chart passed the “so what?” test. Why is this happening? What can we learn from this? What could be done differently?

So I’m afraid that this presentation, as a marketing tool, has wholly failed to impress and only underlines that market research companies continue to be more enamoured with information than with insight. Market research companies need to face up to the challenge. Otherwise their services will become increasingly commoditised, with selection based on price, and corporations will mobilise other resources, internally or externally, to generate actionable insights from the data generated.

6.7.2007 - Furnishing the Street posted by Pippa Collett

Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later – ITV has finally found a replacement for Cadburys for their flagship broadcast sponsorship of Coronation Street. Harveys, the UK furniture retailer, has apparently signed up for three years from October 2007 with a package that includes interactive, mobile, broadband, licensing and merchandising.

Harveys’ stated ambition is to become the UK’s favourite furniture retailer. BARB figures suggest an average audience share for Corrie of 46% and viewer numbers of about 10.6 million, so they will certainly be reaching a significant number of people. I love the match, too – all those Street houses that need furniture – though I wonder whether editorial control will prevent product placement.

But what constitutes ‘favourite’? Is it volume sales or sales by value, or even stated preference? If the latter, I can see my sponsorship research colleagues rubbing their hands together in anticipation of a juicy project.

My other question is what this sponsorship says about the Harvey’s brand. On its website, we read that Harveys: “…knows how important your home is to you… So our sales advisors will always ensure you find the furniture that’s not only right for your practical needs, but which also fits with your taste and lifestyle.”

Having looked at some of their furniture (I am in the market for a sofabed), I can see that clearly I am not the target audience, based my practical needs, taste or lifestyle. However, Harveys would not be able to run its 165 stores profitably without an established customer base and would not be investing the estimated £10m per year sponsorship fee without having clearly identified prospects that will contribute to a positive incremental return on investment.

So I wish them well and look forward to seeing the creative executions in October. In the mean time, I’m still looking for that sofabed.

29.6.2007 - The Hamilton Effect posted by Pippa Collett

Will Lewis Hamilton make it three in a row for the Maclaren Formula One team at Magny Cours this Sunday? Well, whatever the result, this young driver, with the backing of a magnificent team, is single-handedly driving the renaissance of F1 in the UK.

The resolution of the spat between F1 impresario Bernie Ecclestone and the manufacturers over TV revenues has given the sport back some stability. However, not since Nigel Mansell’s prime has the UK experienced the type of TV audiences for F1 that it is seeing this season. Meanwhile, with the retirement of Michael Schumacher, Germany is seeing a decline in viewer numbers.

Success on the track is only the beginning. ITV, the Maclaren Team and Hamilton personally stand to gain financially from his outstanding performance. We investigated Maclaren as a sponsorship opportunity on behalf of a client before the start of the season and I’m quite sure that the prices will have gone up since then. This is definitely the time when contracts with performance bonuses, perhaps negotiated by necessity during the days of Ferrari dominance, will be paying out handsomely.

Meanwhile, a modest but articulate Hamilton will have opportunities to endorse a wide range of products and services, with offers thrust at him from all directions. My advice to him is to be very choosy, focusing more on building the Hamilton brand than his bank balance at this point in what is sure to be a stellar career.

ITV, too, will not be slow to calculate the premium it can charge for broadcast sponsorship for the 2008 season. After struggling for several years to sell this broadcast cash cow at anything close to a reasonable price, it might now even have a shot at a multi-year deal on the back of Hamilton’s prowess.

One outstanding question is how other motor sports with a British element can harness Hamilton to their advantage. The British Touring Car championship and British Superbikes continue to command strong attendance; the real barometer will be the extent to which the British A1 Grand Prix is able to extend its audiences when its season starts in September.

22.6.2007 - Don't be a NASCAR posted by Pippa Collett

The spat between Visa and Mastercard over sponsorship of FIFA’s 2010 and 2014 world cups has now been resolved. However, a less well-exposed, in Europe at least, but perhaps more significant legal wrangle rumbles on between AT&T and Nextel over NASCAR sponsorship category exclusivity.

Nextel is primarily a mobile phone service provider and is owned by Sprint, another US telecomms provider. It is also the 10-year, $700m title sponsor of NASCAR, the leading US motor racing series. One of the teams, Richard Childress Racing, had a sponsorship agreement with another mobile phone company, Cingular.

The trouble started when Cingular was bought by AT&T. NASCAR claimed that Nextel had exclusivity and would not allow AT&T to replace the Cingular logos with the more recognisable AT&T identity. AT&T sued NASCAR and got court permission for its team to race with its branding. Now NASCAR has filed a counter claim in respect of its right to offer Nextel category exclusivity. I am no lawyer, and I am not party to the agreements supposedly governing these relationships, but it seems to me that NASCAR is on shaky ground.

