How do sponsors feel about the ambush marketing protecting measures being enacted and utilized by commercial rights holders and event organizers/local governments?
Obviously, as ambush marketing has emerged and grown, and as increasingly the media has become aware of major instances of ambush and attention surrounding such campaigns have grown, sponsors and rights holders have worked in tandem to combat ambushers and protect sponsors better.
But how do sponsors feel when such measures are enacted and put to use? Is it to the benefit of sponsors for rights holders to pursue legal action against offending brands? Would Budweiser have looked fondly on a prolonged court battle between FIFA and Bavaria? How would the public perceive Budweiser should the women accused by FIFA of ambushing been sentenced to jail time? Already those aware of the legislation in place for the London Olympics have protested against the counter-ambush measures in place, as did Vancouver citizens and businesses in regards to the Vancouver Games legislation. South Africa's own protection is regarded as one of the strictest and most draconian in the world, offering sponsors and rights holders swift action and harsh penalties for those found guilty. But for whose benefit?
While protecting sponsors and the investment made by official partners into major sporting events such as the Olympics and the World Cup is of the utmost importance in the current marketing environment, one has to wonder how favourably consumers would have perceived a strict sentence against the Bavaria Dutch Dress girls.
Thankfully we may never know the true extent of such legislation's impact on consumer opinion. Nevertheless, consumer reaction to both ambush marketing and counter-ambush marketing strategies remains both an intriguing and contentious area worthy of our attention, and perhaps further study...
Showing posts with label Marketing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marketing. Show all posts
Sunday, 4 July 2010
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Halfpipe Dreams...
Anyone out there know the rules about logos and brand names on snowboards at the Olympics?
With all of the fury surrounding ambush marketing, and the measures the IOC have put in place over the years in an effort to protect their sponsors, one couldn't help but notice the subtle marketing in play during yesterday's men's halfpipe competition. The Olympics have rules regarding the allowable size of trademarks and corporate logos, regulations which have extended as far as forbidding Team Canada's use of its traditional Hockey Canada logo, and restricting the size and visibility of equipment manufacturers' marks.
So it seems strange, then, that every snowboarder to take the hill yesterday made no secret of their sponsors, with names like Burton and Bataleon seemingly underlying every descent.
In past Olympic Games, it has been commonplace for alpine skiers to remove a ski and show off their sponsor to the camera while awaiting their results. In televised competitions, this ritual emerged over the past twenty years as an accepted and almost celebrated part of skiing, based on the willingness of broadcasters to show off each skier's gear. This year, however, there's been much less attention on the skis at the finish line than would be expected. Either broadcasters and organizers are getting wise to the marketability of winter sports, or the skiing community is taking a stand against ambushing. Which seems more likely?
Finally, this post would be incomplete without giving mention to snowboarding's golden boy Shaun White, whose performance yesterday in the halfpipe competition drew a line under just how far this sport has come in recent years, and how big an impact he has had. Snowboarding, while a popular adventure and counter-culture sport for decades, is finally expanding into the mainstream, and the advances being achieved across the competitive arena are amazing. White's emergence and talent have been a driving force behind snowboarding's rise, and both he and the sport are now reaping the rewards.
Monday, 25 January 2010
In The News...
As the rules of the game change, companies must do more to recognize the various forms of ambushing. With a clearer understanding, organizers and sponsors stand a much better chance of protecting their investment. With this in mind, we propose the following updated breakdown of ambushing, including its strategies and the threats to sponsors, rights-holders and event organizers.
Check out Business Insight's new piece on ambush marketing by Professor Simon Chadwick and I, our most recent work on ambush marketing here at CIBS...
Ambushed! Sponsors pay a lot to link their brands to sporting events. Then there are those who get those links for nothing.
The article highlights a new typology of ambush marketing, and a new way of looking at and understanding the methods and strategies employed by ambush marketers. With the Vancouver Games fast approaching, and the 2010 FIFA World Cup just around the corner, it should be interesting to see what new strategies may emerge, and which tactics take the most prominent roles in 2010...
Monday, 18 January 2010
Let the Games Begin...
The marketing circus that surrounds the Olympic Games started months ago in anticipation of the Vancouver Games. Several brands across Canada have already been called out in the media over perceived ambush marketing campaigns, including Roots, Lululemon, Sony, and countless others.
This week, we can add a new name to the list: Subway.
While Olympic organizers and partners, including market rival and Olympic TOP sponsor McDonald's, will surely take a less gracious view of Subway's rather innovative and suggestive use of star American athlete Michael Phelps in their advertising, it is hard not to appreciate the ingenuity behind the campaign.
Expect to see many more examples of brands entering the Olympic marketing fray around the world over the coming weeks. While the Winter Olympics traditionally attract less interest and fewer ambush marketing efforts as compared to the Summer Games, the opportunities presented by the North American market, the incredible focus Canada-wide on the Olympic hockey teams' fortunes, and the competitive balance across winter sports nations that has emerged in recent years, should make this February an attractive prospect for sport marketers.
This week, we can add a new name to the list: Subway.
While Olympic organizers and partners, including market rival and Olympic TOP sponsor McDonald's, will surely take a less gracious view of Subway's rather innovative and suggestive use of star American athlete Michael Phelps in their advertising, it is hard not to appreciate the ingenuity behind the campaign.
Expect to see many more examples of brands entering the Olympic marketing fray around the world over the coming weeks. While the Winter Olympics traditionally attract less interest and fewer ambush marketing efforts as compared to the Summer Games, the opportunities presented by the North American market, the incredible focus Canada-wide on the Olympic hockey teams' fortunes, and the competitive balance across winter sports nations that has emerged in recent years, should make this February an attractive prospect for sport marketers.
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
Regular Service to Resume Soon… But First, a Much Belated Take on Tiger Woods!
The blog’s been dormant for quite a while now; a combination of work, vacation, and countless distractions have kept me from the regular updates I aimed for in starting BSM’s online presence, but with any luck, in the coming weeks and months, regular service will resume and the blog’s activity will grow in kind…
In the meantime, here’s a quick write-up that should have been posted a month ago. The following was written on the morning of December 12th, 2009, in a lounge in Amsterdam’s Schipol Airport, en route to Montréal for the holidays. The subject matter may seem a bit out of date, but the key arguments and concepts remain as relevant today as they were on that morning – whether the article stands the test of time, however, depends largely on how accurate it is predicting Tiger’s future as a brand…
The fall of the Tiger Brand??
December 12, 2009
The blog has taken a bit of a break in recent weeks, an unfortunate byproduct of the busy holiday season, and the increasing awareness and interest surrounding ambush marketing as 2010 fast approaches.
Nevertheless, in light of the current predicament Tiger Woods finds himself in, the media furor and speculation that currently envelopes his personal life, and the announcement that he will be stepping away from the sport which made him s billionaire, the future if the Tiger brand is s more than worthy topic with which to return.
As with all celebrity and athlete endorsements, the potential for negative press attention, scandal, and notoriety, are ever-present dangers for Tiger's commercial interests, and those of his sponsors. However, even with this threat in mind, few would have imagined the depths to which this story would delve, and the magnitude and multitude of allegations that would emerge following Tiger's car accident. How these events, and Woods' seeming admission of guilt through his press releases in recent weeks, will impact his brand and effect future earning potential, is a question which will surround the brand for possibly years to come.
