The Industry Column – 28th July
Callum Watt, account director at Dialogue141, explains how ‘unofficial’ brands can still make themselves heard – if they understand LOCOG’s regulations.
Years like 2012 don’t come around very often. The London Olympic Games presents a wealth of marketing opportunities. If brands and retailers get it right, it could be an exciting and lucrative year.
But with every brand using similar properties in the clamor for attention, how can brands without official sponsorship rights make an impact and be remembered? And how do you know if your campaign is in danger of breaking the rules?
Go with it
Associate your brand with 2012 in consumers’ minds by alluding to the event anyway. It’s a well-worn approach, but any non-sponsor that uses Olympic properties should proceed with care. To protect the investment of official sponsors, the International Olympic Committee will be looking out for any ambush marketing tactics. Any breach of its guidelines could result in the campaign being pulled and a criminal conviction.
LOCOG recently announced its intention to launch a major campaign to inform brands on how it will clamp down on ambush marketing in the build-up to 2012. It has also been specifically tasked with identifying “key competitors of Olympic Marketing partners and monitor(ing) their advertising and promotions”.
If there’s any doubt that international sports organisations take protecting sponsor rights seriously, you need only look at FIFA’s reaction to the Bavaria Beer stunt during the World Cup 2010, where two Dutch women were arrested for wearing branded orange dresses during a Holland match, 36 were ejected from the stadium, questioned by police and threatened with jail time, and TV pundit Robbie Earle lost his job for selling them tickets.
The tricky part is determining what counts as an ‘ambush’. The Olympic Games website offers this definition: “The key question is: has an association been created with London 2012? …an association… can be created by the use of any words, images or marks, or, more likely, a combination of these. For example: athletic images, representations of an Olympic-style torch and flame, the colours of the Olympic rings, words or iconic images which evoke the spirit of the 2012 Games, and other representations relating to the Games…”
Lists of ‘owned expressions’ exist. Should your campaign use any “two of the words in list A” or “any word in list A with one or more of the words in list B”, your brand will have some awkward questions to answer. The latter includes such generics as ‘London’, ‘summer’, and ‘gold’. All in all, there’s a lot of room for interpretation and very little room for manoeuvre.
With so many restrictions on messaging, there’s also the inevitable wallpaper of identikit campaigns. Brands that insist on finding a link to an event, however tenuous – and without the credibility of sponsorship – risk simply blending in. For real impact, creativity will be essential.
Take a sideways step
In 2008, Sky announced its new partnership with British Cycling – a £30million deal lasting until 2013. Tapping in to the UK’s new found love for two wheels (and, crucially, medal successes) the partnership is investing in grassroots cycling, all the way up to the Elite Team. It’s a clever move by Sky. In backing the likes of Chris Hoy and other current and future Olympians, it has created a clear link between the brand and Olympic success. And all without ever having to mention the Olympic name or use any of its precious properties.
It appears to be a credible approach for consumers. Around a third say content around GB athletes would be most likely to engage them. Other values they say are important to convey are “developing British talent” and “healthy lifestyles”, according to News International Track and Field research.
Finding that elusive affinity with a major event can reap rewards. But it’s just as important to understand and meet consumers’ needs, and no more so than at point of purchase. You can change shopper behaviour with a great promotion. But around big events, you’ll find every other brand is doing the same. With a level playing field, a shopper will go for the product that gives them a clear benefit. For non-sponsors in particular, it’s unwise to hope for some reflected glory if you can’t also answer ‘what’s in it for me’.
Whatever approach brands take, 2012 is sure to be a thrilling year, with a massive lineup of tactical campaigns by sponsors and non-sponsors alike. Some will be winners, others will fall at the first hurdle. A few may be spectacularly disqualified for breaking IOC rules. According to the Mayan calendar, 2012 is also the year the world will end. Maybe we’ll see a brand step up and officially sponsor that too. It’d certainly be interesting to see what shopper benefit can be unearthed there.
