One of the main points I sought to get across in my progress this morning was that the age of huge corporate sponsorship of sporting events like the World Cup is well and truly over. Associations like FIFA can no longer guarantee exclusivity to its partners. This World Cup has in my opinion proven that a well-timed ad or the ambush of a major event is far more effective than sponsorship of the actual competition.
Dutch brewer Bavaria hijacked to great effect the Holland v Denmark game last week. However the consternation which FIFA have kicked up has played into the hands of Bavaria, giving them a massive amount of prime time media coverage. Paddy Power are even happy to hijack an event which they themselves sponsor, such as the Cheltenham Festival.
Official sponsors of the World Cup have been fairing very poorly when it comes to association with the competition. A study by Nielsen found that Nike has created a significantly bigger "online buzz", based on an analysis of blogs, message boards and social networking websites, and association to the World Cup than any other brand.
Nike, which is not an official sponsor of the World Cup, had more than twice as many references in relation to the World Cup than official sponsor Adidas.Adidas had the second highest level of mentions, and therefore share of World Cup buzz, with official sponsors Coca-Cola, Sony and Visa filling out the top five slots.
Carlsberg, which recently launched its own star-studded "best team talk in the world" TV campaign, ranked sixth. The brewer is not an official World Cup sponsor. Official beer sponsor Budweiser did not appear in the top 10 in the report.
Adidas recently struck back with a TV ad featuring celebrities in a remix of the famous cantina scene from the 1977 Star Wars film. The ad launched on 5 June and given Nielsen's research only covers the period 7 May to 6 June the German sportswear giant will be hoping its digital buzz factor has significantly increased since the report.
These examples show that compelling, savvy marketing can establish this sort of connection in the eyes of consumers without having to write that expensive sponsorship check
Gavin McCarthy
Ad of the Week
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I tend to agree in general with one side of Gavins arguement. I do think corporate sponsorship may seem a little out dated in comparison to the over the top ambush techniques that companies and brands are using now to make noise through the cluster. however take a look at one corporate sponsorship deal close to home "Aviva Stadium" and this will highlight the credibility that still lays behind corporate sponsorship. Aviva sponsored the creation of a new stadium for approx 40m. due to this brave and worthwile decision, the stadium has now been nicknamed the aviva stadium when that is not even the original name. the brand will now be known worlwide by all international sportsfan who come to the stadium for rugby and football matches. they have a life long span of exposure ahead of them then if they had just decided to undertake yet another nasty ambush campaign. there decision to sponsor aviva stadium was a great strategy that is line with the aura of their brand. companies need to be careful when ambush marketing as it can damage the brand image just as easily if it does not correlate with the brands core values.
ReplyDeleteSelina I completely agree, the sponsorship of the Aviva has been a resounding success for the company and looks like real value for money as a sponsorship deal when you consider the variety of events (Rugby,soccer concerts ect...) and the worldwide exposure that can be gained from these events. O2 is another company that has really benefited from venue sponsorship and the old Point is now almost exclusively known as the O2. O2's music venue sponsorship isn't contained to Ireland alone as I'm sure your all aware.
ReplyDeleteAny one else have any opinions?