Should the Tate Gallery have refused BP’s corporate sponsorship following Deepwater Horizon? 16th December, 2015

On 20th April 2010, BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded, sinking the rig and causing the largest marine oil spill in history. Following the disaster, the news coverage surrounding BP thrust the spotlight on the oil conglomerate’s sponsorship programme – most notably their 26-year long relationship with the Tate Gallery in London.

Since Deepwater Horizon, pressure has built for the Tate to end this relationship. The greatest criticism has been levelled by pressure groups Platform and “BP or not BP”, whose argument centres around the premise that cultural institutions like the Tate should not be accepting sponsorship from corporations with debatable environmental records.

 

Corporate sponsorship v corporate philanthropy

BP or not BP’s argument that the conglomerate is “not doing this (sponsoring the Tate) out of the goodness of its heart” is correct. Corporate sponsorship involves no philanthropic element yet pressure groups leverage their argument around this demonstrating how misunderstood the relationship between corporates and the art world is.

Corporate sponsorship is a business transaction and differs markedly to corporate philanthropy, which is where a corporation makes a charitable donation with no expected return. Sponsorship, on the other hand, is entered into by corporations for the rights available through the fee they pay. These could be naming rights which, in BP’s case, have been activated through the BP Displays series.

 

Benefits v reputational damage

As an indication of the benefits of BP’s quarter-of-a-century long sponsorship, 37 million people have visited BP Displays, BP’s free collection displays across the Tate group of galleries. Of those, 6m schoolchildren have visited the Displays and BP’s Art Exchange, which provides access to the Tate’s collection and archives, has reached 10,000 schoolchildren in 50 countries since its launch in September 2013.

Despite the short-term reputational damage to the Tate through being associated with the Deepwater Horizon spill and the subsequent fall-out, it is clear the benefits of BP’s long-standing commitment to the gallery far outweighed the temporary reputational damage. This was reiterated by the Tate’s trustees who concluded the “benefits of BP’s support far outweigh any quantifiable risk to our reputation.” They added “BP fit within our (sponsorship policy) guidelines and their support has been instrumental.”

 

Corporate sponsorship of public bodies

There has been little evidence of overwhelming public rejection of BP’s support for the Tate, particularly after Deepwater Horizon. The public response to BP’s sponsorship has been led by marginal environmental pressure groups combined with a smattering of Tate members and artists.

As a non-departmental public body, funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and home to the national collection of British art, the public have a right to be involved in the debate surrounding corporate sponsorship of the Gallery. However, BP’s sponsorship has been scrutinised a number of times by the Tate’s Ethics committee who have concluded that “taking a moral stance on the ethics of the oil and gas industry remains outside of the Tate’s charitable objectives”.

This lack of public support to end the sponsorship was most apparent this summer when protest group Liberate Tate spent 25 hours scrawling climate change messages on the floor of a Tate exhibition. Thousands of visitors passed through believing them to be part of the exhibition, with the protest not even registering on the public’s consciousness.

 

When approaching potential corporations for sponsorship, arts organisations should be mindful of these issues. Furthermore, when a deal is struck, they should seek to communicate the nature of the sponsorship, the benefits to the organisation and the wider public in order to directly challenge detractors.

 

 

@SimonBinks_


The Future of the Stadium Experience looks Dark, Sponsors must Act Now 17th May, 2013

Last week I was fortunate enough to attend The Innovation in Sport Business Summit, which was in conjunction with the Turkish Airlines Final Four in London. The first topic of discussion was ‘Innovation as a revenue driver in Sports’. Unsurprisingly the general consensus was that everything is moving towards digital, social and mobile; making fan accessibility easier and increasing online activity.

All the panellists rightly mentioned how the sofa experience has transformed with a number of different upgrades such as the use of the second screen and datatainment (the availability of in-depth stats and figures, which make pub debates that much more enthralling). However it became clear that with all these technological luxuries, the appeal of going to a stadium may be losing its gloss. Today’s consumers not only want things quicker but they want things catered around their lives, hence why Sky Plus and mobile media are so popular, they align with the schedule of the consumer and give them a great amount of control.

