Category: Blog

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.

Red Bull Challenges F1's Sponsorship Stallion 5th December, 2012

In the last couple of weeks, the Red Bull Racing and Sebastian Vettel vs. Ferrari and Fernando Alonso rivalry has dominated sporting headlines. In the end it was yet again the former who took both the Constructers’ and the Drivers’ World Championship titles in the thrilling Formula 1 season finale in Brazil. This nail-biting end to the season has prompted a closer look at the team’s and driver’s success off the track and their contention for the commercial crown.

The Constructers’ (Sponsorship) Championship:

Despite prize money being in the millions, sponsorship is by far the key source of revenue for both teams and their drivers which begs the question: who is leading the commercial championship?

According to Forbes’ latest list of the ‘Formula One’s Most Valuable Teams’ Ferrari’s total revenue is estimated to be around £240m with £190m being generated from sponsorship alone. Nearly £155m is generated via three major deals with Shell, Santander and title sponsorship partner Marlboro. These three deals are worth more than any other team’s total sponsorship revenue.

But what about Red Bull Racing? Out of all teams on the grid, they are surprisingly down in fourth in the overall revenue standings at £100m in 2011. 60% of this revenue comes from Red Bull’s success on the track earning them more prize money than any other team in the championship however the contribution from sponsors falls significantly shorter than Ferrari, coming to £38m positioning the team in the middle of the sponsorship field. The main reason for this is that the brand does not seek sponsors for most of their advertising space as this is generally used for self-promotion. As opposed to Ferrari (whose title sponsor is Marlboro at £100m) and other leading teams like McLaren Mercedes (Vodafone, £47m) and Mercedes AMG F1 (Petronas, £35m), Red Bull is sacrificing a significant amount of commercial opportunity in this area. However, this may all be about to change with the constructors’ champions securing their first title sponsorship deal with Nissan’s luxury arm, Infiniti.

When reviewing the revenue potential of both teams, Ferrari should still be out of reach in the short-term with regards to team value however with Red Bull being the fastest growing team in the paddock, the commercial gap is certainly narrowing.

The Drivers’ (Sponsorship) Championship:

Are Vettel and Alonso also competing for a sponsorship title? In his latest blog post, Mark Mylam asked whether sports men and women as brand ambassadors were really worth the money from a sponsor’s perspective as there is always a risk associated with their image deteriorating and affecting the image of the endorsed brand. An almost risk-free sportsman for instance could be Sebastian Vettel. The driver is unarguably one of the most charismatic Formula 1 drivers, as demonstrated at last year’s Autosport Awards and although his interview at the podium ceremony of Abu Dhabi included some strong words, nothing seems to be able to tarnish his image. This is why Sebastian Vettel, who manages his endorsement deals himself, enjoys lucrative sponsorship deals with Casio and Procter & Gamble’s Head & Shoulders worth around £2m in total, according to a study carried out by Sport + Markt.

Fernando Alonso, on the other hand, seems to have a completely different persona. One could perceive him as being rather introverted although he is not one to shy away from commercial opportunities with earnings upwards of £6m through his deals with Santander, Tag-Heuer and Puma in 2011. This positions Alonso at the top of the sponsorship leaderboard with Michael Schumacher way behind at £3.5m and Lewis Hamilton (£2.5m) ahead of both Sebastian Vettel and Jenson Button, both at £2m. Marcel Cordes, Executive Director at Sport + Markt, points out that it is unlikely that Vettel will be able to close this gap as “he (Vettel) is already very strongly associated with the Red Bull brand”. Also, Sebastian Vettel is not interested in signing sponsorship deals just for the sake of securing a higher income. He’s already stated in the media: “It is not a goal for me to earn more money. For me, it is important that the brand is ideally suited to me”.

Compared to other sports stars like Roger Federer or Kobe Bryant, sponsorship earnings of Formula 1 drivers are minimal because in most cases, the teams control almost all of their driver’s sponsorship rights.

It is interesting to see that championship wins have by no means been reflective of either team’s or drivers’ respective commercial successes but will this continue into 2013? With the pressure mounting on Sebastian Vettel, could we see Ferrari’s sponsorship stallion overtake the Red Bull both on the track as well as off or will the power of the ‘Vettrick’ prove too much to contend with? Let us know your thoughts!

