You may have seen me tweet about this last night and it is something that is really interesting and will set many minds ticking at different sports organisations.

I have been talking about the need to integrate and promote Twitter, Facebook and YouTube accounts in my work for a while now.  It is easy to set up a presence in social media but it is harder to promote outside of this space and gain buy-in from other parts of the organisation.

This I hope will set a precedent for other teams in how they can use their assets, things that they already own and can use, to help raise awareness of for example their Twitter account.

The reason that Valencia chose this moment to do it was more out of a need to do something on the shirt.  The club has a temporary absence of a paying sponsor for their shirt so one of their bright marketing guys managed to persuade the powers-that-be that this was a great idea.

It will certainly get the attention of bloggers like myself and am sure will get a little mainstream attention as well.  There is a thing about being the first to do something and the PR that this will naturally attract.

Wonder if we see this on other kits and items for teams and athletes in the coming months?  I hope so.

Indesit has appointed We Are Social to manage its global social media activity for its sponsorship of four European teams, including Arsenal and AC Milan.

The white goods brand, which also has partnerships with Paris Saint-Germain and FC Shakhtar Donetsk, has launched Football.Indesit.com to be the community hub for its activity.

Indesit aims to be seen as a more genuine football sponsor with the tag for the campaign being ’Genuine Football Fan’.

As part of the appointment We Are Social will be working with Indesit to create and share football content with fans both on the site and via social networks. The site will also be used to aggregate news and comments from footballers and fans with the aim of encouraging more conversation about the sport.

The campaign will be global, but there will be a particular focus for Europe and the countries that the four teams are from. Acivity is localised for those markets.

Gabriele Cucinella, managing partner at We Are Social Italy, said, “We will also use Facebook, Twitter and Youtube. Facebook will be a very important channel for conversation, allowing us to extend the conversation from the most passionate fans to a larger proportion of the target audience. Twitter will be essential in allowing us to have direct conversations with fans, especially on match days.”

Source: NMA.co.uk

npower aren’t the only ones ramping up their football sponsorship efforts this week.  The recent sponsor of all the home countries, Vauxhall, has started to make a push using its Facebook page.

The Facebook page has only been active for about a month now (first post on 12^th July) and they have been pretty quiet with pushing it up to now.  The 4,000+ fans can look forward to news from all the national teams of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland….thats a lot of content!

Vauxhalls new campaign has been in two parts.  Firstly there is app called ‘Retro Restyle’ in which it allows you to add your face into various 70’s and 80’s iconic looks, if you can call the perm and tash an iconic style!  

I did have one problem when having a play with this as it requires the newest version of Flash Player and if you are on a work PC where you cannot make downloads like this it is a bit of an issue. 

The second part of the campaign was ‘The Big Pitch’ competition.  They asked fans to tell the guys at Vauxhall why they deserve to win the big prize.  The big prize is a two day ultimate ‘Wembley Experience’ – to train and play a game on the hallowed turf and also get tickets for an England match.

There are a number of ‘pitches’ by fans for why they should go on the page from over the last 3 weeks, you have a read of them here.

Richard Hennis, relationship marketing manager at Vauxhall’s parent company, General Motors, told new media age: “We want to engage with fans to show that Vauxhall knows what it means to be a national sports fan and that we understand football.”

(Just to add, another glitch I found was that when you try to go ‘back’ to the Vauxhall Football page (rather than click on the link and open another window) it automatically puts you back into the app.)

With this competition now closed and the winner being announced tomorrow one can only assume the tickets will be for next week’s England v Holland game.  Has this been a successful launch of the new page?  Well with 4,00 new fans in just under a month it has not done too badly and now has an audience before the start of the football season.  We shall wait to see what they do next with the final qualifiers coming up soon and the the Euro’s.

Social Media is going to play a big part in the upcoming football season and with the European Championship and Olympics around the corner we’re going to see many more companies coming out with digital campaigns to activate their sponsorships.

