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?