Mencap’s Little Noise Sessions 2012 in Association with Toshiba 3rd December, 2012

Slingshot were back at Mencap’s Little Noise Sessions to witness one of our agency’s favourite events of the year.  We always have a great time over at the St-John-at-Hackney and this year was no different with Gary Barlow, The Maccabees, Ollly Murs, Amy Macdonald (pictured) + many more performing in this truly spectacular venue.

An added dimension for 2012

This year saw Toshiba come on board as Headline Sponsors, in what was their first venture into music sponsorship.  Given it was their first foray into partnering with a music event Toshiba got some great engagement through the platform, utilizing an extensive range of channels to truly leverage their sponsorship of Little Noise.

‘Little Noise Sessions’ app – Creating Excitement

Toshiba’s ‘Little Noise Sessions’ Facebook app held competitions, quizzes and artist bios that got excited fans even more excited during the build up to the week long series of gigs. With the Little Noise Sessions now in its seventh year, the page was full of interesting pieces of information on a range of legendary artists that have performed at the series of acoustic events.

Driving traffic through Pre-Sales & Auctions

In addition to Toshiba’s Facebook app, Toshiba also ran a number of pre-sale ticket promotions to give fans the chance to get their hands on the prized Little Noise tickets, which could be accessed through their Facebook page.  These pre-sales not only drove fans to the fun and interactive content held at ToshibaUK, but meant Toshiba were rewarding the hardcore fanbase that attends Little Noise each year, ensuring higher levels of brand engagement.

Spotify Partnership

In addition to their own activity Toshiba teamed up with one of the other sponsors Slingshot brought on board – Spotify.  Toshiba used Spotify playlists in the build-up to Little Noise to illustrate the calibre of acts that have played in the previous six years, as well as providing more content for their Facebook fans.

On-site Activations

This Spotify partnership supported by an amazing Toshiba ‘section’ full of Toshiba products, some of which held a playlist competition. Users selected a song, with the chance for their song to be played as the opening track for the evening’s entertainment, as well as the chance to win a Toshiba tablet.

There were also promotional staff in the Toshiba section, showing people how to use the latest Toshiba gadgets, along with a photobooth, which gained extensive traffic in between acts.  Check out the photos from all 6 nights here.

Overall, there were 563 photobooth photos uploaded to Facebook, which with an average of 2.5 people in, means 1,400 used the Toshiba Facebook photo booth.  Given that around 9,000 people attend the events, about 20% of those that attended used the Toshiba photobooth over the six nights.  Users got a Polaroid of themselves and were encouraged to go onto the Toshiba Facebook to tag themselves in the uploaded images.

In terms of their digital engagement, Toshiba saw their Facebook following increase from 28,000 – 40,000 in the space of a little over a month.

Charity tie-in

One of the most important aspects from Toshiba’s perspective was the opportunity to get involved in helping out Mencap as a charity.  Not only did Toshiba run a number of fund-raising initiatives during the events (e.g. selling lanyards that contained exclusive Little Noise content), but also got their entire marketing team to volunteer at a local Mencap centre to help a number ofpeople with learning difficulties.

In short, Toshiba’s sponsorship Little Noise allowed extensive engagement through a fantastic music platform, while supporting an extremely important charity.

A huge thank you must go out to everyone at Mencap, Toshiba, Spotify, Jo Whiley and a whole range of other contributors who made the event possible.

The line-up from the six nights:

Monday 19/11/2012 – Gary Barlow, Laura Mvula + Josephine + Nell Bryden

Tuesday 20/11/2012 – Olly Murs, Lawson + Loveable Rogues

Wednesday 21/11/2012 – Richard Hawley, First Aid Kit + King Charles

Friday 23/11/2012 – The Maccabees, Jamie N Commons + Jessie Ware

Saturday 24/11/2012 – Noah and the Whale, Villagers + Lucy Rose + Tom Odell

Sunday 25/11/2012 – Amy Macdonald, Karin Park, Newton Faulkner

Is Innovation No Longer Innovative? 28th November, 2012

In a recent article, Proctor & Gamble stated that they wish to triple their rate of innovation.  Such a drive towards innovation is motivated by the belief that it will ‘lead to significant share increases, category growth and competitive advantage.’  The term innovation is now used more than ever, with many companies citing ‘innovation’ as a main focus point for profit and growth.  Indeed, the current economic climate has left brands, rights-holders and agencies to re-assess their strategies, with many recognising the need to deliver creative strategies and activations that stand out, or are considered ‘innovative.’