After my rather lengthy last post here is something a bit more bitesized and with plenty of pictures!  Everyone involved has been releasing their celebration activations around fact that we have only 1 year until the start of London 2012 Games.

Samsung have gone with a YouTube homepage takeover to promote their torch relay, whilst adidas went with a video showing Phillips Idowu, Snoop Dogg and Warren G taking on GB Basketball at 3×3 in London(!) and BA unveiled a ‘One Year To Go’ painted on the underside of one of their planes.

London 2012 itself has come up with a really nice digital creative that will extend past this one day of partying.  Here they have taken to the country v country competition side of sport and used tweets as a way of measuring who is the winner…pretty simple.

You select the country you want to support and tweet a message that then goes towards the grand total for your chosen nationality.  You can then see this as an image of the stadium with the % of each country being shown within it.

So far Brazil is in the lead with 23% of the tweets with the UK running them close in 2nd place with 20% (USA are way behind with only 11%).  It is a really nice way of generating awareness with the #1yeartogo hashtag on all these tweets and a fun engaging way of getting people involved.  With the counter showing 40,000 tweets so far it is proving to be a great success.

Not only is this an great activation..there is more.  If you go to the Global view then you can submit videos and/or images in support of your country.  Adding even more to the depth of the engagement the website is offering.  Its a really good and fun way of celebrating a big day for the UK sport and getting people around the world involved.

Now for the pictures….

Read the full story

I have thought a lot in the last few months about athletes and personalities, especially in a role where we are looking towards social media more as player appearances are being used less.

It is a tough area to get right and we are still learning everyday in how it works and what we should/shouldn’t be doing. Businesses are certainly looking more towards their assets beyond the TV adverts and on field performances.

Sure it is still important that an athlete has the right profile and fits in with the brand, the same as it always has been. But their online presence is becoming more important and will certainly have a say in who gets signed up and for how much.

Will we see them taking a money-per-tweet approach? Not for quite a while I think and that would only be for those with significant presence. In future, we could see athletes from individual sports where sponsorship is so important gaining much of their income this way and being able to set their own fees.

Where this does lead us into is the responsibility on athletes to look after themselves online and realise it is not only a platform to show their personality but their extended brand. Yes, I know we don’t want them to become robots who only say what they are told to and spam it full of sponsor messages. But what would have happened to Beckham, Owen, Gerrard, etc who have large endorsements if they were impeccable on the field but mouthing off to everyone when away from it…. they wouldn’t get touched.

This is especially prevalent when you see examples of footballers being caught saying what is really on their mind, whether it be Carlton Cole, Danny Gabbidon, Ryan Babel, etc, etc…. it is becoming almost boring now to read the same headlines in the Metro every week!

Now we see the likes of Michael Owen on twitter, do you think he will be prone to any outbursts? No, I think it is safe to say he will be a cautious tweeter. Having spent so many years being squeaky clean he wont be one to let it all go now, no matter how close to the end of his career he is. He still needs to bring in money post-career as well, maybe in the media.

The onus is on the clubs, agents, sponsors and players themselves to realise where to draw the line between banter and insults, and to get their house in order.  Youngsters such as Jack Wilshere, Cesc Fabregas and Wojciech Szczesny (many of the Arsenal players)and older patrons such as Rio Ferdinand, Ian Poulter and Robbie Savage are showing the way forward, hopefully others will follow their lead.

Vesper: “Beautiful watch. Rolex?”

Bond: “No, Omega.”

Believe it or not but this dialogue featured in Casino Royale is a form of branded content.  The long association that Omega has had with the James Bond franchise is not just simple product placement but a well-developed history of brand recognition through the use of branded content in an exciting and interesting way.

Branded content (or content partnerships) has long been very hard to define especially as the definition is very elastic, meaning different things to different people.  In a nutshell, it is the technique used by brands to create a direct relationship with a type of entertainment through funding and/or creative content.  This can be done on TV, radio, online, or events platforms.  

