add a comment
In amongst all the frenzied reporting about who out-tweeted who at the World Cup, what’s really caught my eye is who won out when it came to the brand association with football. Any student of marketing will tell you that branding is about the long-term and this is borne out by the Engage Research but with some interesting results.
What’s always interesting as a marketer is to observe the official brands who have spent obscene amounts of money sponsoring the World Cup (and by default seemed to have 30s and pitch side advertising everywhere) versus those who didn’t and either go big of their own accord or act in a smarter, more incisive way. And then there are those that just stick “footy” in the headline as a lazy way to jump on the bandwagon.
Such is the massive viewing of live games at the World Cup – and not just England – that sponsorship does guarantee reach. But, as we all know, times have changed and reach no longer guarantees brand engagement, talkability and sales. Who wants to drink Budweiser when watching football? Clearly other people agree and Carlsberg’s long term association with that bunch of players who looked like they never met each other (aka England) has clearly worked from the research results. Although a stunt can get cut-through as Bavaria beer demonstrated with hot girls in mini dresses.
Sky were possibly the biggest winners as despite not covering any game they had great positive association with the tournament. As a big fan of Sky’s Premiership coverage, having to watch the lame efforts of the BBC (smug Hansen et al) and ITV (Chiles trying to cheer up Townsend and Davids) makes you appreciate the professionalism of the Sky team and how it enhances the viewing experience.
This time around we saw unofficial brands such as Carlsberg and Nike stealing the early momentum from official brands. Nike’s Write the Future was apparently one of the biggest ad buys ever on Facebook and received gushing praise from all quarters despite none of the stars in the ad actually writing the future. I hope Wayne is enjoying his caravan.
Carlsberg’s Team Talk eschewed the glitz and glamour of Nike and is rooted in the heartfelt passion for the game. Not only a soul-stirring ad if you’re an Englishman – I dare you not to feel any national pride and choking at the “For Bobby” moment – but deepened the engagement through a You Tube channel enabling you to create your own team talk or see other iconic celebrities delivering their own team talk. And they had a lion too. Budweiser didn’t have a lion.
I really didn’t understand the Sure last 8 sweepstakes. Buy a can (so already I have to impart money before enjoying), enter a code (how old fashioned) and then if my team (I don’t get to choose) enters the last 8 (who cares – it’s all about the winning), I may win something between £5 and £50 (Wooh! Big money!). I think I’d rater spend the money I would have spent on the deodorant on Carlsberg. They have lions.
But my favourite World Cup campaign had to be Panini’s virtual sticker album. The inexplicable desire to collect every team member from England’s utterly useless Rooney to Chile’s playmaker Jaime Valdes is insatiable. As a child this consumed every single penny of pocket money and drove my parents mad. Now, as an (alleged) adult, it had the capacity to do the exact same thing. But online. So I could do it when I was at work. And the playground swapsies are still there – digitally! It’s just brilliant. All it needed to make it uber special was a lion.
so what if we don’t like the mascots in adland? June 11, 2010Posted by nicholas gill in brand, brand experience, Olympics.
add a comment
Recently at DCH, we were asked to comment on the new London Olympic 2012 mascots. My summation made it into the article but thought it worthwhile sharing our fuller thoughts on the brand issue raised.
The classic approach to a brand is to comprise identity, performance and behaviour. In these social times, reputation is now an intrinsic part of the brand dynamic. And at the core of a brand should be two things: compelling and true. Without this, a brand is just bland. What isn’t there is “must appeal to every man and his dog” because as we all know, design by committee designs to the lowest common denominator.
Yes, the 2012 Olympic logo was quite offensive, especially in the day glow colours but we’ve all grown used to it a few years on. Olympics, much like World Cups, are not exactly renowned for having logos or mascots that stand the test of time. But they’re not meant to. They have a finite life span so they have to hit the sweet spot of being current now and in 2-5 years. No mean feat when you consider that most futurologists believe can’t predict anything beyond 3 years out.
So poor old Wenlock and Mandeville were always going to divide; especially because it’s a GB Olympics so in essence, we all “own” it. I quite like the one-eyed little sportsters because they’re different; they have a bit of Sonic the Hedgehog and a smattering of the Vauxhall C’Mons. They are compelling and true to the Games. They may have upset people in ad land but who cares? And let’s be honest, why are we getting ourselves in such a state about two mascots. They won’t stop us winning medals at the Games, that’s down to athletes, coaches, infrastructure, training facilities, investment and raw passion and talent.
about face March 10, 2009Posted by nicholas gill in brand, brand experience, facebook, the advance guard.
An excellent guide on how brands can utilise the recent changes in Facebook to get deeper engagement and social connection with their consumers. The kind of content stuff agencies should be producing. From US agency The Advance Guard.
[daily dobbie] your personal brand September 30, 2008Posted by nicholas gill in brand, personal brand.
1 comment so far
Sort your own personal brand out. For £150.
aston martin is the coolest brand. you tube coolest online brand? September 29, 2008Posted by nicholas gill in aston martin, brand, brand experience, cool brands 2008, digital, twitter, wikipedia, you tube.
1 comment so far
What is a surprise is that You Tube tops out the coolest online brands, beating Google. No room for Twitter which in my mind has a cooler cache than You Tube and is certainly being discussed and toyed with more by the cool kids in town. Or maybe this survey reflects the real world rather than the bizarre digital world I inhabit? And is Wikipedia really cool or just really good at providing information? Here’s the full article on Brand Republic and the Top 10 online brands below. Any builds?
- Last FM
- Holy Moly
- Urban Junkies
inspiration anyone? June 12, 2008Posted by nicholas gill in blog, brand, bring the love back, digital advertising, microsoft, user generated content, web 2.0, website.
Microsoft are looking to move beyond just the film and:
…we want to try and create an online marketing community and bring as much inspiration as possible to marketers and everybody in the marketing, advertising and publishing business, whether they are marketers, designers or developers.
The ambition is great. Here’s the site where it will come to life. In a bit of second album syndrome, the video itself is not quite as compelling as the original but then it’s just not about the movie this time. But it still has some amusing anecdotes that we’ve all suffered as digital marketers fighting the good fight.