The Chartered Institute of Marketing (CIM) surveyed more than 1,200 UK marketers, 40% of which expect their organisations to embrace more risk and ambition over the next 12 months. This is also emphasised through P&G who, along with the company’s strive towards innovation, has stated that they will cut back on traditional marketing campaigns and focus time and money on high impact based strategies.  In light of P & G’s strategic developments, and the current influx of the term ‘innovation,’ I want to gain a better understanding of what innovation really is.

I want to understand what makes something truly innovative against a strategy or activation that is high in impact or creative.  (I do this in the hope to find a new term that has similar connotations, but is tailored to Slingshot’s own values.)

The problem with defining Innovation

One of the main difficulties when discussing innovation in relation to brands and agencies is finding a consistent definition as innovation varies when discussed between individuals, agencies and industries alike.  Innovation comes from the Latin term innovatus meaning ‘renewal or change.’  As a term, however, innovation has developed to offer a wide range of values brands and agencies want to be associated with.  Innovation implies an amalgamation of creativity, risk taking, the breaking of boundaries.  It refers to changing how an industry works, how an agency works, how individuals conduct their lives or changes what they perceive as normality; innovation implies creativity in an otherwise saturated market.

Whatever the definition, what is most important is that in many cases, agencies and brands that claim to innovate are not innovating and this is diluting the value of the term itself.  A while ago, Synergy asked individuals to vote on their no. 1 sporting innovation of all time.  In the running was the signing of IMG between McCormack and Palmer, with the birth of modern sport marketing.  The overall winner was the signing of Michael Jordan to Nike and the subsequent creation of the Air Jordan.

What is it that makes these examples so special? Well, IMG created one of the largest and lucrative industries in the world; and the launch of the Air Jordan marked the beginning of sports stars as worldwide brand ambassadors, and also defined the way that Nike brand today.  If we go back to the original Latin translation, these examples are true innovations as they both changed the industry.  Of course these examples are on a very large scale, and it can be stated that true innovations such as these occur very rarely, but I believe that the term innovation should be saved for instances that truly change the way people look and think about brands/agencies/industries.

What is important to recognise is that with the advancement of technology, there are so many avenues for brands and agencies to explore new ways to engage with the consumer.  If you look at Outlook Festival’s want for 3D visual artists, architects and designers to get involved to create unique stage experiences for festival goers.  Indeed, human experience is of the utmost importance when assessing sponsorship activations; and new technologies are taking human experiences to a new level.  There is no doubt that over the next decade at least, the industry will be looking for creative and exciting activations; it will be looking for ‘innovation.’  I believe that there are so many regions to explore, and all of the connotations associated with innovation are positive, we just need to find a new word.

Should Alcohol Sponsorship be Banned? 26th November, 2012

The level of irresponsible drinking amongst young people in the UK is an area of constant concern for many with statistics reporting 945,000 hospital admissions a year related to alcohol abuse or injury. Following the ban of tobacco sponsorship in 2005 arose the debate as to whether alcohol sponsorship should follow suit and whether partnerships between alcohol brands and sports events influence young people to drink in excess.

At the Think!Sponsorship Conference on Wednesday 14th November leading sponsorship professionals and representatives from alcohol brands considered the increasingly important topic of whether the alcohol sponsorship ban should be bought into place within the UK. With alcohol sponsorship banned in France, this prompted me to consider whether the UK will be next to follow suit and what impact this could have for the sponsorship industry.

The Argument

There is little doubt that sporting events have a strong association with alcohol. Sports such as rugby and football in particular lead people to view alcohol consumption in a negative light with fans often rowdy and drunk. Alcohol sponsorship could be said to reinforce the association of alcohol with events that are often considered family days out whilst watching sport for many comes hand in hand with enjoying a drink. With this connection already firmly in place it is argued that alcohol sponsorship only encourages young people to view alcohol brands and excessive consumption of their products in a positive light.

However, the opposing argument is that the problem with binge drinking amongst young people in particular at sporting events is as a result of cheap drinks deals and the traditional macho sporting culture rather than the presence of alcohol sponsorship. Furthermore, alcohol sponsors place a strong emphasis on drinking responsibly. The European Sponsorship Association has put numerous guidelines in place to introduce a notion of best practise with alcohol brands, for example, rights holders are advised to only allow sponsorship from alcohol brands if the audience are assumed to be older than the legal alcohol purchase age.

How Would the Alcohol Ban Affect Sponsorship in the Future?