Despite these concerns, however, there remains some cause for optimism for Woods and his commercial partners, overshadowed as it is by the negativity currently following the Woods name. Ultimately, in analyzing the future of the Tiger brand, and considering the impact Woods' transgressions may have, it should always be highlighted what makes up the core of Tiger's brand, and what he as an athlete and an endorser represent to the buying public. Although Tiger's relationship with his father has long been a key element of his brand image, and his own family life has become an increasingly used and focused-upon element of his character, his brand value is nevertheless based on his ability as a golfer, his steely determination and dominance, and his transferability between markets, demographics, and psychographics. Unlike other athlete brands that place great emphasis and derive considerable value from their family-life, such as David Beckham or Wayne Gretzky, Woods relies on his sporting prowess, and almost supernatural ability as a competitors to differentiate himself from other athlete brands, traits which must be re-emphasized and developed for Tiger to return to his marketing peak.
Interestingly, Woods' main sponsors have thus far remained relatively tight lipped, likely awaiting a more opportune moment to decode upon longer-term strategies, and how best to proceed with their partnerships with the athlete. Assuming each brand included morality clauses in their endorsement contracts, the companies will have the option to terminate the sponsorship should they feel it best to distance their brand from Woods. Others will face the challenge of returning Tiger to a saleable and marketable asset, which likely will rely heavily on his eventual return to golf, and a return to tournament winning and dominating form. When that will happen, and indeed if that will happen, remains to be seen.
Finally, it seems worth noting that with everything going on in the world - wars throughout the middle east, swine flu spreading across the globe, global warming talks coming to a head - the most significant and followed news story of the past two weeks has been that of Tiger Woods' personal life. Few athletes in history could command such hysteria and mass-interest, and even fewer golfers. Let there be no doubt of the impact Tiger has had on golf and the sporting world, and of the media and commercial interest that follows him. While his brand may be under threat currently, and his personal life in tatters, that we as fans and consumers care enough to follow such stories only serves to underline the potential value that remains in the Tiger Woods brand. How that value is leveraged, remains to be seen
In the meantime, here’s a quick write-up that should have been posted a month ago. The following was written on the morning of December 12th, 2009, in a lounge in Amsterdam’s Schipol Airport, en route to Montréal for the holidays. The subject matter may seem a bit out of date, but the key arguments and concepts remain as relevant today as they were on that morning – whether the article stands the test of time, however, depends largely on how accurate it is predicting Tiger’s future as a brand…
The fall of the Tiger Brand??
December 12, 2009
The blog has taken a bit of a break in recent weeks, an unfortunate byproduct of the busy holiday season, and the increasing awareness and interest surrounding ambush marketing as 2010 fast approaches.
Nevertheless, in light of the current predicament Tiger Woods finds himself in, the media furor and speculation that currently envelopes his personal life, and the announcement that he will be stepping away from the sport which made him s billionaire, the future if the Tiger brand is s more than worthy topic with which to return.
As with all celebrity and athlete endorsements, the potential for negative press attention, scandal, and notoriety, are ever-present dangers for Tiger's commercial interests, and those of his sponsors. However, even with this threat in mind, few would have imagined the depths to which this story would delve, and the magnitude and multitude of allegations that would emerge following Tiger's car accident. How these events, and Woods' seeming admission of guilt through his press releases in recent weeks, will impact his brand and effect future earning potential, is a question which will surround the brand for possibly years to come.
Despite these concerns, however, there remains some cause for optimism for Woods and his commercial partners, overshadowed as it is by the negativity currently following the Woods name. Ultimately, in analyzing the future of the Tiger brand, and considering the impact Woods' transgressions may have, it should always be highlighted what makes up the core of Tiger's brand, and what he as an athlete and an endorser represent to the buying public. Although Tiger's relationship with his father has long been a key element of his brand image, and his own family life has become an increasingly used and focused-upon element of his character, his brand value is nevertheless based on his ability as a golfer, his steely determination and dominance, and his transferability between markets, demographics, and psychographics. Unlike other athlete brands that place great emphasis and derive considerable value from their family-life, such as David Beckham or Wayne Gretzky, Woods relies on his sporting prowess, and almost supernatural ability as a competitors to differentiate himself from other athlete brands, traits which must be re-emphasized and developed for Tiger to return to his marketing peak.
Interestingly, Woods' main sponsors have thus far remained relatively tight lipped, likely awaiting a more opportune moment to decode upon longer-term strategies, and how best to proceed with their partnerships with the athlete. Assuming each brand included morality clauses in their endorsement contracts, the companies will have the option to terminate the sponsorship should they feel it best to distance their brand from Woods. Others will face the challenge of returning Tiger to a saleable and marketable asset, which likely will rely heavily on his eventual return to golf, and a return to tournament winning and dominating form. When that will happen, and indeed if that will happen, remains to be seen.
Finally, it seems worth noting that with everything going on in the world - wars throughout the middle east, swine flu spreading across the globe, global warming talks coming to a head - the most significant and followed news story of the past two weeks has been that of Tiger Woods' personal life. Few athletes in history could command such hysteria and mass-interest, and even fewer golfers. Let there be no doubt of the impact Tiger has had on golf and the sporting world, and of the media and commercial interest that follows him. While his brand may be under threat currently, and his personal life in tatters, that we as fans and consumers care enough to follow such stories only serves to underline the potential value that remains in the Tiger Woods brand. How that value is leveraged, remains to be seen
Saturday, 24 October 2009
The Best Yet?
The London Olympics are less than three years away, and (in theory) Olympic sponsorship programmes should be well underway by now. How many of the brands associated with the Games, either as TOP sponsors or national level sponsors, can say they're doing as much as EDF Energy at this stage??
Olympic sponsorship is a four year entitlement to tie your brand, your company, your organization to the Olympic Games; unfortunately, more often than not, sponsors wait until the Games begin to properly leverage their investments, focusing largely on the massive broadcast audiences and event spectators. EDF's efforts thus far are merely the tip of the iceberg of what Olympic sponsorship could and should be, and have set the bar for other sponsors.
Here's hoping the rest of the IOC and LOCOG (and more closely to home, VANOC) answer the call and step up their game...
Thursday, 22 October 2009
A New Direction in Athlete Endorsements??
Credit Darren Rovell over at CNNBC's SportsBiz for bringing this story to light this week.
Rovell makes a couple of key arguments about this new strategy - particularly questioning if short, small-pay endorsement deals are worth the risk to these athletes?? While they may open the door to more lucrative, meaningful commercial activities in the future, the risks certainly outweigh the potential for athletes earning above and beyond anything these endorsements can promise.
That said, there is nevertheless something behind this model. As the company argues, many valuable, marketable athletes are being overlooked both in regional and national markets, with the majority of athlete endorsement contracts going to the elite commercially-viable athletes. This is a chance for new partnerships to be formed, new athletes to come to light and test their brand value, and a new direction in sports marketing, away from the traditional reliance on only a select few. What remains to be seen, however, is how athletes and their representatives approach these opportunities: will they be seen as merely cash-grabs, a chance to earn some pocket change on their days off? Or rather, will athletes take a more strategic approach, and attempt to build their images and brands through the connections made by Brand Affinity Technologies?