You may be wondering how this differs from sponsorship.  Think of it as sponsorship+ as, although it carries the same benefits as sponsorship, it also allows brands to play a much more central part in the project, tailoring content to fit its message and reflecting the brands personality.  This content can then be taken and used in PR, direct mail, or in POS marketing. 

Among the brands that have long-favoured this marketing technique are Orange Playlist, Audi TV, Pepsimax Download Show, Red Bull Flugtag, Carling Music Events, Nokia Fashion Show, B&Q DIY Show, and BMW Films.  These brands have successfully integrated themselves into entertainment and have adapted to a changing media landscape. 

But does it work?

To answer this it is important to state that most brands will seek a return on their investment be that from media value, brand awareness or sales.  In this vein, The Branded Content Marketing Association (BCMA) recently used two case studies to promote the effectiveness of the marketing medium.  The first was ITV’s Farm Camp, funded by Morrison’s to support its “Let’s Grow” initiative.  Analysing the programme, promotional trailers, website and press ads it found that, from those in the test group, one episode of the show increased association with Let’s Grow by 24%.

The second case study was HSBC’s two-minute clip on CNBC called “Alternative investing” aimed at high net worth individuals.  Results showed that over two-thirds of the test group recorded positive reactions, with 67% saying “I’d like to see more of this type of thing in the future”.

Despite strong evidence of successful branded content campaigns there are risks involved with an ineffective campaign.  Shifting consumer habits and a constantly changing media landscape therefore drives the need for brands to think creatively about content and partnerships.  Simple product placement or boring and un-engaging content can have the wrong effects.  If branded content is to be done right it has to be a long-term, strategic commitment combined with time and money.  There are many challenges such as developing the right content, steering clear of breaking any product placement regulations and making sure that the product matches the target audience but if a brand manages all these elements well and also brings in all the right resources, then branded content can be one of the most effective marketing mediums. 

For more information on branded content statistics, research and case studies, check out Marketing Week’s Branded content: The confusing world of branded content and CNBC’s New Research Proves Effectiveness of Strategic Branded Content. 

It’d be great to hear your thoughts on branded content.  What are some of the stand-out campaigns for you?

Sponsorship has been increasing in popularity as a marketing tool for brands to create awareness, drive sales or new business, and increase customer loyalty or employee engagement.  With added interest and investment in Sponsorship, brands are now beginning to tread very carefully around the marketing tool and here are some of the reasons why. 

Mismatched brands and rights

Brands spend a lot of time and money carefully planning and deciding on the right property to sponsor (either this or its Chairman’s choice).  Despite this, there are brands that have spent huge sums of money on the wrong rights, which have not paid dividends and certainly haven’t offered much return on investment.  In some cases sponsorship has had negative effects in terms of ROI and a bad fit between brand and property has led to damaged reputations for the former and reduced commercial value for the latter.  However, today, brands have become much savvier about what they attach their name to because of the huge cost of sponsorship and with the global recession this has never been as crucial as it is now. 

Financial Services

During the recession’s worst moments any financial services company about to spend money on sponsorship was met with harsh criticism and serious public backlash.  Even now, as we begin coming out of the worst of it there are still strong opinions on the practice.  Bank of America ended any talks with the New York Yankees due to huge financial difficulties and UBS cancelled its sponsorship of the Hong Kong Open after it received a $59.2 billion bailout from the Swiss government.  Both did so for fear of major public backlash.   RBS on the other hand announced $41 billion in losses just after extending its sponsorship of the Six Nations – a decision which was met with outcry, especially as it is 70% owned by the government. 