This is far from what can be said about the sporting experience in person- a game starts at a set time, tickets are expensive and hard to get hold of, weather and travel can be extremely frustrating and there are still a large amount of limitations on stadia facilities (alcohol, food prices, crowd control, Wi-Fi, seating). No one can argue that watching your team score a last minute winner in person can be replicated in any form at home or on your mini screen but in this era ticket holders still deserve much more from the total stadium environment- up to date facts and statistics, extensive match highlights and in-game food and beverage ordering to name a few.

Sponsorship agencies are desperately trying to shed the perception that sport is all about logo bashing and big ad banners, but sponsors themselves must contribute by exposing their brand to a wide range of different channels, starting with promoting a technology-led stadium experience, even if it means investing that little bit extra. If sponsors want to capitalise on their mass brand presence at stadiums, increase slipping ticket sales and build loyalty and engagement with all types of fans, enhancing technology in stadiums has to be a priority. Sponsors must treat their association to a team or competition as a mutual and progressive partnership in order to tackle these glaring hurdles, rather than simply pumping money into a team and letting them sort an issue that is actually imperative to a sponsors’ ROI.

There is no point of having marketing strategies like brand advocates, match day content and social media campaigns if they are only visible to fans at home. The purest form of fan engagement is the raw emotional roller coaster that occurs in stadiums and only a handful of sports teams have realised this (see Arsenal and Manchester City). Of course teams like Manchester City and the LA Lakers have the resources to build multi functional digital facilities but other sporting organisations without as much funding must begin to collaborate more strategically with sponsors to enhance stadia experience.

An inspiring example of how successful this can be is the New Jerseys Red Devils Mission Control, the first digital command centre launched by a pro sports team. Mission Control, launched in 2011, acts as the hub for internet and social media connection for both the team and the arena, allowing fans to utilize the space and monitor messaging. This innovative collaboration with Prudential (stadium partner) and The Red Devils revolutionised the fan-stadium platform.

The rewards for this dynamic and engaging project was not only higher ticket sales and two 2011 Bulldog Awards (including Socially Engaged Brand of the Year) but it also attracted global powerhouse T-Mobile to sign on in 2012 as official sponsor of the stadium’s digital hub. The New Jersey Red Devils are by no means an elite financial sports team but it shows that if sponsors work collaboratively with teams and utilise the innovation of technology, they can help drive fans into stadiums, rather than out of them.

My Top 3 Digital Sponsorship Campaigns 25th March, 2013

Sponsorship campaigns have always relied on brand synergy and mutually benefitting concepts but now it is imperative to incorporate the partnerships through a digital platform. Here are three of my favourite digital sponsorship campaigns…

Nike and Apple (Nike+)

The Nike+ sponsorship campaign stands out for simply the sheer size of the two brands involved, as corporate logos go, few are as identifiable. For Nike and Apple there was no case of ‘clash of the titans’- merged products (shoes, sensors, kit) allowed joggers to be notified of progress by iPod prompts as well as tracking distance and duration. The data could be uploaded to a Mac or PC, and then on to Nikeplus.com, giving people the chance to record progress, set targets and share results.

For Apple, the sponsorship allowed them to target consumers from a different angle and created a much more fulfilling exercise experience thanks to their technology. For Nike, the sponsorship helped them shift their brand image away from bad press concerning labour ethics and high-profile court cases previous to 2006. Aligning to Apple, which had a very clean reputation at the time, aimed to help add credibility to some of the promotional tags that Nike were trying to shed.

Vice and Intel

Vice is brash, incisive and radical, which is exactly why Intel bit, their aim was to diversify their brand image. John Galvin, director of Intel’s partner marketing group, admitted that “if we give music fans the opportunity to have this amazing experience, maybe they will think about Intel differently, becausewithout our technology, this wouldn’t be possible.”

