A new fundraising initiative to get small-medium sized businesses to invest marketing budget in a programme that’s raising money for British athletes has received a luke warm response from sports sponsorship experts I’ve spoken to.

As I reported in my previous column on UKSN, there are literally thousands of businesses in London that can’t afford to be a sponsor or licensee of London 2012 and who don’t have other viable options in front of them so as to get involved in embracing the Games that will take place in their backyard. It was a point I raised at a meeting recently with representatives of LOCOG who really hadn’t got any new ideas to offer.

However, last week an announcement was made about “Our Team2012″ which on the surface looks like there is a solution to meet this pent up desire of SMEs to get involved with London 2012.

Like many in our industry, I wholeheartedly applaud the efforts made to raise money for the support of our athletes in their preparations for London 2012 and Visa, the “Presenting Partner” of Team2012, has done a great job in supporting young athletes in their Olympic journey.

However, closer examination of the PR behind the offer “Support the medal quest, benefit your business, join Our Team2012″ reveals a very different picture when it comes to evaluating the return on investment (ROI) for SMEs.

The background to this latest initiative is the shortfall in funding of athletes that want the best possible chance to compete in London 2012.

In January 2009, UK Sport confirmed that eight Olympic and four Paralympic sports wouldn’t receive the funding allowance promised to them for the London Olympic/Paralympic cycle. In short, this was down to the failure to raise any of the £100m targeted from the public sector.

After months of deliberating over the doomed “Medal Hopes” programme, the Government generously allocated £50m of public funds to soften the blow to sports in the UK in the run up to London 2012.

UK Sport was then left with the difficult decision of which sports wouldn’t get the allocation promised to them. Given the circumstances and their ‘no compromise’ approach to funding, they handled this task with aplomb. Nevertheless, 12 sports suffered and some athletes were left hung out to dry having committed their lives to achieving their Olympic and Paralympic dream.

September 2009 saw the launch of Team2012, a fundraising initiative tasked with raising half of the shortfall in elite sports funding, £25million.

And now this current fundraising initiative, managed by FastTrack on behalf of LOCOG, the BOA, the BPA and UK Sport hopes to raise £15m.

Having read the documentation around this programme, my initial excitement quickly turned to bemusement.

Put simply “Our Team2012” is a corporate hospitality package valued at £9,900 (+VAT) per year for two years.

Each year, companies will be offered a package including two tickets for a drinks reception at the BOA and House of Lords, eight tickets for two Regional seminars, four VIP tickets for sporting events held in the UK and two tickets to a gala dinner at the England Institute for Sport.

Team2012 athletes (i.e. Lottery Funded athletes) will be in attendance at each of these events. In addition, companies get to use the moniker “Our Team2012”.

So is this the chance of a lifetime which the marketing brochure claims it is?

“Being generous, the events package is worth about £6,500 so in affect companies who choose to get involved with this would be donating £3,500 to the cause each year,” observes Karim Bashir, MD of Catch Sport and a former Olympic fencer.

In the current economic climate, given the increased focus on ROI within sports sponsorship, including CSR, the sums simply don’t add up.

There’s no doubt that the money raised through this fundraising initiative is much needed but SMEs need to have a business case to justify this level of expenditure and this is where it falls short.

It’s unclear exactly how the money raised will be spent. It’s likely that none of this money will go directly into the athletes’ pockets but will be distributed on behalf of the bodies behind it for funding infrastructure projects.

There’s no guarantee that any of the 12 sports who suffered funding cuts will see any of this money and on top of this there will no doubt be administrative costs.

The big issue for SMEs to consider is that this “opportunity of a lifetime” offers no direct association with the Games itself. LOCOG, quite rightly, has to protect its sponsors’ rights and strict rules don’t permit any suggestion that “Our Team2012” has a directly link with the Games.

So are we running the risk of having a constellation of logos all fighting for our attention? When I last spoke to Wally Olins CBE about this, his view was that creating more logos simply wasn’t the answer, especially in light of the new London logo that Mayor Boris Johnson is due to launch very soon!

Therefore the value of the use of yet another logo is highly questionable.

So what other options are available to SMEs if the Our Team2012 fails to win their marketing budgets?

“There are many other alternatives which offer a clear and more measurable ROI” claims Bashir.