MARKETERS have been playing a new, more cautious game when it comes to signing athletes as endorsers, winnowing their rosters of jocks peddling products to proven performers with national — or international — profiles like LeBron James, Tiger Woods, Peyton Manning, Serena Williams and Derek Jeter.
The rising costs of signing athletic talent to build brands — not to mention deals gone sour because of shortcomings in the professional or personal arena — have made advertisers wary of rookies, single-game sensations, one-season stars or even talents with local appeal.
So what is a player like Drew Brees, the quarterback of the New Orleans Saints, to do? He is no slacker, to be sure, but neither is his surname Manning.
Mr. Brees and his representative, Chris Stuart of Encore Sports and Entertainment, have signed with a company called Brand Affinity Technologies, which offers a Web site (brandaffinity.net) as a one-stop-shopping opportunity for advertisers seeking star power in more efficient, and affordable, forms.
Rovell makes a couple of key arguments about this new strategy - particularly questioning if short, small-pay endorsement deals are worth the risk to these athletes?? While they may open the door to more lucrative, meaningful commercial activities in the future, the risks certainly outweigh the potential for athletes earning above and beyond anything these endorsements can promise.
That said, there is nevertheless something behind this model. As the company argues, many valuable, marketable athletes are being overlooked both in regional and national markets, with the majority of athlete endorsement contracts going to the elite commercially-viable athletes. This is a chance for new partnerships to be formed, new athletes to come to light and test their brand value, and a new direction in sports marketing, away from the traditional reliance on only a select few. What remains to be seen, however, is how athletes and their representatives approach these opportunities: will they be seen as merely cash-grabs, a chance to earn some pocket change on their days off? Or rather, will athletes take a more strategic approach, and attempt to build their images and brands through the connections made by Brand Affinity Technologies?
Wednesday, 26 August 2009
Much Needed Progress...
Meet the new face of the Boston Bruins marketing department (credit Kukla's Korner for the find):
For more on the ad campaign, and the efforts being made by the Bruins this summer, check out the Boston Globe's take (here).
For hockey fans everywhere, despite your allegiances, seeing key teams like the the Bruins and the Chicago Blackhawks returning to respectability and past glories has to be a welcome sight. Following the 2004/2005 lockout season, the National Hockey League has been too dependent upon the 6 Canadian franchises financially supporting the league. With serious recession problems in Detroit, a gradual rebuilding phase in Colorado, and the constant legal battles and ownership issues plaguing some of the league newer and more Southern entries, the league is in desperate need for strong, traditional hockey markets such as Boston, New York, and Chicago to meet their potential.
On the ice Boston and Chicago have made huge strides in the last two years; off the ice, Boston now follows Chicago's lead in making the game more available, more accessible, and more fan-friendly in their business approach, a promising sign of things to come...
For more on the ad campaign, and the efforts being made by the Bruins this summer, check out the Boston Globe's take (here).
For hockey fans everywhere, despite your allegiances, seeing key teams like the the Bruins and the Chicago Blackhawks returning to respectability and past glories has to be a welcome sight. Following the 2004/2005 lockout season, the National Hockey League has been too dependent upon the 6 Canadian franchises financially supporting the league. With serious recession problems in Detroit, a gradual rebuilding phase in Colorado, and the constant legal battles and ownership issues plaguing some of the league newer and more Southern entries, the league is in desperate need for strong, traditional hockey markets such as Boston, New York, and Chicago to meet their potential.
On the ice Boston and Chicago have made huge strides in the last two years; off the ice, Boston now follows Chicago's lead in making the game more available, more accessible, and more fan-friendly in their business approach, a promising sign of things to come...
Monday, 17 August 2009
A New Look...
Hockey Canada today unveiled their new uniforms for the upcoming 2010 Vancouver Olympics, in response to a crackdown on jersey and equipment regulations by the International Olympic Committee, the Vancouver organizers, and a minor disagreement between Hockey Canada and the Canadian Olympic Committee.
The controversy over Team Canada's uniforms came of regulations limiting the allowable size and dimensions of governing body and manufacturer logos on Olympic competition-wear. The previous jerseys featured Hockey Canada's iconic logo prominently on the chest, an infringement of Olympic rules for which the COC had to apply for an exception. Having secured such protection from the regulations in previous Olympic years, Hockey Canada had originally approached the 2010 Games hoping to continue to market Canadian hockey using their logo, and reap the same financial rewards as in previous years from Hockey Canada shirt sales.
Instead, the COC refused to file the application, resulting in a dispute between the two governing bodies, and the need for Hockey Canada to design and have approved a new shirt for the men's and women's teams to wear this winter.
Behind all of the regulations and disputes within this story has been the underlining efforts of the IOC and VANOC to curtail ambush marketing, and prevent organizations such as Hockey Canada (as well as manufacturers like Nike or adidas) from gaining undue commercial benefits through unofficial Olympic involvement. Those watching last summer's Beijing Games may have noticed that a number of prominent organizations and countries had altered or missing logos from their uniforms, most notable the Argentine football team.
Hopefully the shirt design revealed today will appease Olympic organizers and those fearing ambush marketing, whilst also providing Hockey Canada the funding and added marketing that Olympic participation has traditionally provided.
Of course, the biggest contributor to Hockey Canada's revenues this year will likely be as a result of on-ice success, something 33 million fans North of the 49th will be anxiously hoping for...
The controversy over Team Canada's uniforms came of regulations limiting the allowable size and dimensions of governing body and manufacturer logos on Olympic competition-wear. The previous jerseys featured Hockey Canada's iconic logo prominently on the chest, an infringement of Olympic rules for which the COC had to apply for an exception. Having secured such protection from the regulations in previous Olympic years, Hockey Canada had originally approached the 2010 Games hoping to continue to market Canadian hockey using their logo, and reap the same financial rewards as in previous years from Hockey Canada shirt sales.
Instead, the COC refused to file the application, resulting in a dispute between the two governing bodies, and the need for Hockey Canada to design and have approved a new shirt for the men's and women's teams to wear this winter.
Behind all of the regulations and disputes within this story has been the underlining efforts of the IOC and VANOC to curtail ambush marketing, and prevent organizations such as Hockey Canada (as well as manufacturers like Nike or adidas) from gaining undue commercial benefits through unofficial Olympic involvement. Those watching last summer's Beijing Games may have noticed that a number of prominent organizations and countries had altered or missing logos from their uniforms, most notable the Argentine football team.
Hopefully the shirt design revealed today will appease Olympic organizers and those fearing ambush marketing, whilst also providing Hockey Canada the funding and added marketing that Olympic participation has traditionally provided.
Of course, the biggest contributor to Hockey Canada's revenues this year will likely be as a result of on-ice success, something 33 million fans North of the 49th will be anxiously hoping for...
Tuesday, 11 August 2009
Why?
