As Guinness are unveiled as the new 6 Nations title sponsor, we analyse whether this will be an effective sponsorship.

On the surface, this is a great deal for Diageo, if the rights fee reports of £6m are correct. Whilst it is likely that this reduced price will only be applicable for the first year, due to the short lead time until the 2019 Championship begins, this is still a bargain. The Six Nations have been trying to find an RBS replacement for over 2 years. During this time, they have reportedly turned down offers close to three times this value and are having to accept a fee 50% lower than that paid by RBS. However due to market conditions (Brexit and the over valuation of UK sponsorship rights, particularly in rugby), Guinness have negotiated a great deal. Despite this, will it be good for the brand?

Our first observation is that the Loi Evin (the French law prohibiting alcohol advertising) will severely reduce the brand exposure value and activation potential in France. Whilst, Heineken have proven that alcohol brands can overcome this challenge, with their various rugby and football sponsorships, there will be rights wastage. However, you assume, Diageo will have factored this into their planning.

A bigger issue arising from this investment is, do they need to spend this money? The brand has been managed brilliantly over decades to ensure that it is synonymous with the rugby occasion. Guinness is already a sponsor of the RFU, WRU, SRU and IRFU, through which they receive pourage and marketing rights. In addition, it has long been established as the ‘go to’ brand on rugby days through their highly effective rugby activation strategy, refined over many years.

Given Guinness already has stadium pouring rights, significant credibility within the sport and marketing inventory from their existing home union relationships, it is hard to envisage how they could strengthen their association with the sport further. Equally, it is difficult to understand how they will be driving incremental volume off the back of the sponsorship. So how are they going to generate £6m (in the first year, increasing in subsequent years) of incremental revenue off the back of this new sponsorship to justify the spend?

The key question is whether this was a knee jerk reaction to Heineken’s increasing threat in rugby, having recently been restored as title sponsor of the European Champions Cup, or a strategic shift based on cast iron commercial or brand evidence that they are losing ground in rugby to the Dutch brewer. We suspect that the carrot being offered was too cheap and too tempting for Diageo to turn down, therefore their analytical rigour was compromised.

Whilst this new deal is a bargain, it remains to be seen whether Guinness can justify this investment by generating incremental value within a territory they already have the predominant position.

This week Burger King announced a promotion on Russian social media offering women 3 million roubles ($47,000) and a lifetime supply of Whoppers if they get impregnated by footballers competing in the World Cup. This is an horrific own goal both strategically and morally. Burger King has not realised that sponsorship ambush marketing only ever works when it offers a credible, interesting, engaging, insightful and relevant proposition. The Burger King campaign doesn’t tick any of these boxes.

The challenge for brands ambushing big sporting events is that often their primary competitors will have official designations (Nike/adidas, Burger King/McDonalds, Pepsi/Coke), therefore the ambushing brands need to be extremely creative in differentiating to distract consumers attention away from the official sponsor. Burger King has taken a simplistic approach to shock rather than be creative which has backfired on them horrendously. It screams of a brand which is desperate and devoid of ideas by developing such a crass and ill-thought through ‘solution’.

Ambushing major sponsorships is not easy. Not many brands succeed, however few fail this spectacularly. As consumers become more sophisticated in their understanding of marketing and sponsorship policing becomes tighter, ambushing brands need to be more creative in how they cut-through. The few brands who succeed in ambushing either have existing credibility within the territory or have established themselves as being disruptors. Burger King have not achieved either of these two positions. In contrast, Paddy Power, for example, have a long and successful history of creating provocative campaigns and stunts to gain traction around major sports events. Importantly, they differ from Burger King on three key strategic imperatives;

1. Paddy Power get close to the moral line, but they don’t cross it. Whilst the brand image is of a care-free disruptor, they clearly have very strict internal structures which dictate what is acceptable and what is not. Fundamentally their success is driven by genuine creativity rather than laziness. Burger King clearly do not know where the moral line lies.
2. Paddy Power’s activity is positioned to be relevant and acceptable by their target consumers, which is solely adult. Whereas Burger King have exposed a significant number of under 18’s (who over- index in their targeting) to wholly unsuitable messaging.
3. Paddy Power demonstrate a clear understanding of the sport and its fans through the tone and content of their activity. This highlights the shared interest and values between brand and consumers, ultimately generating trust and credibility within the territory. Burger King have only managed to demonstrate a complete lack of World Cup understanding.