The point of all this is to emphasise the need for sponsorships large and small to have carefully crafted contracts that govern the relationship between the parties and, when necessary, how this might affect other third-party arrangements. Part of this process is scenario planning - having a good understanding of both the sponsor’s industry and that of the rights-holder and reviewing potential developments and difficulties – and writing clauses accordingly. A crystal balls it isn’t, but intelligent ‘what if?’ discussions will provide a foundation for addressing unforeseen circumstances.

I don’t usually sell SCL’s services on my blogs, but for once I am making an exception. We are demon negotiators on commercial rights on behalf of our clients. In the last 12 months we have successfully negotiated a wide range of sponsorship contracts that all parties recognise as being well worth the effort and expense.

But even if you don’t use SCL, I recommend you get some professional help in negotiating both the essence and the fine print of your sponsorship deal. It’s your insurance policy against the (legal!) cost of getting it wrong.

20.6.2007 - Is Glastonbury past it? posted by Pippa Collett

There has been some comment recently that Glastonbury has become too big and too corporate, and that it has fundamentally lost its cool.

True, with a ticket price of £145, the biggest outdoor music festival in the world may be pricing itself out of the reach of certain market segments. However, after a year off in 2006, Glastonbury this year has increased its capacity by 25,000 and sold all 177,000 tickets. Generating a turnover in excess of £25 million, clearly Glastonbury, for all its size and possible ‘over-corporateness’, is still seen as an attractive proposition by a significant number of people!

The Eavis family’s desire to avoid the subliminal marketing that is sponsorship continues to be an issue for debate. Frankly, having a giant orange tent offering mobile phone recharging and internet access is so close to having a branded presence that they might as well have gone the whole hog, stuck an Orange logo on it and charged Orange a lot more money for the privilege. A giant green tent offering beer might be a little more difficult for a tired and emotional festival-goer to decipher – why not help them out with a Carlsberg logo so that, if that is not their preferred brand, they can go and find a water tap instead?

There is something about selling your soul to the devil, and it is also possible to take it all too far, as seen at the O2 Wireless Festivals earlier this month. However, I wonder how much more money Glastonbury could command to assist good causes, on top of the £2 million already pledged this year, if it went all the way? I’m not talking about logo soup, but a few, carefully selected, brands that would exponentially value the media exposure that Glastonbury can deliver.

I’m sure it will be a great weekend but, looking towards 2008, I would love to work with Glastonbury to develop a sponsorship strategy that remains true to the Festival’s values while optimising income for charities. In the meantime, as this event is held on a dairy farm, on a purely practical note I would love to know what they do with all the cows for the duration.

5.6.2007 - London 2012 – it’s all in the brand! posted by Graeme Davies

I couldn’t resist commenting on the new (and much criticised) London 2012 logo! London 2012 says that it has been specifically designed to evolve over time and to be flexible enough to be put to a variety of different uses. But what about helping to attract much needed corporate support? My question is: just how far will the Olympic powers that be allow the creative minds working for Lloyds TSB (and apparently, in due course, EDF) to go with this 2012 logo?

The obvious benefit of sponsoring the Olympics, internationally or locally, is to glean the rights of association with the Olympic brand. But if you look at the website homepages of some of the Beijing 2008 or Worldwide partners (try www.air-china.co.uk or www.ge.com), you’ll notice that although the visual association is apparent, it’s hardly exciting - usually, it’s the sponsor’s corporate logo placed next to the Olympic rings with, just to jazz things up, a black line in-between. Nothing too creative, no composite logos… but then the Olympics brand is very heavily restricted.

Truly composite logos can work fantastically well when used correctly – one of the best examples I’ve seen is BNP Paribas and the Davis Cup (see www.daviscup.com) – but something tells me that Seb Coe might be rather too protective for this. That said, I hope that any potential sponsors will truly explore the potential this logo could offer in terms of real brand association – although it might be quite a while before we see a black horse jumping off the top of it!

The other big question is whether global companies who are currently considering a £50m sponsorship will still wish to be associated with this new dynamic, youth focused, rather different 2012 brand?

26.5.2007 - F1's ethical revolution or a mere flight of fancy? posted by Pippa Collett

This week, Red Bull followed Honda into the F1 CSR arena by launching a campaign to raise $1m for Wings for Life, a spinal cord injuries research charity. In return for a minimum £10 donation, fans will get the chance to have their photo on either of the Red Bull racing cars at Silverstone on 8 July, replacing Red Bull’s sponsors’ logos.