The effects of digital

With digital, bad news can travel extremely fast.  This has meant that companies have had to rethink marketing strategies.  Bad press around a property can cause devastating effects for any company that has created a strong association through heavy marketing activity.  To illustrate the enormous implications of a scandal, combined with the power of digital, just look at Tiger Woods.  As soon as the story broke about his behaviour it spread across the world in seconds.  Shareholders of Nike, Gatorade, and other sponsors consequently lost a collective of $5 to $12 billion due to a significant drop in their stock’s values. 

Embarrassment 

Poorly performing teams, embarrassing scandals, politically damaging stories.  These are all reasons for brands (or in some cases properties) to cut-off associations with partners.  Famous and very recent examples of this are Accenture dropping Tiger Woods, Nationwide dropping the FA, and only last week, two Indian state-run firms – NTPC and Power Grid Corp of India – have decided to scrap their multi-million dollar sponsorships of the Delhi Commonwealth Games due to negative publicity around allegations of corruption, mismanagement and malpractice. 

In addition, the BP oil fiasco that has engulfed the Gulf of Mexico has severely damaged the reputations of many of the arts properties it sponsors, primarily The Royal Opera House, Tate Galleries, and British Museum.

Brands are now very cautious about what they attach their name to.  Understanding sponsorship and the effect that it has on consumers is key to understanding the possible risks of association, as well as the benefits.

Will Carling famously referred to the game in England as being run by ’57 old farts’ back in 1995 when he was national captain. However, English rugby (union) has come a long way since then. Admittedly results haven’t been entirely awe inspiring following the 2003 World Cup triumph – but in commercial terms the future looks rosy.

According to SportsPro magazine, in 2009 “games at Twickenham generated £29.2 million for the RFU, accounting for a quarter of their £118 million turnover. The union’s gate receipts have actually increased by £4.1 million since the 2006-2007 season.” Last season in the 6 nations “England could have sold out its 82,000 capacity Twickenham stadium twice over for each of its two home games”.  Additionally, “England received the largest economic boost from the tournament, with a total of US $132.82 million spent by fans on match tickets, transport, food and beverage sales, accommodation, merchandising, and at city attractions, and by sponsors on marketing”.

Hospitality and marketing have been important aspects of the increased commercialisation of rugby in the country where Webb Ellis first picked up the ball. In terms of sponsorship, England’s involvement with O2, its principal sponsor since 1995 when it was known as BT Cellnet, has been both beneficial and lucrative for rugby. England’s mixed broadcasting package, unique to the home unions, with both Sky and the BBC ensures strong annual TV revenue. The BBC covers home games in the 6 nations while Sky covers the autumn internationals and much more – from U20 internationals to the Army and Navy game. Looking to the future, England will also host the 8^th Rugby World Cup in 2015. The Rugby World Cup is the third largest sporting event after the football world cup and the Olympics. When staged in France, in 2007, it delivered “a total economic impact estimated at up to £2.1 billion” for the host nation.

Domestically the picture looks bright too. Aviva, the fifth largest insurer in the world, has recently replaced Guinness as the official title sponsor of England’s premier club rugby competition. In a 4 year deal, Aviva will pump £20 million into the renamed Aviva Premiership. In another exciting move, JP Morgan Asset Management earlier this year launched a Sevens tournament for the 12 premiership clubs. This is a bold move which aims to build on the momentum that entry into the 2016 Olympics has given the shortened version of the rugby game.

There are, however, some small dark clouds for rugby in England. The so-called ‘Bloodgate’ scandal has left a bad taste in the mouth (quite literally). The affair has tarnished the image and reputation of both Harlequins (one of the oldest clubs in the game) and the sport in general. It would certainly have been scrutinised by sponsors even though Etihad Airways has signed a one year extension to its sponsorship with the Harlequins club.