With Tiger Woods' win at the Buick Open last weekend, the golf world bid goodbye to one of its longest running and most popular tournaments.
On the surface, Buick ending its association and sponsorship with the event seems well-reasoned. With the US automaker, as part of General Motors, now funded by the American government, the company took the decision to cease its patronage of the PGA Tour, deeming it an unwise expense given the brand's financial losses and dependence on public funds.
However, Buick's decision raises an important question for sport managers: if sponsoring an event such as the Buick Open is no more than an expense for businesses, an investment that cannot be justified to American tax payers, then why do companies sponsor sports at all?
Was Buick's investment nothing more than an expense to GM? And if so, why? Sponsorship is no longer about merely providing financial support for events or properties - with the money committed by organizations, it must be a leverageable marketing opportunity as well, capable of providing a return on investment. So the question is, if Buick was unable to gain any market benefits from hosting and sponsoring the Buick Open, and couldn't continue their association with the event and the Tour, then why?
On the surface, Buick ending its association and sponsorship with the event seems well-reasoned. With the US automaker, as part of General Motors, now funded by the American government, the company took the decision to cease its patronage of the PGA Tour, deeming it an unwise expense given the brand's financial losses and dependence on public funds.
However, Buick's decision raises an important question for sport managers: if sponsoring an event such as the Buick Open is no more than an expense for businesses, an investment that cannot be justified to American tax payers, then why do companies sponsor sports at all?
Was Buick's investment nothing more than an expense to GM? And if so, why? Sponsorship is no longer about merely providing financial support for events or properties - with the money committed by organizations, it must be a leverageable marketing opportunity as well, capable of providing a return on investment. So the question is, if Buick was unable to gain any market benefits from hosting and sponsoring the Buick Open, and couldn't continue their association with the event and the Tour, then why?
Friday, 31 July 2009
Ambush Marketing? Or yet another example of ingenious marketing around sporting events?
Here's a new story coming out of Western Canada as preparations for the 2010 Olympics enter the home stretch...
Business makes Canadian shoe to appeal to athletes
By Rachel Brady, CTVOlympics.ca Posted Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:13 AM ET
Does taking a Canadian-only theme absolve the shoes and the brand from ambush marketing entirely? Not mentioning the Olympics saves the Zoonies from infringing upon the anti-ambushing legislation in place, but is there any doubt of the brand's aim to capitalize on the Olympics? IOC, VANOC, you may well have just opened the door to ambushers - 2010 will be a year of patriotic marketing in Canada, and the precedent is set.
Business makes Canadian shoe to appeal to athletes
By Rachel Brady, CTVOlympics.ca Posted Thursday, July 30, 2009 10:13 AM ET
A Calgary business envisioned a Canadian-themed running shoe that would appeal to Canada's patriotic athletes and sports fans. With an Olympic Games coming to Vancouver and Whistler in 2010, it was time to kick the business plan into action.
Calgary triathlon store Tri it Multisport learned of an Australian-themed shoe that quickly sold out in that nation, and thought perhaps the same could be done in Canada. Their research showed no company had ever produced a Canadian-themed running shoe.
Zoot, the maker of that Australian shoe, and a popular name in triathlon sporting goods, designed and manufactured the special Canadian shoe. Tri it Multisport calls it the Zoonie, and is now marketing it with the slogan "the new Canadian currency in speed."
Jordan Brydon, Canada's top Canadian tri-athlete under 23 and a hopeful for the 2012 London Summer Olympic Games, works at the store and helped Zoot design the shoe. The challenge was making it appeal to not just elite runners, but athletes from many sports who want a dry-land training shoe or a comfortable walking shoe.
"We wanted to do something cool and patriotic to support them in their training," said Brydon, who has already worn the shoe on race day. "Myself, I travel to different countries all the time, and wearing a shoe like that is like wearing a Canadian jersey."
But the Calgary business faced a challenge with their strategy since there are strict rules against using any Olympic branding or "ambush marketing". So Tri it Multisport went big on the simply Canadian motif.
The Zoonie is a sleek, white runner adorned with bold, red maple leaves. Weighing just seven ounces, compared to the regular 13 ounces of an average running shoe, Brydon calls it ideal for speed and agility training since lighter shoes allow more reps of an exercise. They put holes in the bottom for drainage - for athletes who pour water over themselves during workouts.
Canadian Olympic hockey gold-medallist Gillian Ferrari and teammate Tessa Bonhomme are among a handful of 2010 Olympic hopefuls who are wearing the Zoonies. They were shopping for heart rate monitors at Tri it Multisport when the store's owner, Brian Del Castilho, showed them the shoes.
"He said 'we're so proud of our Canadian athletes'," said Ferrari who wore the shoes to a recent photo shoot in Calgary with CTVOlympics.ca. "He was like 'I want you guys to wear these with pride and, you know, your feet carry the heart and pride of Canada.'"
Tri it Multisport is strategizing to get the limited-edition shoe on more high-profile Canadian athletes, a task that has proven tough for a company that typically specializes in serving runners and triathletes.
"Most of our circle is triathlon and summer sports Olympians," said Brydon. "We want to get into the winter sport circle too."
So far, the company has sold about 150 pairs of Zoonies. Showing off the shoes at Ironman Canada in Penticton, B.C. in August kicks off the efforts they plan to promote the shoes to Canada's circles of athletes.
"We wanted to put our name on the market as being the only store in Canada where you can get this shoe," said Del Castilho. "We're marketing to two groups: athletes and people who just want to show they're Canadian. Ideally speaking, to me, this would be one of those things people would want to wear at the Olympics."
The shoe retails for $184.99 (triathlon racing shoes typically range from between $150 - $220, says Del Castilho) at Tri It Multisport in Calgary or on their website, www.tri-it.ca.
Does taking a Canadian-only theme absolve the shoes and the brand from ambush marketing entirely? Not mentioning the Olympics saves the Zoonies from infringing upon the anti-ambushing legislation in place, but is there any doubt of the brand's aim to capitalize on the Olympics? IOC, VANOC, you may well have just opened the door to ambushers - 2010 will be a year of patriotic marketing in Canada, and the precedent is set.
Tuesday, 28 July 2009
Ambush Marketing Crackdown in South Africa...
Two companies have been found guilty of ambush marketing in South Africa, it was reported this week, after the official South African national team shirt and popular name for the team, Bafana Bafana, were used in advertisements for non-sponsors Hyundai and MTN.
From Kickoff.com:
While these cases may be seen as proof of the value and importance of anti-ambush marketing legislation, ultimately Hyundai and MTN both should have been aware of the dangers of using controlled and protected words/materials as they did. Even under normal intellectual property rights protection, both companies' advertisements knowingly infringed upon the rights of the South African football association and the national team, making the ASA's decision easy.
This has been a promising summer from an ambush marketing perspective in South Africa. Few major stories emerged from June's Confederations Cup, and this week's decision regarding the actions of Hyundai and MTN is not the first of its kind this year. While we should expect ambushing stories to increase as next summer approaches, and can count on prospective ambushers to be more ambitious and aware in preparing for the upcoming World Cup, FIFA's sponsors, and the South African organizers of next summer's event, may find themselves cautiously optimistic at this early stage. Only time will tell if such optimism is warranted...