“For a start the National Governing Bodies of the 12 sports that suffered funding cuts are desperate to find corporate sponsors and could certainly provide a comparable hospitality package, let alone the branding benefits an NGB sponsor would get from providing much needed funds to an Olympic/Paralympic sport.

“There’s also the option to sponsor a couple of 2012 hopefuls from your location for that kind of money. And another option would be to support the British Athletes Commission who are the voice of elite athletes in the UK,” concludes Bashir.

Continue Reading

Guest Post by David Cotton

Straight off the bat, if you have got the money then Our (your) Team 2012 deserves your support. If your company wants to get involved, but cannot afford the £10,000 +starting price, then other cheaper alternatives, and for the purposes of this article, not all of them involve me.

DIRECT SPONSORSHIP

Traditional, solid and easy to understand, with two such examples laid down by companies in Suffolk and Devon, supporting local athletes. Hundreds of athletes struggle to juggle demands of training and income generation, and with less than two years to go, it maybe worth contacting your local County Sports Partnerships to make contact with up and coming elite athletes.

ENGAGE YOUR STAFF AND CUSTOMERS

Each year businesses spend £billions on bonuses and staff rewards, the Athletes Affinity Club asks firms to direct £25 per employee of this to support the nation’s elite athletes.

Each member of staff will receive an Elite Reward Package, based on the Invitation Book Discount Directory that already sells in excess of 90,000 copies a year, which enables each employee to access more than 1,000 opportunities to save hundreds of pounds from a wide range of retail, leisure and tourism businesses in the county.

The combined print-online-card-mobile platform contains £20,000 worth of such discounts, but more importantly in terms of staff engagement provides a very tangible link between employee and sponsored athletes. Over the last six years, the average spend generated by these directories is £119 a head, and represents a unique opportunity for athlete sponsorship to help stimulate economic activity.

For sole traders and SME’s the packages also drive down costs on subsistence, client entertainment and delivers a sponsorship, csr and rewards programme from existing expenditure.

HAVE SOME FUN

Another project that asks firms to divert existing expenditure from hitherto unconsidered outgoings, this time on events, exhibitions and event corporate parties. Party for the Podium’s unique selling point is a patented medal ceremony where all those attending receive their Party for the Podium Medallions.  Athletes get direct funding from their appearances and hosts get to decide where the profits go.

 Okay I am involved / created two of the three, but would be delighted to receive comments on a whole range of other schemes out there, but the advice remains, if you can afford to be in ‘Our Team 2012’ then great, if you cannot, then please support the athletes through whatever means.

Hugh Robertson, the Minister for Sport and the Olympics has gone on record on the pages of ‘Inside The Games’ lambasting my blog on the return of ‘Initiative-itis’ only five weeks after he had promised its end. 

I am grateful he took the time and exceptionally pleased that, after a decade of Ministers using sport as a tool for social engineering and little else, we now have a Minister prepared to enter into debate and who clearly wants to develop sport and the many benefits it brings to the larger community. That can only be a good thing. 

But is his response merely a reaction or does he make a fair point? 

Firstly, Mr Robertson seems under the impression that I am being critical of the new Olympic and Paralympic style competition for schools. I am not, in fact in my blog actually said; “It may not sound like it, but I applaud it. It is better to have it than not have it but to maximise its effect, to fully exploit its benefit to the nation please Mr Robertson sort out the wider, urgently required strategy. Do not offer all these young people a taste of the Promised Land only for them to discover the infrastructure to pursue it is not in place.” 

So, Mr Robertson and I agree that the new initiative (for that’s what it is) looks a good ‘un. So where do we disagree? 

The main point behind my blog was, and Mr Robertson is on record as agreeing with this viewpoint (Daily Telegraph, Friday 21^st May), that after a decade of initiative led delivery we needed to get back to a better planned approach, one where we think things through fully and don’t just launch random new initiatives as hoped for solutions to larger problems and as a way of fooling the media that something is happening. In fact it was Mr Robertson in that same Telegraph article who coined the term ‘initiative-itis’. 

As a result of this shared viewpoint I was asking the Minister, could we please have that strategy; a strategy which offers fully, vertically integrated planning along the entire sports development continuum. Mr Robertson writes to reassure us that such a strategy is in place. I hope so, if it is that is great news. 

Which leads back to my original question; “can we have a strategy please Minister?” Only now having heard his insistence that such a strategy is in place I’m asking; “can we see your strategy, please Minister?”  

