2010 February | brandSTOKE

Archive for February, 2010

Feb

Olympic scorecard: how to judge ambush marketing

By Kirk 1 Comment

Categories: advertising, event marketing, mass media, promotion, retail and strategy

For the organizers of the Winter Olympics, the pressure is on. They are fighting to defend their sponsors against ambush marketing at the Games.

(Ambush marketers attempt to attach their brand to a major event without paying for the right to do so.)

As the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC) states at the Games’ official web site, “Ambush marketing is a real threat to VANOC’s sponsorship and licensing programs as it undermines the value of official sponsorship and licensing rights and impairs VANOC’s ability to attract future sponsorship and licensees.”

Only official sponsors, licensees and government partners are allowed to suggest a connection with the Olympics.

This is because nearly all of the revenue needed to support the 2010 Winter Games is derived from sales that involve the Olympic brand, such as sponsorships, broadcast rights, merchandising and tickets.

Why would a potential sponsor shell out millions of dollars only to have their moment in the sun eclipsed by a non-sponsor?

It’s happening right now. Official Olympic sponsors McDonald’s and AT&T are charging rivals Subway and Verizon with ambush marketing. (See the previous post, “Ambush marketing: dirty play at the Olympics?“)

Why is it VANOC’s job to be the police?

According to them, “One of the key conditions of being awarded the right to host the 2010 Winter Games was a commitment to the International Olympic Committee (IOC) that the Olympic Brand would be protected in Canada.”

VANOC’s goal is to ensure that consumers aren’t fooled into believing an advertiser is associated with the Olympics when it is not.

To determine whether a promotion infringes on Olympic trademarks and images, VANOC developed a scoring system. (See the accompanying illustration of how a retail promotion might be assessed.) It measures against six criteria: accuracy, relevance, commercial neutrality, prominence, use of official visuals, and unauthorized association.

The fairness of scoring systems at the Olympics has occasionally been suspect. (Remember the 2002 figure skating scandal?) How do you think this system for scoring marketing stacks up?

Feb

Ambush marketing: dirty play at the Olympics?

By Kirk 2 Comments

Categories: advertising, event marketing, promotion and strategy

Greetings Some of the most heated competition at the Winter Games is taking place off the ice.

Official Olympic sponsors McDonald’s and AT&T are charging rivals Subway and Verizon with unsportsmanlike conduct.

In Verizon’s current TV spot, two speed skaters race while the announcer asks, “What does it take to succeed … in a place with the highest level of competition?”

Subway’s spot features Olympian Michael Phelps swimming toward Canada, “Where the action is this winter.”

Neither specifically mentions the Olympics although the innuendo is clear. Neither are an official sponsor.

Ambush marketing attempts to attach a brand to a major event without paying for the right to do so. In the process, it may undermine the activities of a rival that owns the legal rights to sponsor the event.

In a post at Suite 101.com, Carrol Trosclair identifies typical ambush techniques:

Sponsor and promote athletes, both current and past Olympic stars
Operate promotional vehicles as close as possible to Olympic venues
Launch new product lines with Olympic-related names
Distribute promotional materials at Olympic-related events
Conduct events as close to Olympic sites and functions as legally allowed
Run competing commercials during programs covering the Olympics
Buy up billboards in the vicinity of the event

Jon Weinbach, in a post at FanHouse, reports on a statement released by the U.S. Olympic Committee which cites marketers who attempt to “benefit from an association with the Olympic marks without providing any financial support to America’s athletes and the global Olympic Movement.” Such marketers, the USOC says, “damage official Olympic sponsors and undermine the United States Olympic Committee’s financial means to ensure that America’s athletes are given the best chance to perform.”

In a post at Sports Illustrated.com, new USOC chief executive officer Scott Blackmun is reported as saying, “Olympism is based upon a spirit of fair play, and ambush marketing clearly violates that spirit,”

USOC’s chief marketing officer, Lisa Baird, said in an article at Reuters, “The way that we help the Olympic movement, we use the marks to raise the revenue for our athletes and when a company crosses that line, and I’ll name Subway as one of those companies, it hurts our athletes. They need to know that we feel they have crossed the line and we are going to continue to be right after them.”

“It’s actually very deviant when you think about it, because these campaigns take months to produce,” said Rob Prazmark, an Olympics marketing veteran and former sales consultant for the USOC, in an interview with FanHouse. The USOC has to take a stance against such “parasitic” campaigns, he says, because “if they can’t protect their sponsors, then the framework for the organization’s entire existence begins to break down.”

Ambush marketing at the Olympics isn’t new.

“The vulnerability of the sponsors was brought into the world spotlight at the 2008 Beijng Summer Olympics,” Trosclair says. “Li Ning, one of China’s greatest athletes of all time, was secretly and justifiably chosen to light the Olympic cauldron during the games’ opening ceremony. The honor brought him, and the sports apparel company he founded, worldwide publicity and a prominent spot in Olympic history.”

This was a problem for Adidas, which ” … had spent millions of dollars to become a major sponsor of the Beijing Olympics, then had to stand by and watch its biggest Chinese competitor steal one of the biggest moments of the games.”

The games continue. How can official sponsors protect themselves from ambush?

Feb

P&G brands … itself?

By Kirk 1 Comment

Categories: advertising, event marketing, interactive marketing, promotion, retail and strategy

Procter & Gamble, the inventor and best known practitioner of brand management, is finally getting around to branding itself.

In its first-ever corporate campaign, 17 of P&G’s brands are featured under its singular umbrella. In partnership with the U.S. Olympic Committee, P&G is running two new TV spots and an accompanying multi-channel campaign during the Winter Games.