Now, I am a great believer in CSR, and there have been instances when sponsors have rightly agreed to strip their mobile billboards of sponsor branding, notably at Monza after 9/11. But I’m not convinced that Red Bull’s initiative plays well against sponsors’ objectives. Sponsorship of F1 teams isn’t cheap - best estimates suggest a minimum fee in the region of £250,000 per race per sponsor, with some paying substantially more. Losing 1/17th of the return on their investment may not seem all that critical, but each race presents unique opportunities for stand-out photography, video and stakeholder entertainment. How would a sponsor feel if Red Bull gained a place on the podium or even won?

Interestingly, if you visit Red Bull Racing’s website www.redbullf1.com, the visual of the Wings for Life car appears to be still carrying Red Bull. Surely it cannot be the case that the team owner does not feel the same compunction as its sponsors to contribute to the fund-raising effort?

From the fans’ point of view, this may seem like a fantastic opportunity, but ponder a moment and you realise that the offer is exactly what it seems – too good to be true. Just do the maths: Red Bull wants to raise $1m/£500,000. At £10 per person, that’s 50,000 photos, or 25,000 per car. Unlike road cars, open wheel racers do not have much surface area, so fitting 25,000 photos onto a car means that the photos are going to be very small - certainly unrecognisable to anyone without a magnifying glass.

So while, I applaud Red Bull for trying to be original, I also believe this is no more than a gimmick.

 

25.5.2007 - Community spirit: another way in to the Olympic ideal posted by Chris Gordon

Over the last few weeks, I’ve been getting to know the five Olympic Boroughs and the programmes they plan to develop in the run up to, and after, the 2012 Games. Olympic Legacy Teams in Hackney, Greenwich, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest are already planning a wealth of projects. Each wants to use the Games as a catalyst for change and to meet pressing objectives, such as improving employment prospects, upgrading infrastructure and promoting social cohesion – all serious issues in this part of London.

What strikes me is that these projects could offer tremendous benefits to corporate sponsors.

By linking up with programmes on the ground, brands can associate themselves with the values of the Olympics without having to negotiate the LOCOG route (and without having to justify the substantial financial outlay that route demands). We know that the regulations governing the use of Olympic branding and terminology will be very strict, but this does not prevent brands from positioning themselves at the heart of the Games by enabling those that are actually delivering the Olympics to benefit their communities.

Projects range from the physical, such as capital projects and public realm improvements, to the social, such as providing training and skills development for the long-term unemployed or using sport and culture to encourage social cohesion and reduce crime.

It is true that some of the boroughs involved have limited experience of working with corporate sponsors and that some projects are not currently being presented as fully-formed sponsorship packages. However, this presents even more benefit to brands, as there is a real desire to collaborate to create programmes that meet everyone’s objectives. Certainly, support from sponsors is being more than welcomed.

To anyone who has baulked at the £80 million needed to secure a top tier LOCOG sponsorship, there is another way and it starts in the community.

24.5.2007 - Why UEFA got it right posted by Jackie Mills

Liverpool and AC Milan may be questioning a couple of off-side calls after last night’s Champions League final, but what is not in doubt is that the UEFA Champions League has become one of the world’s premier sports competitions for sponsors. While the big three sporting events in terms of viewing figures (football World Cup, European Football Championship and Summer Olympic Games) operate on a quadrennial cycle, this event can dominate annually, attracting audiences of over 4 billion.

How has UEFA masterminded an event where companies are prepared to pay £20 million a year for exclusive association with the competition?

Back in the season of ‘91-‘92, UEFA realised that in order to move forward, they needed a sponsorship strategy. They went back to basics, designing a system that allowed them to understand how many matches each club would play and thus to arrange TV schedules and sponsorships accordingly. A new set of commercial regulations were introduced, requiring each participating club to hand over their marketing rights to UEFA.

So while the clubs in the old European Cup had been responsible for their own TV and commercial rights, they were now obliged to put UEFA in charge, in return for a fee for each match won in the league, a fixed payment for reaching the final eight and an additional fee for reaching the final. This new strategy represented a major change for the clubs and helped establish a new centralized marketing concept, which would provide adequate income to the top clubs while also maintaining funds for grass roots football and national federations.

The new concept was both innovative and commercially adept, responding to the difficult market conditions of the time – essential factors when designing a new strategy. Stadium advertising and on-air sponsorship were tied together, making it almost impossible for non-sponsors to associate themselves with the competition, putting a higher price on sponsorship exclusivity.

The message? A strategy that uses innovation to benefit both the sponsors and the rights holder will always reap the rewards in the long run.