Having Intel as a sponsor not only associates Vice to a global brand but it also acts as a service for their multiple digital ventures. Intel has now partnered with Vice on two of their most impressive subsidiaries, The Creators Project and Noisey. The collaboration has a real sense of synergy – Vice finds fresh talent and creative pioneers in order to distribute the content and footage while Intel supply cutting edge ways for fans to engage digitally.

Kopparberg and Spotify

Independent cider brewer, Kopparberg partnered with Spotify and Last.fm in 2012 to create the Kopparberg Festival Player, which helps UK festival-goers plan their schedule of bands they want to watch over the summer based on Spotify playlists, the app featured playlist sharing and chances to win tickets to the most sought-after festivals in the UK.

The appeal of this campaign is Kopparberg’s chance to connect with fans through music, rather than direct, brash marketing which festival-goers tend to disapprove of. Furthermore, the partnerships drives awareness of the brand and drinking Kopparberg before they even get to event, which cuts out the competition and resonates with the customer. With their involvement at more than 15 UK festivals and major events in 2012, this became a key reason for their sales success.

Corporate Sponsorship Of The Arts: Double-Double Oil Is Trouble 10th December, 2012

Following my recent visit to the Tate Britain, sponsored by BP, I wanted to delve further into the energy giant’s return to the media spotlight after outlining its controversial plans to continue funding the arts.  The company has reiterated that it wishes to use sponsorship, alongside advertising, as a tool to improve brand reputation.  Since 2010, BP have been haunted with repercussions within the media, being named, shamed and fined ($4.5bn to be exact). Now, almost 3 years later, the company has emphasised that after its hiatus from the media, it wishes to increase its social responsibility initiatives, returning with a campaign showcasing contributions the company makes to society; all in the hope that it will ‘make people feel more positive’ about the brand.

To do this, BP intends to build upon its long-standing cultural sponsorships that were renewed last December with the Royal Opera House, British Museum, The National Portrait Gallery and the Tate. Yet one year on, despite BP’s hopes, protests are still occurring across the Capital.  

Only a few weeks ago, the ‘Reclaim Shakespeare Company,’ protested outside the British Museum to intervene in the BP-sponsored exhibition ‘Shakespeare: Staging the World.’  Indeed, BP is not the only oil giant receiving criticism; Shell’s sponsorship of London’s South Bank Centre, and Lundin Petroleum’s sponsorship of the Astrup Fearnley Museum in Oslo have both been under media fire.  In light of these protests, I want to raise the question, will there always be cynicism attached to sponsorships of this nature or can brands such as BP do more to demonstrate the benefits of their funding?

The rationale behind the cynicism shown by protestors is by no means unreasonable.  BP caused a disaster, and the damage that was created is irreparable but should this still be associated with their philanthropic initiatives? The brand is coming into its 21st year sponsoring the Tate and 11th year sponsoring some of the other most treasured cultural landmarks in the UK.  Through their continued funding, the British Museum is able to further cultural programmes, and the Tate Britain, for example, is able to extend it’s access to wider audiences (the Tate alone attracts 5 million visitors each year).

There is no doubt that BP’s decision to continue its various cultural sponsorships is driven by the motive of improving brand perception via ‘contributions to society’. Whilst this could be, and is by many, perceived as a way of averting attention from BP’s previous mistakes, there is no denying that the money donated through these cultural sponsorships supports the sustainability of British cultural heritage.  Indeed, the arts have endured serious government funding cuts over recent years, with a call from many, including the National’s Nicholas Hytner, for the government to reconsider its decisions.  Only last week, it was announced that the Newcastle City Council plans to cut its entire arts budget, with landmarks such as The Sage and Baltic Gallery wondering what to do next.  So long as this continues to be the case, cultural institutions such as these will have to consider alternative sources for revenue, Corporate sponsorship being one of them, and I’m all for it.