Hanging onto hope or genuinely planning? Hugh Robertson (right) needs to show the public his strategy

And, in case I am being misunderstood, let me repeat that I refer to a strategy which offers fully, vertically integrated planning along the entire sports development continuum. 

Although Mr Robertson claims the strategy is in place, he offers no evidence of its existence. 

Mr Robertson states; “Only last month, I explained the principles underpinning the Government’s sports legacy strategy. There are five key areas- all of which are essential if we are to create a cultural shift towards greater participation in sport. These are: lottery reform, structural reform, elite sport, school sport and mass participation.” 

Assuming that the sports legacy strategy is the same thing as a strategy for the development of sport, and given the five headlines it sounds like it is, then we are off to a good start. 

Mr Robertson continues; “The lottery reforms will return sport to its original place – as one of the main beneficiary sectors of the National Lottery. By 2012 the reforms will secure a further £50 million for sport each year. This funding will hugely benefit sports clubs and help refurbish sports facilities, so that they are ready for the influx of young people turned on to sport by our Olympic-style competition.” 

Better than a good start, Mr Robertson has identified an increase in lottery funding for sport, this is sounding positive. Of course, strategy is about how you are going to do things not what you would like to do, so Mr Robertson’s strategy will need to answer ‘how’ it will benefit sports clubs and help refurbish sports facilities. Let’s be positive and assume it will? 

The Minister then states; “Structural reform is about ensuring that we have the best sports system possible at every level - school, community and elite. We have to be confident that every pound of funding being spent on sport is used as effectively as possible and that there is a seamless pathway between schools, sports clubs and the elite level so that no talent slips through the net.” 

This is sounding fantastic but a note of caution, planning structure before knowing what the strategy is can be a risky business. Structure should be the servant of strategy, ensuring effective and efficient delivery. Although Mr Robertson has told us about his strategy, we have yet to see it. Let’s assume the new structure meshes with the strategy and continue in positive mode? 

Mr Robertson adds; “There are already strong links between schools and sports clubs. On average, schools have links with seven local sports clubs with over 1.5 million young people involved through this route. This new competition will build on this further, and should have its most marked impact at the lowest level - if the Kent School Games experience is typical.” 

Mr Robertson will be aware that many in sport question such statistics and point out that they have never been independently audited. On the few occasions independent experts have analysed the data supplied by UK Sport, Sport England, the Youth Sport Trust and/or the National Governing Bodies, the figures have been found to be, putting it politely, exaggerated. 

One of the world’s most highly regarded athletics statisticians, Rob Whittingham, is among those few independent experts who have highlighted such discrepancies to both previous and current Governments, so far to avail. 

An example of Whittingham’s analysis; “I looked first at the number of children aged 11-15 taking part in track and field athletics as supplied by Sport England. The number is 159,000. Sport England define ‘taking part’ as competing at least once a month outside school hours. The track and field season lasts 6 months so this would give 954,000 athlete/meeting combinations. The Young Athletes League are considered large meetings and they average 140 athletes/match including 16 year olds. So I will use 120 as the number of athletes at each meeting. This would mean 8,000 meetings each year for 11-15 year olds. I have access to 99% of results for official track and field meetings and cannot find even 10% of this number for this age group.” 

Whittingham goes on to say; “I can find almost no funded athletic project which has any metrics for measurement. All now seem to rely on polls, surveys and satisfaction reports.” 

It is inevitable that if you fund organisations to achieve targets and then ask them alone to measure and report on their success in achieving those targets, such inflated reporting will happen. Those same organisations know there will be no independent checks on the data they report and that if they hit (often self determined) targets there will be more lottery money to come. Hence, performance against any measures will inevitably be ‘good’. 

Of course, not all of these organisations do this but it only takes a handful to make all the data reported by UK Sport, Sport England and the Youth Sport Trust to DCMS questionable at best. 

So, a slight hiccup here but nonetheless, let’s assume that measurement of Mr Robertson’s strategy will be transparent in a way that leaves no space for the kind of public doubt the Minister will have been well aware of via his post bag when in opposition. 

Moving on the Minister’s next point is; “Galvanising mass adult participation in sport is arguably the hardest part of the legacy to achieve. Indeed no other host country has succeeded on this front. But a strong school sport system encouraging young people to play sport for life will only help this ambition.” 