 

16.5.2007 - Nationwide: win, lose or draw? posted by Pippa Collett

The first prize draw in Nationwide’s ‘Sponsored by You’ campaign has closed and I’m looking forward to seeing how this initiative turns out in reality for England v Brazil on 1 June. At best, Nationwide may capture the imagination of football fans, finally gaining cut-through with its mutuality message and causing queues in branches as fans flock to open accounts so that they can participate in the next round. At worst, it will be ridiculed by the media and have a customer services nightmare if it fails to deliver.

My guess is that the result will be somewhere between the two, with some very happy customers, some slightly bewildered fans and some column inches if it’s a slow news day. However, overall I applaud Nationwide for taking the initiative to stand out from the financial services crowd. This is a fine example of creative thinking around sponsorship and it will ensure that Nationwide makes it to the shortlist for the next round of sponsorship industry awards. Whether its effectiveness will be sufficient to outclass the rest remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, the Collett household is waiting to see whether anyone is going to be a winner – hospitality tickets are top of my list, my husband’s dreaming of national TV coverage to promote his IT business and there may be a fight to the death between the two kids over a mascot slot. Watch this space!

 

3.5.2007 - LOCOG's BOGOF dilemma posted by Pippa Collett

Just in case you didn’t know, BOGOF is a well-known acronym used in the sales promotion industry and stands for ‘buy one, get one free’. It appears that LOCOG is using this tried and tested approach with its sponsors, and that Lloyds TSB has gained more than merely first mover advantage in being quick to sign up to London 2012. Great – but this creates a real dilemma for LOCOG.

Last week, LOCOG announced that it is downgrading the Insurance category of domestic Olympic sponsorship as a result of the way it has structured its relationship with Lloyds TSB. According to an interview with Nigel Gilbert, Group Marketing Director at Lloyds TSB: “The category of Banking & Insurance Partner covers all financial services, excluding payment systems, credit, charge and debit services” (the exclusions belonging to IOC TOP sponsor, Visa).

This is good news for Lloyds TSB’s insurance business, but I’m not sure that ‘two for the price of one’ is the right message to communicate to the market when there is still a budget gap in excess of £1.9 billion to close.

Defining categories and ensuring that there is clear water between sectors is going to be an ongoing issue for LOCOG. Already, the edges of the Telecoms category have blurred. The old ‘fixed line’ services niche now includes web access and broadband, while the other end of the category is being stretched by the development of dual wireless home to mobile services. And what about separating Utilities (electricity & natural gas) and Oil & Gas?

This latter problem may resolve itself, as Utility Partner front-runner EDF Energy is seen by consumers as a provider of heat & light at home, while BP - the hot prospect for Oil & Gas – is perceived as a motor fuels retailer. That said, developments in hybrid cars, and indeed electric vehicles, in the next few years could cause category convergence within the 2012 timeframe.

Either way, LOCOG must now find alternative sponsorship categories that it can offer with premier partner benefits, if it is to secure the revenue it needs. It has already announced Airline and Sportswear and is understood to be negotiating with the IOC for Postal Services Partner and a category for a beer brand.

From a marketing perspective, it is obviously very important that brands taking on Olympic sponsorship have a crystal clear definition of what business they are in, and ensure that LOCOG crafts their category accordingly.

27.4.2007 - Should we ban alcohol sponsorship? posted by Pippa Collett

In recent weeks, politicians and pressure groups have been calling for a ban on sports sponsorship by alcoholic drinks brands. This follows hot on the heels of Ofcom’s announcement of new rules controlling the advertising of high fat, salt and sugar foods to children, and some frenzied debate relating to the siting of the UK’s first super-casino in a deprived part of Manchester and the stalling of the Government’s plans by the House of Lords.

While I fully agree that we should take care of the most vulnerable groups in our society, it seems that, in doing so, we have also allowed the majority to abdicate responsibility for their own actions. Somehow the increase in obesity, drinking, gambling and other addictive behaviours are suddenly someone else’s fault.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that banning football shirt sponsorship by alcohol brands will reduce binge or under-age drinking, but attacking the sponsorship industry is the Government’s easy option. By banning alcohol sponsorship, it is seen to be doing something, while in no way endangering the significant tax revenues generated from alcohol sales. This is much like arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic and, until the Government addresses the issues that really underlie this increase in addictive behaviour in society, we are all going down with the ship.

I believe the pragmatic solution is not to rush in and ban alcohol sponsorship, but to seek data-based evidence on the causes of increases in addictive behaviour. Only then will it be possible to identify appropriate programmes for dealing with the problem.