The relationship between the Premiership clubs and the national squad is not always a comfortable one. Like in football, there are arguably too many overseas stars in the domestic game. If selection of these players curtails the long-term playing development of home grown talent the results of the national side may suffer in years to come. Some players in the national side are also plying their trade overseas and this has led to friction between their respective clubs and Martin Johnson’s national squad. This was notably the case when the French club Toulon refused to release Jonny Wilkinson for a recent England squad summer camp. To keep revenues coming in, the RFU needs to carefully manage these issues to ensure that its strongest side runs out at Twickenham in order to attract sponsors, broadcasters and keep fans streaming through the turnstiles.

The upcoming season promises to be an exciting one as the rugby community looks forward to the 2011 Rugby World Cup in New Zealand. Whether Martin Johnson and his England team will get their hands on the Webb Ellis Trophy again remains to be seen.

One thing we do know for sure – on the commercial front English rugby is in great health.

Lately, it appears that the dreaded ‘S’ word has started to lose its negative connotations in the aftermath of one of our worst economic crises in recent times. Yes, sponsorship is slowly beginning to reassert its authority in the marketing mix and with just cause.

The recent announcement that consumer giants Procter and Gamble has signed up to become the 11th global sponsor of the London 2012 Olympic Games will be a huge morale boost to those involved in international sports sponsorship. P+G, as you would expect from such a world renowned firm, are in good company on the 2012 list, which also boasts tech giants Panasonic, Acer, Atos Origin and Samsung. And it is not only global corporate who are being encouraged to sign up. As the BBC reports, small and medium sized firms are also lining up to get a piece of the Olympic dream in 2012.

The International Olympics Committee has confirmed that close to $900m has been accumulated in sponsorship revenue and it is hoping to top $1bn. And they say that sports sponsorship is suffering…

With just over 700 days until the start of the 2012 Olympics, it is worth recognising the plethora of opportunities that exist for brands wanting to gain true global recognition through a sports association. Whether it is the four yearly bonanzas like the Olympics and the World Cup, the truly international annual motorsport championships like Formula One or MotoGP, or more regional events or series, the perfect sports opportunity is there for the taking, if only you know where to look.

An article on PR Week a few weeks ago looked at the results of a recent Echo Research poll (of 1,002 adults in the UK) which found a surprisingly low awareness rate of brands sponsoring this year’s World Cup in South Africa. Coca-Cola and McDonalds, both sponsors of London 2012, garnered the highest recognition but less than 50% in both cases. Interestingly, Nike was identified by 20% of people even though they were not actually sponsor.

It is hardly surprising to see a name like Nike on the list, just as we may well see Coca-Cola on a similar poll in modern day Formula 1. This unintentional or intentional ambush of rival brands on high level sporting events is to be expected and brands should build that into their own activation programmes to minimise the impact. Activation is more critical for less visible sponsors as they seek not only to gain a bigger piece of the sponsorship pie for any event, but also to fend off their own rivals attempts at hijacking coverage.

The low recall rates themselves have nothing to do with the value of sponsorship as a marketing tool, but perhaps more to do with the audiences that were targeted or the ways in which the sponsorship was activated.

Before we start writing off sports sponsorship because recall rates in this particular research are low, let’s remember that McDonalds may only have used the World Cup to target 20% of the UK audience and with that achieved their sponsorship objectives. Success from sports sponsorship is a very individual analysis and cannot be assessed by sweeping judgements based on a small cross-section of society. As long as brands like McDonalds continue to plough substantial finances into sponsorship of sporting events, one must assume they are deriving the necessary return on that investment.

The same must be said for technology brands whose primary objectives in a sports involvement may be less to do with outright branding and more to do with technological showcase of their product in a sporting environment. We have worked with a number of tech brands for whom this last point is the single most important aspect of their marketing strategy and in these instances the returns from a sporting involvement far outweigh the impact of their corporate logo in a stadium, on a shirt, on a car or on a website.

Sponsorship is not a one case fits all marketing tool. It is bespoke, adaptable and tailored to each company’s own strategy and unique brand attributes. To say that sponsorship is not successful on the basis of a small non-targeted questionnaire is short sighted and completely misses the point.