It is estimated that £800 million a year is spent by alcohol brands on sponsorship, if this money was no longer channelled towards sponsorship what would this mean for the sponsorship industry as a whole? Sponsorship agencies could lose key clients and rights-holders would lose a vast amount of revenue and the ability to hold events to the scale and quality they currently are at.

However, through dynamic and creative thinking this could also be an opportunity for new brands to get involved with sport sponsorship.

Whatever the future holds for alcohol brands, I believe the sponsorship industry will have no problem continuing to thrive as seen previously when we encountered the ban of tobacco sponsorship.  If anything it will only force sponsorship professionals to continue to drive innovation forward.

Promoted Posts – a decline of Facebook or a reflection of a shift in marketing? 21st November, 2012

In recent weeks Facebook has come under increased scrutiny over its introduction of charges on fan pages to promote posts. Charges on these pages – used by businesses to interact with potential customers – have caused widespread anger against the social media giant. From tech billionaire and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban threatening to leave the NBA teams fan page neglected to George Takai’s claims he will dedicate a whole chapter of his new book to the matter, Facebook has come under fire for their commercial shift. Is this profiteering?

Behaviour targeting

Effective in January, promoted posts work in conjunction with wider changes made by Facebook regarding what users see on their newsfeed. Facebook has created an algorithm to filter the content that reaches people. This behaviour targeting reacts to how people engage with posts and other people and will feed marketing and behaviour information accordingly.

Promoted posts

Promoted posts provide the new option of paying to promote specific posts. This change bypasses the behavioural targeting mentioned above to guarantee a certain amount of a targeted audience (and at a price, their friends) are guaranteed to see a specific post. Payment for this service is scaled.

The advantages – Business

While many are outraged at this new model, there are a number of commercial advantages for brands:

  1. Analytics – when a post has been promoted you are now able to receive a breakdown of post views and viral capabilities.
  2. Fan Appz – provides instant measurement of any advertising campaigns in real time and works to help you convert fans into advocates.
  3. Affordable – the scaled system of payment means promoting posts is a viable option for all sizes of business.

The advantages – Consumer

  1. Better creative – payment to promote posts forces brands to consider the quality of their advertising far more. While before pages could churn out posts with little thought for content quality, the introduction of charges should encourage companies to be more thoughtful in their approach.
  2. Targeted information – as internet users currently fight a war on noise receiving millions of marketing messages online, targeting ads ensure that you are served ads that are relevant to your purchase behaviour.

A wider shift

While Facebook’s promoted posts for many will always appear part of its wider decline since capitalisation, it in fact marks a larger shift among social media companies into being viable businesses. From Twitter’s ‘Promoted Tweets’ to Tumblr signing agencies to bring in advertising revenue, Facebook’s model both fits a growing trend while offering clear advantages for both business and consumer.

Slingshot Sponsorship Wins Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award 2012 9th November, 2012

Jackie Fast managing Director of Slingshot Sponsorship has won the Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award for the second consecutive year at the 2012 Camden and Islington Business Awards. The category was open to business owners who have shown exceptional business acumen and achieved consistent business growth since launching.

Slingshot Sponsorship delivers and develops long-term brand strategies that engage targeted audiences through sponsorship rights.  Integrated and tailored in each approach, Slingshot Sponsorship diversifies across a range of industries with clients based in publishing, events, trade associations, charities, motorsport and music.

Jackie Fast was absolutely thrilled to win the award, commenting:

It is an absolute pleasure to be nominated, let alone win this category for a second year.  Since launching Slingshot Sponsorship three years ago, our business has grown exponentially – which truly shows how valuable our unique business proposition is. It’s a fantastic honour to be recognised by the local community for all the hard work put into developing the agency.

The strict criteria set out for the Camden & Islington Business Awards indicated that only the strongest candidates within the area would be shortlisted for the award. Miss Fast’s repeat win illustrates Slingshot Sponsorship’s capabilities in creating successful partnerships that generate ROI through sponsorship.

The winners of the Camden & Islington Business Awards were announced at the awards ceremony in London on Thursday, 1st November 2012.

Are Brand Ambassadors Really Worth It? 25th October, 2012

This month we’ve witnessed an end to one of the longest running and high-profile brand endorsements of all time –Nike’s sponsorship of Lance Armstrong, the shamed cyclist and denounced Livestrong founder. Inevitably there’s been a flurry of media activity since Nike unceremoniously ditched Armstrong; some quarters questioning Nike’s moral integrity (having stood by Woods, Vick and Bryant in the past); others praising the sportswear giant’s knack of only sticking by those with ‘come-back-ability’; and one journalist even going as far to put the drop in Nike’s share price down to the whole debacle.