From Kickoff.com:
Safa wins ambush marketing cases
Posted: 2009-07-27 15:19
Safa has stepped up its efforts to protect their sponsorship rights from ambush marketing.
Safa has won two cases at the Advertising Standards Authority of South Africa (ASA). This after two companies, MTN and Hyundai, were found to be at fault following their usage of Safa and Bafana Bafana brands while they are not sponsors or suppliers to the association and the senior men’s national team.
In the first case, Hyundai made an advertisement that depicted a Bafana player wearing an official national team jersey – which was viewed as a clear case of ambush marketing. The company has since withdrawn the advertisement and has vowed not to produce another one in future without Safa’s consent.
In the second matter, ASA ruled that MTN has implied in their advertisement that there is a connection between the company and Bafana. MTN had an advertisement which was headed ‘Turning young men into Bafana Bafana’, and was only referring to a competition which they sponsor and had nothing to do with the national team.
By the use of the words Bafana Bafana, MTN implied that they are an official sponsor of the national team, which is not the case.
Safa CEO Raymond Hack is content with both rulings, saying: “Our commercial department is closely monitoring ambush marketing practices, and we won’t hesitate to institute legal proceedings against anyone who embark on such unethical practices.
“Our national team is sponsored by Absa and Castle, and as a responsible association we will protect the rights of all our sponsors. Companies that want any association with Safa must do it procedurally by contacting us.”
While these cases may be seen as proof of the value and importance of anti-ambush marketing legislation, ultimately Hyundai and MTN both should have been aware of the dangers of using controlled and protected words/materials as they did. Even under normal intellectual property rights protection, both companies' advertisements knowingly infringed upon the rights of the South African football association and the national team, making the ASA's decision easy.
This has been a promising summer from an ambush marketing perspective in South Africa. Few major stories emerged from June's Confederations Cup, and this week's decision regarding the actions of Hyundai and MTN is not the first of its kind this year. While we should expect ambushing stories to increase as next summer approaches, and can count on prospective ambushers to be more ambitious and aware in preparing for the upcoming World Cup, FIFA's sponsors, and the South African organizers of next summer's event, may find themselves cautiously optimistic at this early stage. Only time will tell if such optimism is warranted...
Saturday, 25 July 2009
Examining Athlete Brands… Part 2
Following on my contention that comparisons between Christiano Ronaldo and David Beckham as athlete brands are premature, here we look at the key characteristics of successful athlete brands in team sports, backing up my stance and looking at the areas Ronaldo’s management will be looking to evolve…
In a study by Burton & Chadwick (2008) assessing the nature of football player brands, seven key characteristics of athlete brands were identified (TOPSTAR), explaining the success of David Beckham’s commercial activities, and suggesting Ronaldo as his most logical successor. Here we’ll take those findings a step further, and assess Ronaldo’s brand a bit more deeply.
The seven variables identified with the Burton/Chadwick study can be shortened to the mnemonic TOPSTAR; from Professor Chadwick’s Daily Sport Thought blog, the variables in short:
From Ronaldo’s perspective, the seven variables in question are rather telling in outlining the success of his brand thus far, and the areas he still trails Becks in leveraging his commercial worth.
Team: Ronaldo, in joining Real Madrid this year, moves from one of the world’s most famous and successful clubs, to another of the top draws in international football, following in the footsteps of Beckham and a select few others. Though a polarizing figure on the pitch, either loved or despised, Ronaldo has largely been an idol at Old Trafford, is Portugal’s leading light, and begins life at the Bernabeu as a legend in the making.
Off-field: Outside of football, Ronaldo’s brand pales in comparison to Beckham’s more mature, manicured image. Whilst Beckham is seen and portrayed as a loving family man, a cultural and fashion icon, and an international ambassador or football, the Portuguese star’s image is much less refined. Writing off a crashed Ferrari, being romantically-linked to Paris Hilton, and generally enjoying the life of a footballer, Ronaldo has yet to foster the same marketable image as Beckham. Given his age, and the potential value of his brand, however, there should be little cause for concern long-term.
Physical characteristics, mentality and values: Both a major strength and significant shortcoming of the Ronaldo brand. Like Beckham, Ronaldo is known for his physical appearance, and rivals the Englishman in good looks and style; however, his mentality and values contrast Beckham’s, with his arrogance, self-confidence, and at times selfish play overshadowing more favourable traits. Beckham, meanwhile, is respected for his work ethic and team-play, as well as his highly prominent family life and ambitions of working with children.
Success: In his time with United, Ronaldo established himself as one of the top players in the world, winning trophies with Manchester, player of the year awards, and generally drawing accolades throughout football for his play and influence in United’s on-field success. Without a doubt, one of the strengths of the Ronaldo brand.
Transferability: Is there where Beckham, as much if not more than any other athlete brand, differentiates himself? Few, if any, athletes can compare to Beckham's ability to transcend demographics, psychographics, geographics... really any-graphics. Beckham's appeal in Asia, and marketing value to both Manchester United and Real Madrid was undeniable; his foray into America, although not a resounding success, has in many ways opened the door for football and brought considerable attention to the sport, without crippling the finances of the league in the same way the North American Soccer League's influx of stars did in the 1970s and 80s.
Ronaldo, by contrast, is something of an unknown in this respect. Real Madrid's marketing surrounding the mercurial star, and projected shirt sales figures point to a successful partnership to date. However, as I mentioned earlier, Ronaldo is a polarizing figure, more often hated than loved. While Beckham's family values, work ethic, and media friendliness have proven highly lucrative for the brand, Ronaldo's public personality and on-field behaviour has been considerably less endearing. Consider him more Cantona than Beckham...
Age: For all of the issues Ronaldo may encounter in challenging Brand Beckham, and the areas in need of improvement, his age and relevance as both an athlete and a public figure are firmly in his favour. Still only entering his prime and already one of the best players of his generation, and indeed a generation-defining player in Portugal, Ronaldo has time on his side.
Reputation: Much like Beckham in his early years, Ronaldo's reputation is somewhat suspect and presents one of his biggest hurdles. Becks faced serious criticism and skepticism throughout his time with United, and again of late with the LA Galaxy; disciplinary issues with England, conflicts with United manager Sir Alex Ferguson, and questions over his focus on football were at one time serious concerns for the England international.
By comparison, Ronaldo's on-field petulance, perceived arrogance and at time unsporting play have too undermined the player's abilities and marketing value. Sir Alex was largely able to control the young star, and smoothed over relations within the dressing room following the now-famous 2006 World Cup incident with teammate Wayne Rooney, but nevertheless, Ronaldo's reputation is in need of repair in order to maximize his potential.
Ultimately, based on these seven key traits of football player brands, Christiano Ronaldo trails David Beckham by some distance, though there is certainly cause for optimism. Brand Beckham, in its early days, encountered many of the same issues that now face Ronaldo, though by the time Becks had arrived in Spain, his brand was largely solidified. It remains to be seen how well managed Ronaldo will be in the coming years, and to what extent his and Madrid's marketing teams succeed in leveraging the talent, physique, looks, and marketability in the coming years.