I apologise in advance for pointing out this sounds very much like the type of ‘crossing your fingers’ planning Mr Robertson pulled me up for accusing him of? Remember, strategy is about ‘how’, not some vague hope that doing one thing will help some other ambition. However, when Mr Robertson unveils this strategy we will undoubtedly see the ‘how’ he has omitted to mention here? 

Of course, from the Government’s perspective much of that ‘how’ will be funding others to achieve their targets and Mr Robertson tells us; “Through Sport England hundreds of millions of pounds of public money are going direct to national governing bodies to help drive sports participation up. The governing bodies are the experts and know where to target the funding but we will be holding them to account so that the investment gets the desired results.” 

Mr Robertson will have noted while he was in opposition that the previous Government also spent hundreds of millions of public money funding national governing bodies to drive up participation, invariably via the ‘initiative-itis’ he so accurately named. No doubt when we get sight of his new strategy we will see where it will achieve the same aim so differently? Perhaps, in part, with the “holding to account” which would mean independent auditing of data and transparency in reporting? 

As for the National Governing Bodies being the experts? Frankly Mr Robertson, some are, some aren’t, as you are well aware from correspondence from the grass roots of those sports that aren’t; correspondence you apparently agreed with while in opposition. 

Having heard what Mr Robertson has had to say, perhaps we should go back to my original question and check whether he has answered it. “Can we have a strategy please Minister?” was the short version of my question by which, as I went on to explain, I meant a fully, vertically integrated strategy covering the entire sports development continuum. 

Mr Robertson identifies that funding will support any strategy. He talks of structure and I hope this is structure designed around the successful delivery of strategy. Many have failed in business as well as in sport for not realising that structure is the servant of strategy not the other way round. 

Mr Robertson rightly talks of schools and mass participation. He briefly mentions elite sport but does not expand. The sports development continuum covers Foundation, Participation, Performance and Excellence but not as distinct separate sections, rather as a continuum in an unbroken journey. 

Good strategy ensures expertise is in place it doesn’t assume it and Mr Robertson may well wish to revisit his comment in the near future, that, “the governing bodies are the experts and know where to target the funding”. 

That said, Mr Robertson is getting there with what he outlines but not in a fully, vertically integrated way which would mean planning the impact and consequence of one action on the next and linking them properly together. We have not seen any understanding of this principle from UK Sport, Sport England and the Youth Sport Trust under the previous Government. 

Of course, not having seen his strategy I may be wrong, it might do all of this and more. 

Mr Robertson tells me I am in the minority in questioning his strategy, although how he has ascertained this he does not make clear. Besides, even if I am clearly a minority view, he is wrong that I am questioning his strategy; We (the ‘minority’) have yet to see his strategy. I am questioning some of the bits he has made visible, allowed the public to see. 

As for him apparently believing a minority view point automatically makes a view wrong, Mr Robertson should remember the last election and what that result might make the views of ALL sitting MPs if that were to be the case?  

He tells us his strategy, which we have yet to see, has the backing of LOCOG, the BOA, Sport England, the Youth Sport Trust, sports governing bodies and many prominent Olympians who supported the launch, but he clearly hasn’t consulted, as his Prime Minister promised, with a wider public and any independent expert view? 

The Minister concludes; “This is a strategy with clear direction. But I know we cannot be complacent. Achieving a lasting sports legacy will not be easy. However, I am determined to succeed.” 

Mr Robertson has no idea how much the whole of sport wants him to succeed. The last decade has left a lot of participants, voluntary unpaid club coaches, officials and team managers (who all together actually produce the sport) desperate to see the development of sport planned properly, to be moved away from ‘initiative-itis’. 

But Mr Robertson is in danger of emulating the Emperor and his new clothes in the fable; just because he tells us the strategy exists does not mean it does. Further, if it does and it will be as successful as he tells us then why not let us see it, why not open it up to public scrutiny?He would find people like myself are keen to support a lasting legacy for sport in this country providing it is built on sound sports development and vertically integrated strategic principles. 

The question has changed slightly Mr Robertson. It is no longer; “can we have a strategy please Minister?” as you assure us of its existence. The question is now; “can we see the strategy, please Minister?”

On Tuesday night (8 June 2010) I attended “The London 2012 Brand – The Do’s and Don’ts for Business”, organised by London Business Network, which is made up of London First, CBI, London Chamber of Commerce, FSB and the LDA.

