Recent events have thrust the Commonwealth Games, affectionately referred to as the Friendly Games, to forefront of the world's media. An event that once struggled to get column inches outside its participating countries (and sometimes even in them) is now getting publicity for all the wrong reasons.
I have a strong affection for the Games. I know they may not set the sporting world alight (Australia beating Malawi in the 100m freestyle is hardly headline news), but with over fifty countries participating, it is one of the biggest multi-sport events in the world. It presents a great platform for nurturing athletic talent, offering the chance to compete on a world stage to athletes who otherwise may not gain that important experience. The role the Commonwealth Games plays in “road-testing” events should not be underestimated, with successful rugby 7s tournaments resulting in the sport’s eventual admission to the 2016 Olympic Games. The Commonwealth Games also serve as a great platform for countries and cities to prove their credentials for hosting bigger events; namely the Olympic and Paralympic Games.
The latter is what many expected India and New Delhi to do on the back of this year’s Commonwealth Games, bidding for the 2020 or 2024 Olympic Games. Along with Africa, India must be high on the IOC’s list of ideal destinations for the Games, as it seeks to grow the Olympic brand. However, after recent events (Fears increase for the CWG), scandals, delays, missed deadlines and allegations of corruption, any Indian bid is now seemingly dead in the water.
It would take a brave man to bet otherwise, but I still believe that India has a chance of hosting the Olympic Games, provided they engage in a sustained and rigorous communications effort with all stakeholders, from sporting federations to politicians. With the world's media watching, now is the chance to illustrate the potential success of the Games, and highlight the resources, willpower and ability India will bring to the spectacle. Show a country embracing the Games, with packed stadiums of excited spectators, and all may be forgiven.
It is a challenge of Olympic proportions, but one that is well worth winning, and the reputation of the Federation and of India certainly depends on it.
Ian Budd
Thursday, 23 September 2010
Monday, 20 September 2010
Sponsors spurred away from tradition
As Tottenham Hotspur made their entrance to the group stage of the UEFA Champions League last week the occasion highlighted more than a lack of killer instinct in closing out matches. Due to the unique nature of the club’s sponsorship deal, software infrastructure group Autonomy holds shirt sponsorship rights for the Premier League, whilst bank and asset management firm Investec is the shirt sponsor for domestic and European cup competitions. As such, Spurs looked somewhat different last Tuesday night.
The arrangement is a first for a Premier League club, bringing additional revenue to the organisation at the start of a pivotal season, yet some have argued that the deal exploits those who matter most – the supporters. Indeed, the facts present an initially damning case: the Spurs website is offering two versions of all three club shirts, meaning there are six to choose from at £45 each.
A closer examination of the details, however, presents an entirely different case. On top of the cash-boost provided by dual sponsorship, Spurs have given themselves an extra, high-profile corporate partner. With the squad now participating in the Champions League, the opportunity to extend the brand to the furthest corners of Europe and the wider world has never been timelier.
An intriguing question thrown up by this arrangement, however, concerns brand ownership. When there is one shirt sponsor for all competitions, there is a clear and distinct association between the club brand and its benefactor. To some extent, the sponsor ‘owns’ the brand, becoming synonymous with the club and its activities.
When sponsorship is divided this ‘ownership’ is diluted, and there is potential for each sponsor’s message to lack force, preventing cut-through with key stakeholders. To minimise the risk of this happening, sponsors must use all possible channels to gain maximum value for their money. Correct and efficient use of both digital and social media is crucial here; by fully utilising these channels co-sponsors can ensure that they are still seen as partners to the brand. If sponsors are willing to engage with non-traditional media to reach stakeholders, dual sponsorship can become a very attractive proposition.
Ronan Joyce
The arrangement is a first for a Premier League club, bringing additional revenue to the organisation at the start of a pivotal season, yet some have argued that the deal exploits those who matter most – the supporters. Indeed, the facts present an initially damning case: the Spurs website is offering two versions of all three club shirts, meaning there are six to choose from at £45 each.
A closer examination of the details, however, presents an entirely different case. On top of the cash-boost provided by dual sponsorship, Spurs have given themselves an extra, high-profile corporate partner. With the squad now participating in the Champions League, the opportunity to extend the brand to the furthest corners of Europe and the wider world has never been timelier.
An intriguing question thrown up by this arrangement, however, concerns brand ownership. When there is one shirt sponsor for all competitions, there is a clear and distinct association between the club brand and its benefactor. To some extent, the sponsor ‘owns’ the brand, becoming synonymous with the club and its activities.
When sponsorship is divided this ‘ownership’ is diluted, and there is potential for each sponsor’s message to lack force, preventing cut-through with key stakeholders. To minimise the risk of this happening, sponsors must use all possible channels to gain maximum value for their money. Correct and efficient use of both digital and social media is crucial here; by fully utilising these channels co-sponsors can ensure that they are still seen as partners to the brand. If sponsors are willing to engage with non-traditional media to reach stakeholders, dual sponsorship can become a very attractive proposition.
Ronan Joyce
Friday, 10 September 2010
Twisis? What Twisis!
With the growth of social media, sponsors are rightly keen to utilise channels such as Facebook and Twitter to engage with fans. For some, the holy grail is to use the profiles of leading sporting stars to showcase what they are doing. These channels present virgin territory for sponsors both in the sense that they are a growing outlet for sponsorship activation, but also in that they offer an “unbiased” channel in the minds of fans, who have consciously chosen to “follow” this personality. Using these channels is growing in importance in leveraging a sponsorship today, but it is important to remember that these channels also come with risks, and to prepare for them accordingly. In the same way that leveraging social media is virgin territory, crisis preparedness within social media is equally nascent, but being prepared is best.
Many brands are often reported to be scared of using social media. They are fearful that they can’t control it, especially what comments might be posted, rather than seeing it as a fantastic opportunity to start a dialogue with consumers. Throw in the fact that they might get drawn into an issue, started by their brand ambassador and some will run for the hills. This month has seen Kevin Pietersen and Dimi Mascarenhas both fined for their Twitter rants and latterly Australian swimmer Stephanie Rise dropped by Jaguar for alleged homophobic comments posted on Twitter whilst celebrating Australia’s victory over the Springboks.
Leading sports stars are passionate and competitive individuals; they have to be in order to be good at what they do, and this passion is what appeals to many fans and why they follow them. Channels like Twitter present a great opportunity for sponsors looking to make the most of this emotional response, but it is important to be prepared for the times when this passion goes too far.
Ian Budd
Many brands are often reported to be scared of using social media. They are fearful that they can’t control it, especially what comments might be posted, rather than seeing it as a fantastic opportunity to start a dialogue with consumers. Throw in the fact that they might get drawn into an issue, started by their brand ambassador and some will run for the hills. This month has seen Kevin Pietersen and Dimi Mascarenhas both fined for their Twitter rants and latterly Australian swimmer Stephanie Rise dropped by Jaguar for alleged homophobic comments posted on Twitter whilst celebrating Australia’s victory over the Springboks.
Leading sports stars are passionate and competitive individuals; they have to be in order to be good at what they do, and this passion is what appeals to many fans and why they follow them. Channels like Twitter present a great opportunity for sponsors looking to make the most of this emotional response, but it is important to be prepared for the times when this passion goes too far.
Ian Budd
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)