In a study by Burton & Chadwick (2008) assessing the nature of football player brands, seven key characteristics of athlete brands were identified (TOPSTAR), explaining the success of David Beckham’s commercial activities, and suggesting Ronaldo as his most logical successor. Here we’ll take those findings a step further, and assess Ronaldo’s brand a bit more deeply.
The seven variables identified with the Burton/Chadwick study can be shortened to the mnemonic TOPSTAR; from Professor Chadwick’s Daily Sport Thought blog, the variables in short:
Team – the team(s) that a player plays for or has played for; the associations a player has with a particular team; the profile, reputation and success of the team; the player’s role within the team;
Off-field – where the player lives; who the player socialises with and where; who the player is married to or is dating; the type of house the player lives in, the car they drive, the clothes they wear;
Physical characteristics, mentality and values – the facial appearance and physique of the player; other distinguishing features such as hairstyle, tattoos etc.; the way a players thinks and the views they hold;
Success – the player’s on-field record; the number of trophies, medals and prizes the player has won; the winning teams and games in which the player has been involved;
Transferability – the extent to which the player appeals to males and females, young and old, followers and non-followers of football; the extent to which the player and their image are culturally and geographically transferable; language(s) spoken;
Age – the stage at which a player is in their career; viewed in product life-cycle terms, this will have an impact on the profile, characteristics and longevity of the brand as well as influencing how the brand is managed;
Reputation - the player’s reputation as footballer; style of play; disciplinary record; the player’s reputation outside of football; way the player deals with public and media attention.
From Ronaldo’s perspective, the seven variables in question are rather telling in outlining the success of his brand thus far, and the areas he still trails Becks in leveraging his commercial worth.
Team: Ronaldo, in joining Real Madrid this year, moves from one of the world’s most famous and successful clubs, to another of the top draws in international football, following in the footsteps of Beckham and a select few others. Though a polarizing figure on the pitch, either loved or despised, Ronaldo has largely been an idol at Old Trafford, is Portugal’s leading light, and begins life at the Bernabeu as a legend in the making.
Off-field: Outside of football, Ronaldo’s brand pales in comparison to Beckham’s more mature, manicured image. Whilst Beckham is seen and portrayed as a loving family man, a cultural and fashion icon, and an international ambassador or football, the Portuguese star’s image is much less refined. Writing off a crashed Ferrari, being romantically-linked to Paris Hilton, and generally enjoying the life of a footballer, Ronaldo has yet to foster the same marketable image as Beckham. Given his age, and the potential value of his brand, however, there should be little cause for concern long-term.
Physical characteristics, mentality and values: Both a major strength and significant shortcoming of the Ronaldo brand. Like Beckham, Ronaldo is known for his physical appearance, and rivals the Englishman in good looks and style; however, his mentality and values contrast Beckham’s, with his arrogance, self-confidence, and at times selfish play overshadowing more favourable traits. Beckham, meanwhile, is respected for his work ethic and team-play, as well as his highly prominent family life and ambitions of working with children.
Success: In his time with United, Ronaldo established himself as one of the top players in the world, winning trophies with Manchester, player of the year awards, and generally drawing accolades throughout football for his play and influence in United’s on-field success. Without a doubt, one of the strengths of the Ronaldo brand.
Transferability: Is there where Beckham, as much if not more than any other athlete brand, differentiates himself? Few, if any, athletes can compare to Beckham's ability to transcend demographics, psychographics, geographics... really any-graphics. Beckham's appeal in Asia, and marketing value to both Manchester United and Real Madrid was undeniable; his foray into America, although not a resounding success, has in many ways opened the door for football and brought considerable attention to the sport, without crippling the finances of the league in the same way the North American Soccer League's influx of stars did in the 1970s and 80s.
Ronaldo, by contrast, is something of an unknown in this respect. Real Madrid's marketing surrounding the mercurial star, and projected shirt sales figures point to a successful partnership to date. However, as I mentioned earlier, Ronaldo is a polarizing figure, more often hated than loved. While Beckham's family values, work ethic, and media friendliness have proven highly lucrative for the brand, Ronaldo's public personality and on-field behaviour has been considerably less endearing. Consider him more Cantona than Beckham...
Age: For all of the issues Ronaldo may encounter in challenging Brand Beckham, and the areas in need of improvement, his age and relevance as both an athlete and a public figure are firmly in his favour. Still only entering his prime and already one of the best players of his generation, and indeed a generation-defining player in Portugal, Ronaldo has time on his side.
Reputation: Much like Beckham in his early years, Ronaldo's reputation is somewhat suspect and presents one of his biggest hurdles. Becks faced serious criticism and skepticism throughout his time with United, and again of late with the LA Galaxy; disciplinary issues with England, conflicts with United manager Sir Alex Ferguson, and questions over his focus on football were at one time serious concerns for the England international.
By comparison, Ronaldo's on-field petulance, perceived arrogance and at time unsporting play have too undermined the player's abilities and marketing value. Sir Alex was largely able to control the young star, and smoothed over relations within the dressing room following the now-famous 2006 World Cup incident with teammate Wayne Rooney, but nevertheless, Ronaldo's reputation is in need of repair in order to maximize his potential.
Ultimately, based on these seven key traits of football player brands, Christiano Ronaldo trails David Beckham by some distance, though there is certainly cause for optimism. Brand Beckham, in its early days, encountered many of the same issues that now face Ronaldo, though by the time Becks had arrived in Spain, his brand was largely solidified. It remains to be seen how well managed Ronaldo will be in the coming years, and to what extent his and Madrid's marketing teams succeed in leveraging the talent, physique, looks, and marketability in the coming years.
Wednesday, 22 July 2009
Ambush Marketing Legislation: Why?
A press release put out not long ago by the UK's Chartered Institute of Marketing stated that in a recent survey of business, 43% of respondents stated they had "no understanding" of the legislation put in place for the 2012 Olympics. A further 43% stated that their understanding was "very poor" or "poor".
The 2006 London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act details the legal and governmental framework surrounding the upcoming London Games. More specifically, concerning the CIM, the act outlines the measures in place to protect against and prevent ambush marketing (the International Olympic Committee have sought protective legislation against ambushing from hosts since the 2000 Sydney Games, the first to formally introduce such measures).
Ambush marketing, defined as "a form of associative marketing, utilized by an organization to capitalize upon the awareness, attention, goodwill, and other benefits generated by having an association with an event or property, without that organization having an official or direct connection to that event or property", has become one of the biggest stories surrounding major sporting events over the past twenty-five years (Check out the CIBS working paper series here for more information on ambush marketing, and the work we've been doing at CIBS).
What's frustrating about the legislation being enacted, and the controversy surrounding anti-ambush legislation, is not necessarily the confusion surrounding the rights of non-sponsors, or the powers given to LOCOG and the government in 'protecting' sponsors. What frustrates most is the lack of accountability on the part of most Olympic sponsors that has driven this need for legal protection. In most countries where anti-ambush marketing legislation has been enacted, it has served as a reinforcement of existing intellectual property rights laws, and in cases, with specific reference to protecting the Olympic marks. However, a look at past incidents of ambushing reveals that the vast majority of cases of high-profile ambush marketing in sport avoid the use of protected marks and symbols, and thus should by and large be safe from anti-ambush legislation. Instead, most ambushers use innovative imagery and association, suggesting a connection to the event, without expressly linking their brand to the event.