Finally, we would question why a brand as big as Burger King does not have a system of filters to ensure the business is safeguarded against such monumental mistakes. However, if it does and this activity received full approval, you have to question the culture that currently resides within the business.

Through this campaign, Burger King has just told its target consumers that they don’t understand football and they are a desperate brand devoid of ideas.

McDonald’s        1             –             0             Burger King

                       Whopper (og)

With the recent announcement of the ECB’s 100 ball tournament, this blog examines the reasons of why they’re looking to invent a new format and the lessons for other sports.

The last time live cricket was available on a free to air broadcast platform was 2005 when Channel 4 lost the rights to Sky. There were grave warnings at the time of the detrimental impact this would have on the sport’s following.

Whilst no one can doubt the broadcast quality of Sky’s offering over the last 13 years, a huge drop in the number of people watching has impacted on the sport. In 2005, an astonishing 8.4 million people watched the fourth test match, whilst this was an exceptional figure due to the excitement of the match/series and was significantly higher than the average test match viewing figure, the contrast with Sky’s average of 500,000 is stark (The Guardian 12^th July 2015). When this is mapped against participation it paints a worrying trend. In 2005, the number of cricketers in England was 380,000, ten years later this number was down by over 100,000, a drop of 26%. When comparing this to 16 to 24-year-olds this number is even more alarming, with a drop of 34% over the same period. (Sport England)

We need to caveat these figures by highlighting that there is a broader societal issue with sports participation in the UK which is not insulated to cricket and cannot solely be blamed on the reduced reach from a subscription broadcaster. However, the rate of decline in cricket is far higher than any other mainstream sport. In addition, we believe that the recent announcement by the ECB, that the planned 100 ball tournament will be positioned to raise awareness and interest of the sport with a new audience televised on BBC, proves that there is a correlation between interest/participation and free to air access.

It’s worth highlighting at this stage that we are assuming the comments made by Andrew Strauss regarding attracting ‘mums and kids’ was a mistake. What he meant (we hope!) was that the ECB want to use the tournament to expose the sport to a new and broader audience. Whilst these ECB comments were ill-thought through and sloppy, this new tournament is based on insights that the next generation of cricketers is not coming through.

At the time that cricket was being removed from terrestrial screens, the ECB gave assurances that the increased finances gained from the enhanced Sky broadcast deal would be used to grow the sport and therefore this would net out with increased numbers involved in the game. This approach has since been proven wrong, as many at the time had warned. Young players want/need to emulate their heroes, if they can’t watch them (or don’t know they exist because they’re hidden behind a paywall), it doesn’t matter how many more local facilities or glossy campaign launches there are, unless the next generation are inspired they are very unlikely to play the sport.

Cricket has been one of the most restricted sports in relation to broadcast reach. Both football and rugby have maintained some terrestrial presence, with even Premiership Rugby recently acknowledging the importance of increasing reach by including a limited number of live terrestrial matches in their Channel 5 broadcast agreement.

Overall, it’s a pertinent lesson for all rights holders. Cricket now seems to have recognised their issue and are making a move to resolve. However, all sports need to take note that without accessibility, the next generation will find something else to engage in, a decision which will lead to serious issues in the decades to come. Whilst we acknowledge that this isn’t a black and white issue, rights holders need to define their objectives. Accepting the highest satellite broadcasters offer may satisfy the short term financial objectives, however long-term this will create a drop in participation and interest, ultimately leading to a far greater fall in revenues.

Blocking kids out by sky-high prices, inaccessible tickets or having their heroes behind prohibitive pay-walls impacts the future of the sport. It doesn’t matter how many new 4G pitches are built or clubhouses re-painted, children need to be inspired and have the desire to emulate Joe Root, Owen Farrell or Harry Kane. Mainstream UK sports are all facing similar challenges. We hope the ECB get this right and demonstrate the way forward for sport in the UK.