The speakers were Mike Mulvey, CEO, London Business Network, Neil Walker, Community Relations Manager, LOCOG and Alex Kelham, Manager – Brand Protection, LOCOG.

Despite the title of the conference – and the attendance of over 400 people with a waiting list on top – it was a shambles in many respects.
The issue of “Do’s” simply wasn’t addressed. Simply telling an audience of diverse businesses to apply for contracts via Compete For isn’t actually the point as less than half a percent of the whole of London’s millions of businesses would actually benefit from such contracts.

Typically, LOCOG focused on the restrictive legislation on the use of official trade marks as proscribed under the Olympic Symbol etc. (Protection) Act 1995 (OSPA) that protects the Olympic and Paralympic symbols, mottos and various words and the London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act 2006 (the ‘2006 Act’).

This prevents the creation of an unauthorised association between people, goods or services and London 2012.

There was no sign of LOCOG looking to help the wider business community celebrate the Olympic Games in the UK while the world watches (3 billion via the TV set) – providing a “once in a lifetime opportunity” for business of all shapes and sizes to show the world that we truly are GREAT Britain.

I couldn’t sit there and not say anything.

I mentioned that it was depressing for the audience not to be told what they could do, rather than what they couldn’t do.

To my amazement, the entuire audience broke into a round of applause!

Surely it makes sense that as a country and as communities we come together. I know full well what the rights are of the sponsors – but surely there could be a bundle of rights ring fenced for use by ordinary businesses that could unite the country – not just rich sponsors?

LOCOG’s response was typical – some of the audience could become a sponsor (!!), could compete for contracts, could become licensees, could support athletes and could buy a ticket to the Games!

One person in the audience said that they had supported athletes for the Paralympic Games – and were told they weren’t allowed to mention London 2012 in the PR!

I also mentioned that there was a ticking time bomb with the use of contracted out security to enforce these brand protection regulations that would make the headlines all over the world on TV, radio, print and the internet.

I totally understand the sanctity of protecting intellectual property –in fact my own book, Essential Law for Marketers, is the leading work on the subject and I have written extensively about the Olympic Games over the last 10 years.

To use such a blunt instrument as the current Olympic legislation to snuff out any prospect of the business community coming together is senseless as all it will do is generate ambush marketing activities and infringement of Olympic trademarks – as businesses aren’t offered any sensible options for celebrating what will be something of national pride for all of us in the UK.

During the FIFA World Cup, fans will be able to wave the flag of St George and businesses can also join in the fun.

So what will businesses use who are not sponsors or licensees of official Olympic merchandise?

They are unlikely to want to keep quiet. If you run leisure, restaurant, travel or any other type of services business – or for that matter sell ice cream for a living – London 2012 is a marketing opportunity on your doorstep in London.

Movement for Change

There needs to be a movement for changing this situation – and I invite all readers of this blog to join with me and make this happen.

I propose that a working party of like minded professionals from the worlds of marketing and business join forces. The title of the group could be “London Open for Business”.

A creative idea

At the core of the approach should be the creation of a new brand, which I have called “Celebrate”. The idea will be to get LOCOG to say that “Celebrate is supported by London 2012”. Of course this isn’t a given and there will undoubtedly be resistance – but bear with me…

The IP rights will need to be clearly identified and tight rules will be placed on any business wanting to use the “Celebrate” mark on their products and services. The benefit of a separate and distinctive piece of IP is it would NOT infringe the rights of official London 2012 sponsors.

Yes, the detail of the marketing needs to be thrashed out – but unlike the LOCOG IP, this trademark will be FREE OF CHARGE for the use on approved products and services over a defined period of time. For example, fags and booze would be excluded.

Subject to the basket of rights on offer, enhanced rights could be acquired provided that licensees were prepared to donate say 5% of the sales revenue to a special fund that will support the development of sport for disabled athletes post-London 2012.

We have some remarkable people in our industry, people like Wally Olins CBE and others who I know well who could give their time for free to help businesses in London by creating such a brand.

Who knows, it could have a longer run than the current London 2012 logo…

I want to hear from you, so please get in touch and let’s make this happen for London.

Initiative what?

Initiative-itis. No, I haven’t made a word up, that was Hugh Robertson the new Sports Minister.

