Posts Tagged ‘sports marketing’

I remember when…

Friday, May 27th, 2011

I used to be a big NHL hockey fan, so much so that I proposed a sports advertising sponsorship to one of my former employers, making us a pioneer in rink board, in-ice and arena advertising/sponsorship for NHL hockey teams in Canada back in the early/mid-90’s.  The proposal was accepted, and over a few years we were in all NHL arenas across Canada. 

Europe had been doing it for a while, but Canada was treading carefully into this new territory, trying to be tasteful and not distracting to players, or the game.  There were very few rink board positions available, and limited other options for additional advertising to “own” the arena.  We used to joke about what else could be branded or covered in advertising, not knowing that this would eventually materialize! 

Fast-forward to today, as I watch the Stanley Cup Playoffs and see about double the number of rink board ads, more in-ice advertising, and pretty much every imaginable inch of “real estate” in hockey arenas now covered in advertising, including new properties being created in order to allow for more advertising by sponsors.  So much for not being distracting to the players or the game!  

I guess it was inevitable that this would happen?!?  Sponsors want more exposure to justify their investments and promote their brands (especially amidst all the clutter that has resulted).  And arenas are looking for additional ways to commercialize their properties and make money to add to their bottom lines.  Money talks!  And times do change. 

Could we have predicted this?  What will things look like another 20 years from now?  Will we be saying “I remember when…”?

Doing the right thing in reputation management

Friday, May 20th, 2011

This is going to be one of those “rant on a soapbox” blogs because, as a runner, this week’s topic is very close to my heart.  A recent finish line fiasco at the Mississauga Marathon struck me as a really bad case of “not getting it” when it comes to brand and reputation management – or simply doing the right thing. In an earlier post on this topic, entitled “Corporate mea culpa at its best“, I commented that companies and brands that take accountability and apologize for mistakes publicly earn the greatest respect from their customers and are most likely to have the happiest and most loyal customers.  In many ways, it’s also one of the basics in crisis management/communications, and there certainly is a crisis brewing around this based on what I’m hearing and seeing in the running community!

In a nutshell, what happened in the Mississauga Marathon is that the two lead runners – at least one of which was on track to break the course record – were led off-course by the lead cyclist (whose job is to know the course and guide the runners to stay on-course) and then subsequently disqualified, even though it wasn’t their fault. Some might argue that it’s the runner’s responsibility to know the course, but when you’re the lead runner(s) you’re focusing on the lead cyclist to guide you…correctly. Not only was “winning” at stake, but prize money associated with placing – and prize money for breaking the course record. (And of course the principle of the matter.) The easy fix?

  1. an admission of error and accountability on the part of the organizers (and the lead cyclist who led these runners astray)
  2. making things right by splitting the prize money pool amongst the “winners”, including those who were disqualified

The race organizers have been slow to react, if at all, which is even more surprising given all the controversy in Toronto over competing marathons which are cannibalizing each other and vying for participants (this year’s Mississauga Marathon saw its numbers down to 10,000 from 14,000 last year because it was run the same day as the GoodLife Fitness Toronto Marathon, which had moved from the Fall where it was competing with another Toronto marathon, the Scotiabank Waterfront Toronto Marathon). You’d think that given this scenario, the Mississauga Marathon organizers would be particularly keen to do the right thing and protect their brand – their reputation – and thereby attract participants (especially since it’s the newer of the two).

Interestingly, we’re not talking about huge sums of money because the prize pool was $1,750 for the top 3 finishers, with an additional $2,500 for breaking the record, totalling just over $4,000. The right thing to do, since it wasn’t the fault of the runners (but the race organizers), would be to take the total prize pool and divvy it up between the top 4 (or even 5) finishers so that everyone is happy – and many runners seem to agree. It’s the principle, if anything, and surely the race can afford it as there were over 10,000 racers. But the organizers just don’t seem to get it. Maybe they just have their principles wrong? But they also have a brand to protect…have they forgotten about that? Being very short-sighted (or stubborn), and focusing on the wrong principles could come back to haunt them. Where’s Mayor Hazel McCallion in all of this, as it’s her “Mississauga” brand we’re talking about?!?

Perhaps without a major named sponsor there was less pressure to protect the brand by doing the right thing?  It will certainly be interesting to see if the running community – which is quite vocal – will vote with their feet next year, and choose a marathon other than the Mississauga Marathon, meaning participant numbers will drop even further. One thing’s for sure, elite runners may think twice about which marathon they run – or don’t run – next year!

What do you think? Did race organizers do the right thing – by the runners and the race (the brand)? Will the Mississauga Marathon – and its brand – suffer in the long run?

Steve Nash’s bold endorsement move

Friday, February 25th, 2011

In October 2009 I blogged in support of basketball star Steve Nash’s approach to endorsements and sponsorships.  In “Benevolent Branding” I reflected on how wonderful it was that his strategic approach to sponsorships and endorsements meant that he would not lend his name to a product unless that company or brand is willing to support charities (like his own Foundation).  I thought that this was a very powerful way to build a brand, while also supporting the concept of “giving back”. 

Fast forward to January 2011 with the shocking announcement that Nash planned to leave his 15-year sponsorship/endorsement relationship with Nike for Chinese brand Luyou.  It certainly signals he’s a business man at heart, and that he’s willing to make bold moves!  

Imagine leaving a global powerhouse brand Nike?!?!?  Perhaps it’s a sign of the times that a Chinese brand can be seen as having more power and potential in the global market.  I guess time will tell whether it’s the right move to effectively capitalize on the global market. 

I have to wonder what the “philanthropic” tie is with this move and the Luyou brand, presuming Steve Nash is at least sticking to his strategy of only endorsing companies or brands if they are in turn willing to support charities.  We may never know.  What we do know is that he’s all about the brand, and in the end making money!

What do you think about the move to ditch well-known Nike?  Will it backfire or is it just the beginning of a trend?