In the meantime, leave alcohol brands to continue their legitimate marketing activities, which also substantially fund improvements in sport at both grassroots and elite levels, to the benefit of everyone’s health.

14.4.2007 - Reaching the parts...: Heineken and rugby posted by Chris Gordon

What do you do when the premier sports tournament you have sponsored for the last ten years suddenly turns into a lower-league version of itself? This is the situation faced by Heineken this week as first the top-flight French clubs, then their English counterparts, pulled out of the Heineken Cup and in effect turned what was considered to be the equivalent of football’s Champions League into something – to continue the football analogy - just below the UEFA Cup and just above the Johnston’s Paint Trophy.

The tournament could continue with the participation of the Irish, Scottish and Welsh teams, but without the biggest clubs in Europe involved it loses much of its pulling power and value as a sponsorship vehicle.

European Rugby Cup, the company that runs the competition, is currently looking at its options, including postponing the competition for a year while the arguments over the share of ownership in the tournament are resolved.

So where does that leave Heineken? Since 1996, the beer brand has put around £40 million into its sponsorship and has built the Heineken Cup into one of the leading sponsorship properties in world rugby. A spokesman has said that a decision on whether to hold the tournament this coming season is “out of our hands” and its relative lack of influence over the tournament organisers must be frustrating for the brand as it seeks other ways of promoting itself in the coming year.

Having taken the decision last year to turn its back entirely on TV advertising, much of Heineken’s marketing strategy is based around this sponsorship. At the time, this was seen by many in the industry as a strong indication of the waning influence of TV over marketing budgets and a switch towards more experiential marketing channels was predicted. Many were hoping that this would see more spend diverted into sponsorship. However, if the row over this tournament is not resolved soon, it won’t just be Heineken crying into its pint glass.

2.4.2007 - Naming and shaming? The pros and cons of star endorsements posted by Jackie Mills

For a client wanting to cut through the clutter and be noticed, a high-profile individual with brand relevance, commercial value and star quality can be the perfect marketing tool. Is it that simple, though?

Endorsements have become big business since the great Babe Ruth attended the birth of the concept in the ‘20s, modelling Jockey underwear. Today, famous athletes command vast fees for endorsing products and services, and a potent enough association can drive the success of a business around the world.

A good example is the relationship between Tiger Woods and Nike. Before Tiger, Nike was a minor player in the golf business. In 1996, when the 21-year old Woods turned pro, he signed a sponsorship deal with Nike on an apparel basis for approximately $40 million – a small price to pay for a good-looking, articulate, scandal-free wunderkind. Nike was quick to catch on to the potential of this new relationship and swiftly purchased almost every aspect of the Tiger Woods brand. When the Nike golf brand emerged two years later, its ‘Tiger’ marketing platform was corporate rocket fuel: it is now the fourth most successful golf equipment retailer in the world.

The Nike and Tiger story shows that one key (arguably, the key) to a successful endorsement is the ability to convey to the target market that the celebrity is truly benefiting from the brand and that so, in turn, will they.

Endorsed brands are very watchful for public suggestions that their stars don’t mean it: Britney Spears was famously dropped by Pepsi in 2001 after being photographed drinking Coca-Cola. Then there are situations where a brand suddenly wishes they didn’t mean it: some years earlier, Pepsi had to end its contract with Madonna because of a scandal over her use of religious imagery in her ‘Like a Prayer’ video. Stars might be brands in their own right, but they are also people – often self-willed, creative and ambitious people. However much good will there is on both sides, the fee won’t always determine the behaviour.

Of course, what a brand decides to put up with will depend on its values (Kate Moss by no means lost all her contracts after her drugs charge scandals). What it has to put up with will depend on how carefully and imaginatively the celebrity’s contract has been negotiated. How do you cover all potentially damaging behaviour? And are all apparently negative situations, in truth, of equal importance? Are they even all bad? Thinking about such principles at contract stage is essential.

Aligning a brand with a single (human, fallible) personality has pitfalls. But it is important to remember that all sponsorships come with a certain amount of risk – the key is being able to calculate and cover the risk. Then it’s glamour time.

23.3.2007 - F1 sponsorship: Honda's the talking point posted by Graeme Davies

Last Sunday saw the opening round of the 2007 Formula 1 season in Melbourne, Australia, but not all eyes were on the front three of Raikkonen, Alonso and the wonderful debut of Lewis Hamilton. Throughout the field, there were interesting developments and changes to the ‘colours’ of the cars as well as to the drivers.