Mr Robertson was interviewed in last Friday’s Telegraph, the following is an excerpt;

Robertson sees the legacy of 2012 as his top priority. “The lack of a tangible mass-participation sports legacy from 2012 is the single biggest sports policy challenge facing the government,” he says.

His solution will be an end to what he calls ‘initiative-itis’, “dropping little pots of money here and there without any coherence”, and a shake-up of the way public money is delivered in sport. He is developing a five-point plan for his policy and details will follow, but the gist is clear.

To anyone who has an inkling of what genuine sports development planning looks like, this should be welcome news, that is despite the fact Mr Robertson appears to underestimate how widespread ‘initiative-itis’ has become over the last decade or so. The fact is, in British sport it is at epidemic, if not pandemic levels.

It isn’t only little pots of money being dropped without coherence that have undermined long term sports development planning in the UK, it is also the way many in sport try to create solutions, plug gaps and achieve targets by simply creating more and more unlinked or poorly linked initiatives. The 21st century has seen literally thousands of them.

It has reached the point where for many working in sports development has been replaced with working in sports initiative creation and delivery. Indeed, for many who were not working in sport a decade ago ‘initiative-itis’ has been their only experience of working in the industry. Many of them have progressed to management roles honestly believing the current way is the only way meaning Mr Robertson’s five point plan to rid us of the pandemic will need to address a considerable re-education process.

How bad is the problem? If we take the Olympic Games’ shop window sport, athletics, as an example we have not seen a national strategy for the development of the sport since UK Athletics was born out of the failed British Athletic Federation in the late ‘90s. In the same period we have seen initiative after initiative launched with little (apparent) thought given to even horizontal, let alone vertical integration of these programmes.

That is not to be critical of athletics’ national governing body (NGB) for many other sports have delivered so called development programmes via a series of ad hoc, sounds good this week initiatives.

Some will say that these governing bodies have had proper development strategies, UK Sport and the home country sports councils will have demanded it in return for funding.

You would hope so but that hasn’t been the case. What the DCMS’s various sports delivery bodies have demanded were what they called ‘One Stop Plans’ and ‘Whole Sport Plans’ which were used to evidence how the NGBs would achieve Government targets through various initiatives in their sports. That is not the same thing as a strategy for the development of said sport. It is far too narrow in definition. Indeed in some sports consultation with the grass roots, where it exists at all, has become an irrelevance as the raison d’être of many has become solely the delivery of Government agenda.

In order to look at how things can be improved, let’s take a step back and remind ourselves of something called ‘The Sports Development Continuum’ which is the name given to the four basic stages of sports development planning; Foundation, Participation, Performance, Excellence.

Note that the four stages are not isolated silos to be treated as separate from the other three. They are a continuum; an unbroken, fluid line runs through the four. And yet the NGBs are all answerable for funding to quasi-quangos established in such a way as to deliberately create a stepped approached in place of a smooth, staged continuum. And then, even within those silos further silos have been created.

In England, UK Sport has been responsible for ‘elite sport’, Sport England for ‘grass roots sport’ and the Youth Sport Trust for school sport. Mr Robertson could save money and do sports development planning a huge favour by simply replacing these bodies with a single UK wide organisation for the development of sport and for distributing the funding thereof.

Logically, many NGBs have mirrored parts of this fractured structure and established UK bodies and home country bodies along the same lines. Initiatives have flourished where sound, continuum based planning has withered.

But there will be those who advise Mr Robertson that his aim of “a tangible mass-participation sports legacy” cannot be delivered via the sports development continuum model. They would argue that the sports development continuum model assumes a progression along the continuum which for most is simply not possible, that it focuses on the development needs of a talented elite few.

They are, quite simply, wrong. They misunderstand the application of the sports development continuum to planning. The continuum does not take individuals in at Foundation and seek to channel them through all the way to Excellence at its end, although it should offer that as both opportunity and aspiration to all.

What the continuum offers is a way into sport at every stage for everyone. It offers the opportunity to progress to those who want to at every stage. It offers the chance to stay and enjoy at each stage. It offers the chance to return to a previous stage to all on its path. And, being a continuum there are no clear dividing lines between the four stages, they blur, blend into one large process of sports development focused on the wants and needs of each individual.

Yes, within the continuum there could be any number of ‘initiatives’ but they will be designed to provide ways in and ways to progress on as well as ways to happily participate at each individuals’ current level.

