Three lions on the shirt – and nothing else
Julian Reiter, managing director of Positive Thinking, says it has been ‘truly refreshing’ to see creative World Cup campaigns in “contrast to the somewhat blasé (perhaps even arrogant) assumption by some sponsors that consumers will automatically respond to their ‘official’ status, which has been, in true football vernacular, an obvious own goal”…
It’s not so much soccer, but sock-it-to-em. No one in ad land, not to mention consumer-side World Cup aficionados, can fail to have heard about the furore created by the latest Nestle Kit Kat campaign. Mars and the FA are threatening legal action in the belief that the confectionery giant has flouted sponsorship rules with its crossed ‘fingers’ ad.
Moreover, less than a week later Kit Kat made another bold statement, an “up yours” if you will, announcing its decision to sponsor all of the Sky World Cup coverage across iPhone, iPod Touch, Smartphones and all other WAP-enabled mobile devises, forming the UK’s largest dedicated mobile campaign to date.
Why has this caused upset and ruffled many a feather? Purely because Nestle is not an official partner of the World Cup, and is receiving way too much attention with its unauthorised guerilla tactics. With no mega brand logo taking up a portion of the shirt, it seems that official partners have been left scratching their head on how best to capitalise on their spend. There seems to be very low awareness of official sponsors, and for brands such as Budweiser and Carlsberg, which sit right at the heart of football culture, it’s shocking that they haven’t been able to grab more attention than they’re currently receiving.
The reasons that such brands are currently slipping under the radar are many and varied; public attitudes to brand tie-ups are changing, advertising legislation is undergoing huge changes and customers are wary of any overt attempts from brands to enjoy the limelight. However, in order for the sponsorship fees to generate a tangible return on investment, brands, products and services MUST leverage any deal (most particularly any ‘world stage’ sponsorships) in a way that is relevant for their customers.
What’s been interesting in this World Cup (in the UK) is the lack of innovation in sponsorship exploitation by the official sponsors, yet we have seen considerable creativity and innovation from many brands and retailers who, well within the confines of the ‘rulebook’, have stood out and, in consequence, have stood tall with the England team, as supporters and fans. For example, Pringles’ “Pringoooals” promotion and Curry’s “cash for goals” scheme have both shown how innovative ideas and carefully planned activity can make a real impact without having to display the badge of an official sponsor.
The next few months will be interesting to observe as the actions of Mars and FA, irrespective of whether they progress with legal or not (more so if not), may well irrevocably alter the UK’s sponsorship landscape. If it doesn’t go to court, I predict we will see an influx of “non-official” brands starting to push the boundaries in terms of creativity and what’s acceptable, giving safe sponsorship a real run for their money.
If it does go to court, will the creative flame be extinguished by legislation and the rule book? Who knows. But whatever happens it has been truly refreshing to see this amongst other innovative World Cup campaigns in contrast to the somewhat blasé (perhaps even arrogant) assumption by some sponsors that consumers will automatically respond to their ‘official’ status, which has been, in true football vernacular, an obvious own goal.