The sponsorship story that’s been most talked about in the past few weeks, of course, is Honda’s. The 2007 Honda Racing team has replaced its sponsor branding with a huge image of the earth. In its own words: “The car's new look is a powerful call to action… to join Honda's commitment to help address the environmental issues facing the world.” The team has gone further than just re-branding the car: the only words visible to TV viewers around the world on Sunday promoted the new website myearthdream.com, which asks visitors to pledge money to an environmental charity and to make a lifestyle change to improve the environment.

The other big shake-up in sponsorship was the news that McLaren has managed to lure Vodafone away from long-term partner Ferrari in a deal reported to be worth around £34m. Vodafone is one of six new sponsors to join McLaren this year, among them Santander, the Spanish owner of British bank Abbey, which has added an estimated £10m to the budget of the team. And it’s not just McLaren. The gradual move away from tobacco sponsorship has resulted in ING joining Renault, while Williams has new support in the form of AT&T and Lenovo.

All of these new deals are interesting in their own right, but I still think it’s Honda that’s really exciting. Despite offering partners none of the usual on-car branding, the team has apparently still managed to attract Universal Music and Gatorade as new supporters.

Whether this new concept - sponsors getting no branding opportunities - will expand into other areas is yet to be seen.

22.3.2007 - Sailing strikes again! posted by Pippa Collett

What is it about ocean adventures that capture such interest? Considering that most of ocean sailing happens where spectators cannot watch it, except by virtual means, and that round the world challenges last much longer than other sporting events, the level of attention they manage to sustain is quite fascinating.

For some, it is the sense of men and women pitting themselves against the uncontrollable elements. For others, it will be the interplay between people and technology. Others still may see it as a glorified travel brochure that exposes them to exotic ports in faraway places. The visually orientated must surely appreciate the imagery created, especially when those spinnakers are fully filled. All respect the sheer human endeavour.

Last night at the Hollis Sponsorship Awards, ABN AMRO walked (or sailed!) off with the Sponsorship of the Year Trophy, having also won the European Sponsorship Association sponsored International Sponsorship Award category. While those with some insight into the sponsorship know that this entry into the Volvo Ocean Race invested considerably more than any other team, they clearly demonstrated that this was what it was going to take to meet their pre-determined objectives. Of course, not all correctly conceived and effectively executed sponsorship programmes have to cost in excess of €30m to be successful, but ABN AMRO epitomises a sponsor that follows sponsorship best practice in terms of setting targets and measuring progress against clearly defined objectives.

For more information on structuring sponsorship evaluation programmes, click here

To view details of other Award winners, including SCL’s client, Siemens UK, click here

19.3.2007 - EU policy should be about coherence, not conformity posted by Pippa Collett

I recently completed the online consultation process related to the planned EU White Paper on Sport. This is a laudable undertaking. However, I am concerned that, rather like the size of a banana or the contents of the British banger, the EU will lose the essence in pursuit of uniformity. Yes, I do believe that sport can act as a platform from which to address several key social issues facing EU member states, including obesity, but the danger is that the EU will come to believe that sport is the whole and only solution to these problems.

Another concern is that there are several areas where totally mixed messages are being transmitted, with no apparent desire to seek resolution. For example, it seems that it is perfectly acceptable to promote gambling, which may lead to addictive behaviour, in order to fund grassroots sport with the aim of counteracting another addictive behaviour, overeating. Equally, while sport promotes the concepts of discipline, fair play and compliance with rules, anti-social behaviour on pitch appears to be outside the rule of law. Professional sportspeople are at work when they are training and competing, yet behaviour that, in any other workplace, would be illegal does not seem to attract the same legal sanctions, suggesting that sportspeople are somehow above the rest. A third area is the discrepancy between the handsome revenues in elite sport compared with the dire under-funding of grassroots sport in most markets, which results in heavy over-reliance on volunteers at the latter end. There is no provision against the risk that volunteers will simply pack their bags and go home.

There are many issues that the EU has tackled with good results. In reviewing the role of sport, it must demonstrate an understanding of the broader picture, linking sport with policy-making in health, education and other departments, to create a coherent approach. It's not about promoting sport for sport’s sake, but supporting the myriad other benefits sport can bring to us at individual, community, national and Union levels.

1.3.2007 - Ask Sepp: An audience with Mr FIFA posted by Chris Gordon

The opportunity to hear Sepp Blatter speak doesn’t come around often, so the invitation from Sport Industry to attend the latest in their Sport Industry Interviews was gladly received.