My questions is – given the recent controversy surrounding  brand ambassadors like Armstrong and John Terry – are these egotistical mega-stars really worth the investment from a sponsor’s perspective?

The answer, in my opinion, lies with the sponsor’s brand values.  As long as the respective sportsman or sportswoman is representing the brand and its values correctly, then there can be little complaint.  For ease, let’s take Nike, whose principal reason for spending almost $800 million dollars per annum on individual endorsements is to associate the Nike Swoosh with the sporting elite; whose success has been achieved through years of hard work, dedication and natural talent.  Essentially, as long as its ambassadors are excelling in their chosen discipline, be that on the pitch, on the golf-course or on the track, they are promoting the Nike brand how they are supposed to.   Tiger Woods cheated on his wife; Michael Vick held pitbull-fights at his home (!?) and Kobe Bryant has a long list of offences that most would agree are far worse than doping, yet none of these wrongdoings directly impacted on their ability to drive a golf ball 350 yards, run a 50 yard touchdown or score 80+ points per game respectively.  For all of their wrongdoings they still represented Nike’s brand values.

In contrast, Armstrong’s doping completely shattered the illusion that he was this super-human machine whose achievements were entirely down to his dedication and intense training. As Laura Ries, an Atlanta-based marketing consultant says, “Nike is about ‘just doing it’ and that doesn’t mean drugs. It means hard work and ethics. And this flew in the face of it.”  Furthermore, his doping charge removed any thought that the clothing and equipment supplied by Nike had any impact on Armstrong’s competitive edge – we have been left with no false impressions as to what gave Lance his competitive advantage.

Whilst Nike will continue to represent the cream of the sporting elite (Rory McIlroy has reportedly been offered a ten-year £15 million per annum deal to replace Armstrong), it’s likely that certain brands will follow Red Bull in focussing on less famous athletes and increasing spend on activation. The energy drink has been hugely successful over the years in getting great market exposure and engagement through lesser known sportsmen and women – whether that be through taking BMXing to the next level, hosting the world cliff-diving championships or throwing the previously unheard of Felix Baumgartner towards earth from space.  Obviously these types of endorsements tend to suit the more extreme brands, but perhaps the Armstrong incident will encourage sponsors to see if their money might be better spent on endorsing the Felix Baumgartner’s of the sporting world, acting as the bridge for success from grass roots level to the pinnacle of their ambassadors’ careers.

Brentford Football Club Appoints Slingshot Sponsorship as Exclusive Sponsorship Agency 23rd October, 2012

Brentford Football Club, home of the Bees, has appointed Slingshot Sponsorship as their exclusive sponsorship agency.

Slingshot Sponsorship’s initial objective will be focused on securing partners for the Club’s prime advertising sites and developing opportunities at the new stadium.  Slingshot will be working alongside the club not only to acquire new commercial partners but also to create more diverse partnerships for the club as a whole with the aim of enhancing the club’s appeal to a younger audience. The team will be moving to their new stadium at Lionel Road in 2016 and are looking to facilitate new brand relationships in the run up to the move.  The new stadium will provide a wealth of opportunities further enhancing the club’s appeal.

Mark Devlin, Chief Executive of Brentford Football Club commented:

The stadium roofs at Griffin Park offer a truly unique advertising or sponsorship opportunity, and we are delighted to appoint Slingshot as our Sponsorship agency. They have a very successful background in creating diverse sponsorship properties which can capitalise on the Brentford brand and our active fan base. Slingshot’s experience and creative skills are exactly what the Club is looking for at this exciting stage of its development.

The team’s ground at Griffin Park in London is directly under the Heathrow flight path and the stadium provides two of the biggest aerial advertising sites in the country which have seen branding in the past from the likes of Qatar Airways, Atari, KLM, EasyJet, Sabena and Ericsson.

Jackie Fast Managing Director of Slingshot Sponsorship commented:

We are thrilled to be working with Brentford Football Club. Slingshot’s partnership with the club is about so much more than sponsorship for the roof and we plan to work alongside the club to create new partnerships and increase Brentford’s appeal to a wider audience. We are delighted that our objectives run parallel to those of the club and are very excited to be part of Brentford FC’s journey into their new stadium and beyond.

Brentford FC’s next game at Griffin Park is Tuesday, October 23rd versus Coventry City.

OLDER POSTS
NEWER POSTS