Doing this properly demands a high level of strategic planning. Consider this list;

Participants (those actively taking part); Facilities; Coaches; Officials (referees and umpires); Clubs; Schools; Higher & Further Education; Local Authorities; Communities; Equity; Events & Competition; Education & Training; Staff (paid and unpaid); Funding, Sponsorship & Commercial; Communications; Player Support Services (eg medical, educational, equipment, etc); Recruitment & Retention; And the list goes on and each of the areas stated can be further sub-divided.

Then consider planning that lot into a continuum based strategy to develop sport. It is not good enough to simply plan initiates for (eg) schools without considering the quality and availability of coaching, the links to the community and to local clubs or even the availability of clubs locally. What of competition provision or of the desire to pursue a sport enjoyed once the school child has experienced it? All of these elements and more need considering and properly planning.

And that planning cannot take place in isolation. There is little point in having a strategy for (eg) the development of coaching if it pays no heed to where, how many and of what quality coaches are both needed and wanted (not always the same). Then what of school plans which might create future demand? Then what of….. you get the picture.

A horizontally integrated strategy will cover everything needed to develop coaching but not necessarily to develop the coaching that is needed. To do that requires vertical integration of planning; that is planning that considers the implications of everything on everything! Go back to our list of areas requiring attention and consider planning in a vertically integrated way to cover the impact of each item listed on every other item listed. You soon begin to see why simply designing initiatives in the hope they will be successful is a system doomed to fail.

Consider the school in the East Midlands that offered its students a programme that included one sport that had no club or infrastructure within 30 miles. It’s like offering a taste of the Promised Land and then saying “sorry, you can’t have any more.” Is this how we encourage people to take up AND stay in sport?

Or consider the local authority in Yorkshire which offered a summer full of initiatives for youngsters without discussing any of them with local clubs. Those clubs were then unready and ill prepared for the young people wanting to join turning a positive first experience into potentially a negative second one or even no second experience at all. Is this how we encourage people to take up AND stay in sport?

Then consider the club in Lancashire which ran such a successful recruitment campaign that it was swamped with young people wanting to join. Unfortunately they had forgotten that recruiting more youngsters would also require recruiting and training more coaches! Is this how we encourage people to take up AND stay in sport?

These are examples of where a decade or more of initiative led sports ‘planning’ has led us. We need to get back to strategy led; sports development continuum based planning if the resources of time, personnel and money are not going to continue to be wasted.

And vertically integrating planning would not just be better for the properly planned development of sport, it would also be beneficial to the nation’s purse as money is specifically, strategically targeted rather than thrown at piecemeal initiatives apparently randomly spawned by silo led horizontal thinking.

Mr Robertson’s desire to end ‘initiative-itis’ should be applauded but doing so will require a huge shift in culture for those directing and managing sport in the UK and will demand significant restructuring. It is to be hoped his plans will be supported and not resisted.

New Research Aims to Reveal How Corporate Social Responsibility in Sport Delivers a Return on Investment for London 2012 and Non-Olympic Sponsors

Continue Reading

Back in November last year, BMW became the 24^th sponsor to sign up for the London 2012 Olympic Games, beating other car manufactures to the sponsorship podium of the ‘Greatest Show on Earth’.

Just think how Ford of Europe, one of the UK’s biggest car manufacturers must be feeling now, regretting not entering the race as it tries to re-build its market share in the wake of the Toyota debacle.

BMW of course can lay claim to the beloved Mini brand and Londoners will see a fleet of 4,000 vehicles running around the capital ferrying officials, athletes and VIPs during the Games.

But as “sustainability partner” BMW had also to undertake to help reduce the carbon footprint and meet healthy living objectives that could help crown London 2012 as the “greenest games ever”!

So BMW is also the Official Bicycle for the 2012 Olympics.

This was all too much for Lord Berkeley who ‘s secretary of the all-party cycling group and was moved to ask a question in the House of Lords last week enquiring where these bicycles would be made – perhaps here in the UK?

All we know is that they will be manufactured within the EU.

It’s likely that special limited editions of both the Mini and the Olympic Bicycle could become de rigueur for London trendsetters.

And that’s to be celebrated rather than knocked in my view – and certainly the “Ultimate Driving Machine” will now have a very different ‘ring-ring’ about it!