The question that we all wanted answered was put to him straightaway: will England host the 2018 World Cup? Blatter was very open and gave his strongest indication yet of our chances. He spoke of his admiration for England and our technical capabilities: “you could host it tomorrow,” he said. It would of course go against the current FIFA policy of rotating the tournament around the various football federations: "if the FIFA executive committee decides later this year that the rotation policy is maintained, in strict procedure it should be in North America in 2018 and there are three countries who could host it there -- the United States, Mexico and Canada”. But Blatter suggested that the policy may not continue if he is elected for a third term, and it’s clear that at this stage we are front runners - bookmakers are putting England at evens to win. We have the advantage of having the best stadia, the best infrastructure and security systems and technical know-how, but we’ll have to wait until 2010 to find out if we can translate this into a winning bid.

On the issue of corruption, Blatter was less than convincing. As a consultant who is considering a FIFA sponsorship on behalf of a client, I wanted to hear what he had to say because at the moment, FIFA's image is less than pristine. When asked whether Italy (and in particular clubs such as AC Milan) should have received harder punishments after the match-fixing scandals last season, he refused to accept responsibility. It was, he said, a matter for the Italian FA and not FIFA’s place to intervene. And then “the game cannot be better than the society in which it operates” - again shifting responsibility to everyone else.

The perception of FIFA and football in general is one of a sport that is driven by money and little else. Blatter’s remarks yesterday evening did little to shift that perception.

23.1.2007 - When Leeds Met Rugby League posted by Chris Gordon

The news today that Leeds Metropolitan University has struck a deal to sponsor the Rugby Football League Challenge Cup was met with initial bemusement in the office.

But on closer inspection it would seem to make sense. The Challenge Cup is the showpiece event in the UK Rugby League calendar and with its final due to take place at Wembley this year there will be increased attention on the competition – some 12 million TV viewers for a start.

But beyond the classic associations with team work, dedication and excellence that any sport would offer why would a university sponsor something like this? Well, firfdgfdgstlt Leeds, Yorkshire and the North of England is a key rugby league heartland so the brand fit is clear.

As part of the deal Leeds Met is also partnering the RFL’s hugely successful Champion Schools tournament – this is the biggest Rugby League knockout tournament in the world and will provide the university with a great introduction to potential applicants at a time when they will be thinking about higher education options.

The university is also a pioneer in the area of sports science and will be able showcase its expertise through the creation of specialised courses with the RFL which offers great credibility. With competition for students and the funding that goes with them getting increasingly tight innovative marketing programmes such as this may well become the norm.

23.1.2007 - Protectionism gone too far? posted by Pippa Collett

I went to a debate at the Palace of Westminster last night, cumbersomely entitled “over-protection of global sports events’ sponsors crushes the competitive spirit within the host city”. In other words, has Parliament gone too far in passing the Olympics and Paralympic Games Act 2006?

The debate was interesting and informative, and raised many issues worthy of consideration:

• Do we really want the Games? Apparently 79% of the UK population surveyed said "yes".
• Do we really need the Games? London’s East End has been in decay for years with no real hope for re-generation until the Olympics came along.
• Have we paid too high a price in legislative terms for the right to stage the Games? Interestingly, for Vancouver 2010 the IOC was apparently resigned to relying on Canada’s current trademark protections until the UK created its specific legislation. I am sure our friends over the water are not best pleased with us as now they have had to follow suit.
• Will the Games really contribute to reducing obesity? I have not seen any empirical evidence but anecdotally there does seem to be an increased interest in sports participation among my primary school kids and their friends.
• How much are the IOC to blame? The Olympic Charter talks about building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport. I have no problem with that except that I would rather this education did not come at the expense of promoting brands that are not encouraging my kids to adopt a healthy lifestyle.
• Does it all need to cost so much? Competitors, officials and spectators require a professionally run games, but have their expectations not been consistently raised by the traditional “best Games ever” closing statement by IOC presidents, forcing each new host nation to strive not to lose this accolade. Perhaps the IOC needs to think about going on a corporate diet in order to slim down Games budgets to something that developing nations can seriously consider.
• My personal perspective is that I believe the legislation has gone too far, and that we missed an opportunity to bring some balance to the Olympic circus. For the mother of Parliaments to enact legislation to protect no more than 100 companies worldwide suggests objectivity has been lost. I hope one of those bidding for 2016 will be brave enough to take a stand on this issue.
  

22.1.2007 - Carphone Takes the Moral High Ground posted by Chris Gordon

The news this week that Carphone Warehouse suspended its sponsorship of Celebrity Big Brother was a masterstroke by Charles Dunstone and a disaster for Channel 4. Whatever your thoughts on whether Jade vs Shilpa has been blown up by the media, the race row has been a damaging episode for the channel. Its mishandling of the crisis, with both Andy Duncan being caught off guard and Luke Johnson agreeing to appear on the Today programme without the knowledge of his own press office, escalated the situation.