For the London Games, the legislation put in place is aimed to protect against the use of trademarked and copyrighted words and symbols, such as the words 'gold', 'silver', and 'bronze', as well as the more obvious 'London 2012', 'London Games', 'London Olympics', the Olympic Rings logo, and so on. Given the amount of money committed by sponsors, and the importance of sponsorship money to fund events such as the Olympics, protecting sponsorship investment is obviously important. It is my contention, though, that sponsors must first protect themselves, before concerning themselves with the legal measures in place to protect them.
Take, for example, these two ads from the past year - the first, a television ad from official London Olympic sponsor Lloyds TSB bank; the second, from non-sponsor (and famed ambush marketer) Nike.
Lloyds, in order to become an Olympic sponsor, pledged a reported £80 million in 2007, and yet throughout their subsequent marketing activities, have struggled to leverage their association adequately, and seldom make reference to the Games or their connection to the event beyond including the London Games logo at the end. Nike, by contrast, despite having no official link to the Games and having made no financial investment to date, make indirect yet implicit reference to Olympics in London throughout their 'I'll Be Ready' campaign, leaving little doubt of their interest in the upcoming Olympics.
Ambush marketing legislation has been enacted to combat ambushers and protect sponsors, and yet in these two cases, such legislative action does little to benefit either the organizers or the sponsors. Tanning salons in London, advertising for customers to "Get bronzed in 2012", can expect cease and desist notices, but major players such as Nike, brands who may legitimately and logically be confused for sponsors, are unlikely to fall foul of such regulations. Rather, such legislation has in fact tarnished the image of organizations in the past, and threatens to undermine the values of events such as the Olympic Games. Early in ambush marketing's history, questions were raised over the ethics of ambush marketing, and the morality of embarking on an ambushing campaign. However, in recent years, and in light of counter-ambush strategies being employed (including legislation, marketing clean zones around stadia, and on-site policing of fans), this ethical focus has shifted. The question today is - how far will the restrictions on non-sponsors, local businesses, ambitious marketers, and spectators, go? Expect and interesting public relations battle over ambushing before the Games are all said and done...
The 2006 London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games Act details the legal and governmental framework surrounding the upcoming London Games. More specifically, concerning the CIM, the act outlines the measures in place to protect against and prevent ambush marketing (the International Olympic Committee have sought protective legislation against ambushing from hosts since the 2000 Sydney Games, the first to formally introduce such measures).
Ambush marketing, defined as "a form of associative marketing, utilized by an organization to capitalize upon the awareness, attention, goodwill, and other benefits generated by having an association with an event or property, without that organization having an official or direct connection to that event or property", has become one of the biggest stories surrounding major sporting events over the past twenty-five years (Check out the CIBS working paper series here for more information on ambush marketing, and the work we've been doing at CIBS).
What's frustrating about the legislation being enacted, and the controversy surrounding anti-ambush legislation, is not necessarily the confusion surrounding the rights of non-sponsors, or the powers given to LOCOG and the government in 'protecting' sponsors. What frustrates most is the lack of accountability on the part of most Olympic sponsors that has driven this need for legal protection. In most countries where anti-ambush marketing legislation has been enacted, it has served as a reinforcement of existing intellectual property rights laws, and in cases, with specific reference to protecting the Olympic marks. However, a look at past incidents of ambushing reveals that the vast majority of cases of high-profile ambush marketing in sport avoid the use of protected marks and symbols, and thus should by and large be safe from anti-ambush legislation. Instead, most ambushers use innovative imagery and association, suggesting a connection to the event, without expressly linking their brand to the event.
For the London Games, the legislation put in place is aimed to protect against the use of trademarked and copyrighted words and symbols, such as the words 'gold', 'silver', and 'bronze', as well as the more obvious 'London 2012', 'London Games', 'London Olympics', the Olympic Rings logo, and so on. Given the amount of money committed by sponsors, and the importance of sponsorship money to fund events such as the Olympics, protecting sponsorship investment is obviously important. It is my contention, though, that sponsors must first protect themselves, before concerning themselves with the legal measures in place to protect them.
Take, for example, these two ads from the past year - the first, a television ad from official London Olympic sponsor Lloyds TSB bank; the second, from non-sponsor (and famed ambush marketer) Nike.
Lloyds, in order to become an Olympic sponsor, pledged a reported £80 million in 2007, and yet throughout their subsequent marketing activities, have struggled to leverage their association adequately, and seldom make reference to the Games or their connection to the event beyond including the London Games logo at the end. Nike, by contrast, despite having no official link to the Games and having made no financial investment to date, make indirect yet implicit reference to Olympics in London throughout their 'I'll Be Ready' campaign, leaving little doubt of their interest in the upcoming Olympics.
Ambush marketing legislation has been enacted to combat ambushers and protect sponsors, and yet in these two cases, such legislative action does little to benefit either the organizers or the sponsors. Tanning salons in London, advertising for customers to "Get bronzed in 2012", can expect cease and desist notices, but major players such as Nike, brands who may legitimately and logically be confused for sponsors, are unlikely to fall foul of such regulations. Rather, such legislation has in fact tarnished the image of organizations in the past, and threatens to undermine the values of events such as the Olympic Games. Early in ambush marketing's history, questions were raised over the ethics of ambush marketing, and the morality of embarking on an ambushing campaign. However, in recent years, and in light of counter-ambush strategies being employed (including legislation, marketing clean zones around stadia, and on-site policing of fans), this ethical focus has shifted. The question today is - how far will the restrictions on non-sponsors, local businesses, ambitious marketers, and spectators, go? Expect and interesting public relations battle over ambushing before the Games are all said and done...
Friday, 17 July 2009
Examining Athlete Brands... Part 1
This is the first in what I anticipate will be a series of posts examining further the nature and characteristics of athlete brands. Given the growing interest in the marketing of athletes and a few recent events of note, consider this the start of an on-going discussion...
There have been a number of stories the past few weeks surrounding the value and nature of athlete brands, particularly in the wake of the massive transfers of footballers Christiano Ronaldo and Kaka to Real Madrid. Despite both players' undoubted talents and status as two of the best players in the world and of their generation, the money spent by the Spanish side (£80 million and £56 million respectively, according to most reports), was without doubt inflated by the international marketing values of both.
Ronaldo in particular, it has been suggested, is in many ways the new David Beckham, and is poised to assume his role as the leading football player brand in the world. However, despite similar career paths, and good looks as well as on-field talent to rely on, the comparison between Beckham and Ronaldo is, in many ways, premature. While it is not unfair to suggest the Portuguese star to achieve the same status as Beckham one day, I would argue that day is not yet here.