For those who are familiar with my posts, I have pointed out the major football brands, and the key players in football marketing. Most of them are either FIFA sponsors or FIFA partners. The FIFA World Cup sponsors benefit from a tremendous marketing platform to showcase their producs, link their brand image to the biggest football event in the world, promote  online and offline activities, engage with consumers,  and ultimately have an exclusive component as an official sponsor.

The strategy to heavily invest in being a FIFA sponsor could be justified based on the above mentioned advantages. However, a recent survey by The Nielsen Company* showed that Nike was more frequently linked to the World Cup than any of the tournament’s official partners and sponsors. The survey analyzed online blogs, social networking platforms and came to the conclusion that the Swoosh was fully part of the FIFA World Cup landscape, and engraved in consumer’s minds.

With no doubt, the huge online buzz made by the “write the future” campaign strongly contributed to put Nike under the football spotlights. The viral was launched mid-may and had more than 3 million viewers the first week. So far, 14 million viewers enjoyed the video online.  Nike’s biggest stars were featured in the video:  Drogba, Cristiano Ronaldo, Rooney and even Kobe Bryant, Roger Federer and Homer Simpson. Not sure the latter is a Nike athlete though.

HIGHEST SHARE OF ONLINE WORLD CUP BUZZ (Sponsors vs. Competitors)

Source: The Nielsen Company
**Share of online buzz across the 10 sponsors/partners with a global footprint and two of their major competitors in English language messages related to the World Cup from May 7 to June 6.

I pointed out in a previous article, that Nike, adidas, Puma are widely acknowledged as football brands. It seems that not being a FIFA (nor UEFA) sponsor does not stop Nike from succesfully link its brand to the biggest football competition. The “Write the Future” campaign only did not contribute to those facts. It must be added that Nike sponsors 9 teams at World Cup, provides outfit to several players including superstar Cristiano Ronaldo, Wayne Rooney and many others. On top of that, on February 25, the Swoosh launched a powerful campaign “taking ownership” of the sustainable component in football.

This strategy seem to pay off as Nike has managed to leverage its brands, products, activities in football around the World Cup without being a sponsor i.e without paying any sponsorship fees to FIFA.

Let me add one thing. I do remember back in 1994 after the World Cup in the US, a statement from Phil Knight (Co-Founder and CEO of Nike) about football. His goal was to make Nike THE global football brand.  I was a student at that time and was quite doubtful about this objective. To me, Nike was a Basketball brand with Michael Jordan as an icon, period.  I bet I was not the only one. However, one year later, Nike partnered with CBF (The Brazil National Team) then with, players, european clubs etc.

The results and facts speak for themselves, but what is interesting to point out is that this achievement has been done without being a FIFA sponsor or partner. Other brands such as Carlsberg and Pepsi are adopting a similar strategy although the results are not yet to be compared with Nike’s.

Don’t get me wrong, by no means do I say that it is not worth it to be a FIFA sponsor. I think  the contrary. It is key for a brand to associate with FIFA hence World Cup and benefit from all sponsorship components. Nevertheless, I must be pointed out that some brands, and in the present case, Nike managed to create a strong link between their brand and an event they do not sponsor. I would echo Pete Blackshaw (Executive vice president of digital strategy at The Nielsen Company) “If you’re a company with a large global footprint, it’s natural to want to associate yourself with a major worldwide event like the World Cup”

I am a big believer in strong competition. It makes other brands work harder, be more creative, think out of the box, and keep the stimulation flow on. For sure, the other football brands will strike back, and it’s….”for the good of the game” right?

I would be delighted to hear your thoughts.

Karl

*Nielsen’s study, conducted between May 7^th to June 6^th 2010, looked at English language World Cup-related messages on blogs, message boards, groups, video and image sites – including Flickr, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter – that mentioned at least one of the 10 official FIFA partners and sponsors with a global footprint or two of their top competitors (30 brands in all).