Opinion
Assertions
10/20/08: While most of the discussion surrounding the
impact of the current
economic turmoil has focused on the ability to get deals done for ’09, properties should be thinking about the
long-term fallout as well. As we have often pointed out, sponsorship is somewhat
protected from
knee-jerk responses to financial difficulties because of its generally long-term nature. However, that same situation can create a
false sense of security, i.e., just because your sponsor isn’t trying to get out of a current contract doesn’t mean it is committed to renewing the deal when it does expire. This is important to note because many economists are predicting it will take a
long time to climb out of this recession. Sponsors listening to such advice may already be making plans to
restrict spending for 2010, 2011 and beyond.
While others turn to movies, sports or books for a
diversion in these troubled times, we like to spend a few hours immersed in the latest developments in
ambush marketing. And lately there has been much to chew on in that area, most of it coming from the build-up to the
2010 Winter Olympic Games in Vancouver.
First off, we hear the Vancouver
organizing committee has taken the
unprecedented step of
prohibiting its official
suppliers from spending more than
C$5 million to
promote their ties to the Games. From what we understand, placing the Games marks and logos on corporate or brand advertising, or on collateral materials, would not count against the spending limit, but any communications created with an Olympic theme would. The intent is to
limit suppliers such as 3M, Dow, Molson, Nortel, Sun Microsystems and Wrigley from conducting large advertising and marketing campaigns that could lead consumers to believe those companies have made a
bigger commitment to the Games, and, most importantly, from
competing for attention with VANOC’s higher-level supporters and partners, as well as TOP sponsors. Although we
hate to see any marketer’s ability to develop
smart ways to activate curtailed, VANOC’s restriction is the
right thing to do to protect the value of its upper-echelon sponsors and ensure there is an incentive for prospective partners to purchase the more expensive packages. Our
big question is: How does VANOC
enforce this rule? Will suppliers be required to submit an
accounting of their Games-related marketing expenditures? Will a third party be asked to
verify a supplier’s activation spending? What is the
penalty if a supplier goes over the limit? Are its rights
revoked? Stay tuned.
As illustrated by the above limit on activation spending, not to mention its willingness to spend
C$40 million to date purchasing
all outdoor advertising in Vancouver around the dates of the Games and its ability to get
federal anti-ambush laws on the books, VANOC has clearly staked its reputation as a property that has its major partners’ interests at heart. But the
controversy over its decision to not allow international charity
Right to Play–which uses sports to help improve the lives of impoverished children–access to the Athletes Village to recruit Olympians because some of the organization’s sponsors
conflict with Olympic partners was clearly an
over-zealous misstep that
reflected badly on the partners VANOC is trying to protect and who are now
scrambling to find a solution and
avoid backlash.
Jim Andrews