This reticence is largely due to the actual nature of brands and of athlete brands more specifically, and our occasional confusion between athlete brands, and athlete endorsers. While Ronaldo's marketing value is among the highest in the world among athletes, to date he has yet to explore the full value of his own potential brand in the same way as Beckham. By contrast, Becks has extended his commercial interests beyond football and driven his own commercial value, outside of endorsements and club-led marketing initiatives. In doing so, he (and his management team - let's not be naïve) has built Brand Beckham into a nearly unrivaled athlete brand among his contemporaries.
It's premature to cite Ronaldo as an athlete brand on par with the Beckhams and Woods' and Jordans of the world. But, the potential is there, latent and waiting to exploited further. It will be interesting to see what influence Real Madrid may have in pushing it further...
There have been a number of stories the past few weeks surrounding the value and nature of athlete brands, particularly in the wake of the massive transfers of footballers Christiano Ronaldo and Kaka to Real Madrid. Despite both players' undoubted talents and status as two of the best players in the world and of their generation, the money spent by the Spanish side (£80 million and £56 million respectively, according to most reports), was without doubt inflated by the international marketing values of both.
Ronaldo in particular, it has been suggested, is in many ways the new David Beckham, and is poised to assume his role as the leading football player brand in the world. However, despite similar career paths, and good looks as well as on-field talent to rely on, the comparison between Beckham and Ronaldo is, in many ways, premature. While it is not unfair to suggest the Portuguese star to achieve the same status as Beckham one day, I would argue that day is not yet here.
This reticence is largely due to the actual nature of brands and of athlete brands more specifically, and our occasional confusion between athlete brands, and athlete endorsers. While Ronaldo's marketing value is among the highest in the world among athletes, to date he has yet to explore the full value of his own potential brand in the same way as Beckham. By contrast, Becks has extended his commercial interests beyond football and driven his own commercial value, outside of endorsements and club-led marketing initiatives. In doing so, he (and his management team - let's not be naïve) has built Brand Beckham into a nearly unrivaled athlete brand among his contemporaries.
It's premature to cite Ronaldo as an athlete brand on par with the Beckhams and Woods' and Jordans of the world. But, the potential is there, latent and waiting to exploited further. It will be interesting to see what influence Real Madrid may have in pushing it further...
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
Back To Form...
I don't want this to become a Red Bull-centric blog in any way, but the brand is easily one of the boldest, loudest, and most interesting sport marketers going today... And this week they gave us a reminder why.
In the early hours of July 13th, Red Bull-sponsored Freestyle Motocross star Robbie Maddison jumped London's famed Tower Bridge, the latest in a growing list of stunts and amazing jumps Maddison has attempted over the past couple of years. With Red Bull logos covering the bridge, as well as the ramp and landing, and photographers and cameramen on hand documenting the attempt from all angles, Maddison flew an estimated 22 metres, landing a backflip across the Thames, without any trial runs.
The true genius behind Red Bull's marketing, though, is in its subtlety. By staging the attempt at 2:55am, Red Bull both ensured logistically the jump was easier to plan, but also made it a more low-key, less grandiose event than it could otherwise have been. Stories appearing on ESPN, blogs, the UK's Channel Five television network, and highlights of the jump being uploaded on Youtube, have ensured a viral spread of the accomplishment, and as such, the brand. Whereas the weekend's announced extension of Red Bull's sponsorship of UK Athletics may have raised concerns over the future of the brand, and its identity, staging virally-driven, one-off guerrilla marketing stunts such as this only serve to re-affirm the strengths and roots of Red Bull's brand identity, something other brands could learn from.
More on the story here, from ESPN
And check out the jump and Maddison's thoughts here, care of Red Bull themselves
In the early hours of July 13th, Red Bull-sponsored Freestyle Motocross star Robbie Maddison jumped London's famed Tower Bridge, the latest in a growing list of stunts and amazing jumps Maddison has attempted over the past couple of years. With Red Bull logos covering the bridge, as well as the ramp and landing, and photographers and cameramen on hand documenting the attempt from all angles, Maddison flew an estimated 22 metres, landing a backflip across the Thames, without any trial runs.
The true genius behind Red Bull's marketing, though, is in its subtlety. By staging the attempt at 2:55am, Red Bull both ensured logistically the jump was easier to plan, but also made it a more low-key, less grandiose event than it could otherwise have been. Stories appearing on ESPN, blogs, the UK's Channel Five television network, and highlights of the jump being uploaded on Youtube, have ensured a viral spread of the accomplishment, and as such, the brand. Whereas the weekend's announced extension of Red Bull's sponsorship of UK Athletics may have raised concerns over the future of the brand, and its identity, staging virally-driven, one-off guerrilla marketing stunts such as this only serve to re-affirm the strengths and roots of Red Bull's brand identity, something other brands could learn from.
More on the story here, from ESPN
And check out the jump and Maddison's thoughts here, care of Red Bull themselves
Monday, 13 July 2009
Starting things off...
To give this blog an official launch, a small story likely overlooked by most over the weekend...
Red Bull, it was announced, have extended their sponsorship of UK Athletics leading up to the London 2012 Summer Olympics, signing on as partners until 2013. While on the surface, this may appear a minor story - particularly given the relatively small financial commitment (reportedly only £400,000) - at second glance this an interesting move on the part of Red Bull.
As well as extending the current partnership through to the upcoming London Olympics, the deal also underlines the shift in Red Bull's brand identity and image, towards more traditional sports through more legitimate streams. Whereas in the past, Red Bull's involvement in sport surrounded extreme and adventure sports, and its brand image has been rooted in the fast-paced lifestyle of action sports and Generation X and Y clubbers, over the past decade the company has slowly built one of the largest and most diverse sports portfolios in the world, ranging from Red Bull's Crashed Ice event, to its five football teams around the world, to one of the leading Austrian hockey teams.
This new sponsorship extends Red Bull's existing partnership with Great Britain's athletics team, after four years together. While Red Bull's involvement with the UK Athletics team wasn't particularly visible during the 2008 Beijing Games, with the next Summer Games on British soil, it will be interesting to see how Red Bull leverages their association, and what impact the brand's moves into less-extreme, more traditional sports, has on its broader image.
Red Bull, it was announced, have extended their sponsorship of UK Athletics leading up to the London 2012 Summer Olympics, signing on as partners until 2013. While on the surface, this may appear a minor story - particularly given the relatively small financial commitment (reportedly only £400,000) - at second glance this an interesting move on the part of Red Bull.
As well as extending the current partnership through to the upcoming London Olympics, the deal also underlines the shift in Red Bull's brand identity and image, towards more traditional sports through more legitimate streams. Whereas in the past, Red Bull's involvement in sport surrounded extreme and adventure sports, and its brand image has been rooted in the fast-paced lifestyle of action sports and Generation X and Y clubbers, over the past decade the company has slowly built one of the largest and most diverse sports portfolios in the world, ranging from Red Bull's Crashed Ice event, to its five football teams around the world, to one of the leading Austrian hockey teams.
This new sponsorship extends Red Bull's existing partnership with Great Britain's athletics team, after four years together. While Red Bull's involvement with the UK Athletics team wasn't particularly visible during the 2008 Beijing Games, with the next Summer Games on British soil, it will be interesting to see how Red Bull leverages their association, and what impact the brand's moves into less-extreme, more traditional sports, has on its broader image.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)