Well known as the largest advertiser in the world, P&G has previously executed its marketing brand by brand. It is often cited as the premier example of a “house of brands.” Until now, with the exception of tags at the end of TV spots in China and Japan, P&G has never marketed itself as a brand.

“ … we do not intentionally promote our company name unless it’s to build rapport for a new product, ” says Daisuke Hase, P&G External Relations Supervisor, at J@pan Inc. ” … we don’t tag our name on a product unless necessary.”

Things have changed.

The reason? At Marketing Daily, Kirk Perry, P&G Vice President, North America, says the Winter Games are the right time and place for the company to take a unified corporate approach.

“We know the Winter Olympics are the number one sport among women 18 to 34 and the second-most watched among men after the NFL,” says Perry. “And, given the economy, people are taking vacations closer to home. The Olympics are a terrific family event. And this will be a terrific return relative to other options.”

In Brandweek, P&G CMO Marc Pritchard says, “P&G may not be in the sporting goods business, but we are in the business of helping moms. We strive to help improve her life and the life of her family, in small, meaningful ways. The common denominator between P&G and the Olympic Games is the connection with moms.”

As part of the campaign, P&G is running a Tribute to Moms video on its website. Its Thank You, Mom campaign site is complete with mom blogs, videos, photos, and a Twitter feed from the Games, plus (of course) product information and coupons.

Consistent with the mom theme, the company is helping defray the cost of travel to Vancouver for mothers of competing athletes. The athletes will also participate in the campaign, which includes advertising, PR, in-store merchandising, mobile, digital and direct mail.

Perry says, “It’s our most-integrated marketing plan behind a single event ever.”

What do you think of this change in strategy from the originator of brand management?

Feb

And the winner is … Google

By Kirk 1 Comment

Categories: advertising, copywriting, interactive marketing, mass media, search engine marketing, social media and strategy

In its Super Bowl commercial, Google tells an engaging little story of romance with simplicity and elegance. Appropriately, it uses keywords and search results only.

Its logo is onscreen almost the entire time, while it demonstrates several of its features and benefits. It effectively offsets Bing’s recent efforts at malignment.

Not only was the spot inexpensive to produce, but it stood out from the sophomoric humor and over-the top production of the majority of the commercials.

Erik Sherman, in his negative review of the spot at BNET, misses the point that by airing the spot in the Super Bowl, Google reached millions and millions who haven’t already seen it on YouTube.

Smart marketing all the way around.

Which spot do you feel was most effective?

Feb

Advertising’s swimsuit competition: the Super Bowl

By Kirk Closed

Categories: advertising, event marketing, mass media and roi

istock_000010686107xsmall Let’s be honest.

This week, when we chat online or around the water cooler about the Super Bowl commercials, we will not be judging them based upon which are most effective at doing what they are supposed to be doing, which is actually selling something.

Instead, we will talk about which spots we “like,” which spots we find most entertaining. We’re judging style, not substance.

In pursuit of being popular during and after the game, advertisers and their agencies push the limits to engage us. And we reward them with a couple of week’s worth of buzz.

But how successful are these creative efforts really? Long-term, how many widgets do they sell?

In Advertising Age, Tom Denari blames online ratings. “Super Bowl ads are now dangerously close to a series of Saturday Night Live skits, designed to bombastically amuse the viewer. While I would admit that an ad’s biggest crime may be to be forgotten, Super Bowl ads have become a contest where each competitor sees who can out-gross, out-animal-talk or out-uncomfortable-body-part the next ad. The hype and ratings have continued to erode the quality and integrity of ideas.”

There does happen to be a venue for recognizing the most effective advertising. It’s called the Effie Awards. Effies are given based on results rather than entertainment value. Additionally, the Effie organization shares with the industry its accumulated wisdom by showcasing great ideas that work.

Heard of the Effies? Probably not. They don’t have a football game.

Feb

The branding of electricity

By Kirk Closed

Categories: advertising, brand essence, budgeting, identity and strategy

Electricity is a commodity. And therefore, it sells on price alone.

But in 1998, local electric cooperatives from around the country, all of which operate independently, got together to distinguish the electricity they serve from that served by investor-owned utilities.

A brand was born.

The catalyst: energy deregulation. Since the late 1990s, many states have rewritten the rules in order to increase competition among energy providers. Facing the prospect of competing head-to-head with large, well-financed utilities, electric co-ops decided to unite their individual brands under one banner.

“Touchstone Energy” became the national brand identity for participating electric cooperatives.

Because members own the co-ops which serve them, cooperatives have a unique advantage in a competitive environment. Market research conducted during the development of the brand identified the following differentiating attributes:

Co-ops are active members of the local communities they serve.
Co-ops are directly accountable to their member-owner-customers (not to investors).
Co-op members have a voice in how things are run.
Co-ops are perceived as more people-focused.

After developing the Touchstone Energy name and identity, participating co-ops adopted the tagline, “The power of human connections,” and launched a national branding campaign (See current campaigns here.).

Correctly, the co-ops didn’t try to brand electricity. Instead they branded the co-op experience, based upon intangibles including integrity, accountability, and commitment to community.

Today, the Touchstone Energy brand represents an alliance of nearly 700 cooperatives in 46 states. Touchstone Energy co-ops collectively deliver power to more than 30 million members every day. They distribute power for 75 percent of the U.S. land mass over 2.4 million miles of power lines.

And the brand lives up to its promise. Industry research indicates electric co-ops rank well ahead of their industry counterparts when it comes to customer satisfaction. Data from the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), one the nation’s most recognized measures of customer satisfaction, gives Touchstone Energy cooperatives an average score of 81 out of a possible 100, outclassing the utility industry satisfaction score of 74.