Are some spectacles just too big to sponsor? It’s an intriguing question and I am reminded of Snapples’ attempt to Sponsor New York City. Though there was some overlap between the fruity benefits of the iced tea and the “Big Apple” nickname, the partnership was tenuous to say the least and ultimately didn’t go the distance.
Does the same thing apply to the Olympics? Besides the usual big hitters Visa, McDonalds, Coke, General Electric et al, a host of smaller brands are jostling to get a piece of the action. How many, however, are really reaping the rewards? How many really belong there?
Schweppes – too small a fish in too big a pond
While in London recently, I bought a bottle of Schweppes water from a vending machine and was surprised to see that the brand is official bottled water supplier to the games. By way of activation, Schweppes was spending behind its “Schwimfree” promotion - offering consumers a free swim with every purchase in any of the participating pools in the UK. The idea is nice but given the timing (mid winter) it all seemed a bit misplaced.
Nike vs. Adidas – Who’s Winning?
A recent article by Sponsorship expert Chris Reed in Brand Republic is an uncomfortable read for sponsors. In it, he cites a recent study by digital agency Jam which claims that Nike is by far the most associated brand with the games – way ahead of Adidas which is an official footwear partner. (By the way, did you know that medal winners who compete in Nike footwear will not be allowed to wear their shoes on the podium? The restriction has to do with the fact that medal-winners have to don their team Adidas uniforms on the podium regardless of whether they are individually sponsored by Nike). More about the tension here
According to Jam, Nike is dominating online conversations about the games at a level of 7.7% while Adidas is only tracking at a measly 0.49%. According to Reed, “that’s 1500% more association Nike is gaining by not being a sponsor that the official sponsor is getting”.
As usual, Nike is up to its infiltrating best. In January of 2012, it launched its #makeitcount campaign featuring heavyweights Paula Radcliffe, Rio Ferdinand and cyclist Mark Cavendish. The campaign clearly communicates the blood, sweat and tears needed to compete and win at a top athletic event. The real magic of the campaign is that every featured athlete has competed in previous games so there is a strong though informal association with the event.
Here’s a flavour of the Nike work
Adidas on the other hand has launched its “About to Blow” campaign which is steeped in its rap heritage but is fairly limp relative to the Nike work.
For me, Nike’s ascendancy almost always comes down to the fact that it sits out major event partnerships and focuses on its endorsements. Let’s face it, the real value lies in the excellence of the individual athletes and not really in the games themselves. Then there’s Nike’s brilliance in the digital realm. A previous post showed that while Nike’s spend is increasing, its reliance on traditional channels is being held in tension with the growing influence of digital technologies. In short, Nike is not a big fan of “crutch” spending. It’s “disadvantage” relative to the official sponsor is actually its greatest strength.
Take its Nike+ Fuel Band digital application, launched to coincide with the advent of the Summer Olympics. The online app, linked to a hi-tec bracelet, tracks a person’s physical activity and lets the user set personal fitness goals. These in turn can be shared as “Nike Fuel” with friends and competitors on any of the social networks they happen to be a part of.
Here are two videos which illustrate the concept
Nike’s killer thrust in terms of its Olympics ambush bid has been the opening of the retail leg of Fuelband – a retail experience known as Nike + Fuelstation. Built with the tech-athlete in mind, the store isn’t just an opportunity to stock up on the latest running gear. Its interactive features include a massive, motion sensitive digital wall which captures one’s movements and turns them into futuristic art. iPads at point of sale enable quick browsing form information on the latest equipment as well as the opportunity to join Nike+ Run Clubs all over London.
Shoppers don’t know who Olympics sponsors are
According to Charlie Wright of “The Grocer”, a new poll indicates that the majority of British shoppers are unable to name a single commercial partner of the Olympics. “Just 4% of an Ipsos MORI study were able to identify Cadbury as an Olympic sponsor. Coca Cola and McDonalds, both long term partners of the games, top scored but were still named by only 11% of those polled”. According to Milorad Adjer of Ipsos Reputation Centre, brands are still not spending enough to build awareness of their sponsorships. I must say, I find this surprising to say the least. We’ve looked in detail at Cadbury’s plans – to say nothing of the even bigger hitters like Coke – and I would have said that levels of spend were about right.
... activists are as er...active as ever...
Perhaps more concerning was that nearly 75% of those polled, said sponsorship made no difference to their perception of a company although another study by Havas Sports and Enertainment says that petroleum giant BP is benefitting from its sponsorship efforts. According to The Guardian however, London 2012 chiefs have been harshly criticised for allowing entry to BP as the games’ official “Carbon offset partner” (incongruous when you consider what went on in the Gulf of Mexico last year). In an open letter to the IOC, environmentalists say the organisers have failed to consider the broader ethical and environmental impacts of potential sponsors. It’s not the only outburst from angry activists. Dow Chemicals’ bid to wrap the official Olympic stadium has been met with howls of indignation in the wake of the company’s acquisition of Union Carbide, the business responsible for the lethal Bhopal gas leak in the 1980s
Proctor and Gamble – Doing it right?
One company that seems to be approaching the games with the ambition needed to make its mark is Proctor and Gamble. As “proud sponsor of Moms” (and not the games) the company’s “Thank you Mum” spans its entire product range and as such, may have the critical mass to really move the dial. This weekend, the campaign shifted into high gear in the UK with British Olympians saying “Thank You” to their Mums to mark “Mothering Sunday”.
According to the Wall St Journal, the company has also initiated a partnership with the office of the London Mayor to clean up the City so as to make a “shining impression” with visitors. Over the next three months, a series of “clean up” events will bring Londoners together to spruce up neglected areas of the city. The initiative, championed by the Mayor himself and celebrity Keeley Hawes, will focus on getting rid of graffiti, picking up litter and on the refreshment and restoration of the City’s natural habitats. Some of the company’s most recognised brands – Febreeze, Ariel, Flash are behind the initiative. More information here
P&G will also sponsor 150 athletes (e.g. Michael Phelps, Roger Federer and Paula Radcliffe). The campaign will also include donations to help Youth sports organisations around the world. The company is also sponsoring athletes at a product level. Pampers, for example, is partnering with Beach Volleyball Gold Medallist Kerri Walsh, a mother of three. The company has even gone so far as to launch a limited edition “TEAM USA” diapers and wipes – encouraging little ones to “explore and conquer their world through play, while also amping up team pride”.
Perhaps the Killer Thrust of P&G’s campaign is their official partnership with the Chinese Olympic team. With the support of athletes and the Chinese Olympic Committee, the company hopes to create a national movement around the central idea of “thanking mum”.
This isn't the last time we will be looking at sponsorship and the olympics. But it suffices to say that unless you plan to spend big around a multiplicity of activities and touchpoints (something P&G are dong well) your brand is unlikely to touch sides. Nike also shows that sometimes it pays to be an underdog - its tactics always seem to have a sufficiently overt link to the spectacle but play on just the right side of the ambush marketing laws.
No comments:
Post a Comment