As Emily Bell in MediaGuardian has noted, it’s never a good day when one of your sponsors beats you to the moral high ground. Carphone on the other hand has enhanced rather than damaged its reputation and has extracted full benefit and maximum exposure from the episode (which, after all, is the point of broadcast sponsorship). It has also been clever enough to remain as a sponsor of Big Brother itself, so guaranteeing them further exposure when the next series kicks off this summer.

The whole saga has set a dangerous precedent for broadcasters and may have shifted the balance of power to sponsors.

10.12.2006 - LOCOG: The tortoise and the hares posted by Pippa Collett

While LOCOG is regularly reported as insisting that there is a healthy appetite for top-tier 2012 sponsorships, its inability to address lower-tier partnerships is resulting in several sponsors taking their money elsewhere.

In the last six months alone, a significant number of corporations have signed up to sponsor UK sports governing bodies, including Corus (British Triathlon), Lucozade Sport (British Canoeing Union), Scholl (British Athletics), Siemens (GB Rowing) and Man Group (England Hockey). The specific objectives of each partnership will differ, but they have a common theme: a desire to get involved in the push towards London 2012.

Clearly, these companies were not willing or able to wait for LOCOG to go public with lower tier opportunities. So why is LOCOG playing the tortoise in a race apparently full of hares? Well, like the tortoise’s slow but steady race-winning strategy, LOCOG’s revenue generation approach is based on the premise that the higher the value it can negotiate for the top-tier national sponsorships, the more it will be able to demand for lower tiers.

LOCOG has to find £2 billion, with sponsorship, ticket sales and merchandise as the main contributors, so it is hardly surprising that it is pinning its hopes on securing its first six sponsors at an eye-watering £100m each over 6 years. This in itself may explain why the timetable for announcing first sponsors appears to be slipping: no corporation is going to put up £100m of cash and in kind without giving extensive thought to the return.

Bearing in mind that the Games is a ‘clean stadia’ event, they won’t be able to write off their investment against free media exposure. Instead, LOCOG sponsorship is being positioned as a game-changing opportunity that sponsors can use across their business to gain competitive advantage. This is quite a clever idea, but £100m worth of value creation is going to be tricky for even the biggest businesses to identify (and some, such as HSBC and Barclays in the Banking category, are excluding themselves from the running).

LOCOG is caught between the proverbial rock and hard place. If it rushes top-tier negotiations in order to move on to capture second- and third- tier funds, it risks sub-optimising its income. But it cannot wait forever while large corporations undertake exhaustive rounds of business case development. So will the hares get the better of the tortoise this, or will it be a fable come true?

2.10.2006 - Who won the World Cup? posted by Pippa Collett

Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair's former Director of Strategy and Communications, joined a panel of top sports sponsorship experts for September’s European Sponsorship Association Forum ‘Did Coke win the World Cup?’. I loved the question, and found much to consider in the broad-ranging answers.

Coke undoubtedly came out on top in quantative terms, according to Jamie Graham, MD of Sponsorship Intelligence, FIFA's official research organisation. Global consumer research found that the soft drink manufacturer was the most recalled of all FIFA sponsors. Research at venues on the FIFA World Cup Trophy Tour, which Coca-Cola sponsored, also showed how well fans had been engaged.

This result undoubtedly pleased Steve Cumming, Coca-Cola Great Britain's Head of Sponsorship and Brand Experience. However, he was quick to say that, based on a more qualitative assessment, Germany - the country itself - was the ultimate World Cup winner, and this view was supported by other panel members. The Fanfests - a German innovation that allowed fans without tickets to congregate and watch matches with other entertainment and refreshments - were a huge success. Even losing in the Final seemed to receive sympathetic treatment. After more than a decade of internal focus on re-unification and integration, the largest economy in Europe was very effective in using its staging of the World Cup to help re-establish itself as a major player on the world's stage.

The debate then turned towards the 'losers', with both the football fan and the occasional viewer being identified as having suffered. The lack of atmosphere at the Final, apparently caused by there being too many corporate seats and not enough real fans, appeared to reflect a wider concern that, as football becomes more successful as a business, it loses passion. Alistair Campbell in particular felt that broadcasters were not doing enough to make football more accessible to those not steeped in the game.

Overall, though, the mood was optimistic for the future. With Euro 2008 less than two years away, we will find out soon enough how well lessons from World Cup 2006 have been turned into positive action. Can we bring football to a wider audience across different platforms without further diminishing the atmosphere of one of the greatest sporting events in the world?