event marketing | brandSTOKE

Archive for the 'event marketing' Category

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 web site. 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

Advertising’s swimsuit competition: the Super Bowl

By Kirk 0 Comments

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.

Jul

Tour de Tweets

By Kirk 2 Comments

Categories: cause marketing, event marketing, health care, promotion, social media and strategy

The 2009 Tour de France, highlighted by Lance Armstrong’s return, may be remembered as much for being the first sporting event in history to fully integrate social media into the competition and the coverage.

Nearly every one of the 20 teams blogged and tweeted (e.g., Garmin-Slipstream and Astana).

Numerous riders and team managers tweeted as well (e.g., Levi Leipheimer, Andy Schleck, and Johan Bruyneel. (For examples of Twitter use by riders, see Dara Kerr’s post at CNET News.)

Active.com combined tweets from all of the participating riders and managers into one stream.

Armstrong, a skilled promoter, was most prolific. In Becky Ebenkamp’s post at Brandweek, Richard Rosenblatt, CEO of Demand Media, which owns the Livestrong.com community, said, “(Armstrong) called up and said, ‘I … want to broadcast through Livestrong.com exclusively and use Twitter to make sure people can not only see the tour, but actually feel it and hear it directly from my mouth — unedited.’”

His Twitter and Facebook posts regularly included behind-the-scenes videos and photos. A skilled promoter, he leveraged his celebrity and his celebrity friends to raise awareness for Livestrong, such as Ben Stiller clowning on Lance’s warm-up bike.

Traditional sports media relied on Twitter for leads. The Daily Mail published Lance’s Twitter diary. And while many of the riders’ posts were banal, some provided real insight into the action, such as this entry by multiple-stage winner Mark Cavendish, “Yesterday with 3km to go, Piet Rooijakkers (skil shimano) kidney punched me.”

The official Tour de France site included a fantasy team competition as well as blogs and Twitter.

Versus.com, the site of the TV network which broadcast the race, incorporated a dazzling array of fan-friendly features, including live coverage, mobile alerts, daily blogs including Armstrong’s, a message board, a widget providing updates, podcasts, an ask-the-expert feature, a serialized graphic novel, a sweepstakes, a virtual library of video and photos, trivia quizzes, and games.

One of Armstong’s sponsors, Nike, donates proceeds from the sale of Livestrong products to the Lance Armstrong Foundation. Its tour site provided visitors the opportunity to post their own stories of hope in the face of cancer in words or video.

It also featured an ingenious innovation — the Chalkbot. Messages of encouragement and remembrance, texted by site visitors, were spray-chalked thousands of miles away on the roads of the tour during the event by the Chalkbot. Who could resist memorializing a loved one in this way?

The 2009 Tour was perhaps the most connected athletes, teams, sponsors, charities, media and fans have ever been. Where do you think it will lead?

Jul

Don’t just sponsor events — brand them

By Kirk 4 Comments

Categories: cause marketing, event marketing, identity, promotion and strategy

The backs of most event T-shirts look like the one on the left — a jumble of sponsor names and logos.

And that’s just how the event organizers like it.

The proliferation of community fund-raising events, such as runs, walks and golf outings, is good for all parties. The more sponsor money the better!

The sponsors, however, may be choosing to participate for reasons besides charity. Some, of course, are sincerely engaged in the cause. Some are playing the role of community citizen. Some may feel personal or political pressure. Some may be fulfilling employees’ interests. Regardless of their motivations, all donors should be profusely thanked and recognized for their generosity.

However, if one of their goals is to generate brand awareness, they are likely getting lost in the crowd.

Instead of making a nominal donation to multiple events, brands should consider moving to a less crowded venue — the front of the shirt.

Being the title sponsor of an event is consistent with recent trands in corporate giving; that is, giving larger amounts to fewer charities in order to make a greater overall impact. Take a page from Panera’s book — own the event.

Jan

Tweeting there vs. being there

By Kirk 5 Comments

Categories: event marketing and social media

Back in the dark ages before cell phones could shoot video, taping family events was a larger and more choreographed production. The cameras were huge and expensive for a young father.

When I brought my newborn son home from the hospital, a friend loaned his camcorder to tape the event for posterity. I was hooked on the instant gratification. Shoot, pop the cassette into the VCR (remember those?), and enjoy! Soon I bought my own camera for taping birthday parties and holiday dinners.

Fun! I imagined myself a cinematographer, composing my shots and adjusting lighting.

But as I watched and re-watched the parties, Halloween costumes, and Christmas mornings, I noticed something. I wasn’t in them. I wasn’t there. Nor was my voice. In my effort to capture the authenticity of the moment, I didn’t interact with my subjects. I witnessed the events unfold, like a journalist careful not to become part of the story. I became the family historian, my children’s biographer, yet I was missing the real-time experience. The experience became watching the tape, instead of enjoying the party. More and more, I put the camera down.

Which got me thinking about Twitter. I’m fairly new at it and have only live-tweeted a couple of events. But immediately, I flashed back to my experiences videotaping family events. I realized I was reporting what the speaker had said a split second ago, instead of listening to what he was saying now.

Chris Brogan explored this in a recent post on microblogging from events. He asks if “live-tweeting a press conference might get the story into some kind of live action play faster?” But in a comment Lisa Newton asks, “Do you get so involved in reporting the event that you miss out on the event?”

Sharing the experience live is a hallmark of Twitter. But does reporting an event via Twitter interfere with participating in the event? Can journalists assigned to cover the fire also help put out the fire?

Do you find tweeting enhances or distracts from your event experience? Let me know.