The FIFA World Cup is one of the greatest and most important opportunities for brands to gain awareness, profile and hopefully – interest! With over 700 million people watching around the globe, which brands ‘won’ and which brands ‘lost’ from this opportunity is a subject that merits a blogpost. It also begs the questions – does this event and sponsorship marketing opportunity translate into commercial brand preferences or purchase intent? How does it provide a platform for brand marketing and sponsorship that translates into positive brand awareness, preference and choice? Finally, what influence does the World Cup have on socio-cultural norms or attitudes (or vice versa) as a global audience watches, follows and then shares in a discussion via social media channels?
This year, the official ‘host’ nation is Brazil and the theme ‘All in one rhythm’ was meant to capture the spirit of the competition, the sponsors and the country. But, how ‘in rhythm’ or ‘on brand’ were many of the brands in connecting with the global audiences?
Officially speaking the official sponsors of the World Cup 2014 are segmented into different types and categories of sponsorship designed by FIFA to maximize commercial revenue, and to allow for exclusive associations and exploitation by the sponsors. The rights are defined by geography, category, channel and broadcast parameters and are governed by legal protocols that are linked to intellectual property and copyright laws. This includes ‘official’ descriptors and demarcation that extend and are linked to the use of FIFA’s proprietary logos, marks, endorsements and language of association. The use of TM marks around logotypes and endorsement slogans is closely monitored and managed against the commercial contracts that brand owners sign. Similarly, the management of official partnership and association with FIFA and the World Cup is a critical part of FIFA revenues for the term FIFA World Cup and its trademarks and copyrights extend to both the host nation, companies and their brands that pay for the privilege of ‘official’ status. In this year’s World Cup, Brazil was awarded the host nation role, and the Official FIFA partner firms and brands were Adidas, Kia Motors, Sony, Visa, Emirates and Coca Cola. The Presenting Partners were EA Sports and PlayStation. McDonald’s was awarded an exclusive sponsorship of the FIFA Fantasy Football competition and App. These firms were thus accorded preferential placement of their names and logos on key media channels and assets including the most visible elements for broadcast, the perimeter board hoardings and commercial advertising endorsements. Therefore, if any brands were to have an advantage commercially for awareness and profile, it would be those that ‘officially’ have the right to ‘speak and associate’ themselves with the FIFA World Cup. However, the event itself provides a huge marketing opportunity for all brands as the occasion and interest is almost too great to miss regardless of whether or not a national team is ‘in’ or ‘out’ of the competition. In over 200 countries and broadcast across 700 media channels – only the Olympics provides a greater opportunity in one condensed period to capture a global audience.
So, what brands ‘won’ and which ones ‘lost’?
THE WINNERS:
1. Brand Brazil
As stated in my previous blog – Brand Brazil is the clear winner from a country brand perspective, despite their humiliating defeat to Germany, (see Br7il Sti1 Wins blog for details and my rationale). Never before has the world seen so much blue, green and yellow nor danced samba more often while whistling a subtle samba tune!
2. Luiz Suarez
Yes, believe it or not – Uruguay’s most famous (or infamous?) Nosferatu really did benefit from this event. His performance on the pitch was exceptional until ‘the bite’ after which his performance and eventual contrition left a bad taste in everyone’s mouth (sorry – couldn’t resist!). However, the accidentally prescient Adidas poster of Suarez became the ‘hit’ meme sensation of the internet as fans and detractors alike sought to ‘selfie’ themselves with his ‘bite’! An instant viral hit – the ‘bite’ meme – created global awareness. So much so, that his transfer fee (currently being negotiated at the moment between Liverpool and potentially several clubs in Europe) has not been significantly affected. No one likes a story of failure and redemption better than brands, and Suarez the footballer vs. Suarez the human will be a story of triumph. Some sponsors may have deserted him (we’ll see for how long?), but his wages seem unaffected and he will continue to be a hero in Uruguay.
3. FIFA
Yes, believe it or not, FIFA who only a few months ago were primarily fighting for their reputation based upon issues of bribery and vote-rigging in the decision to award Qatar the 2022 World Cup today as the 2014 competition nears a finale can be reassured that Brazil 2014 was a success. Not only was the football riveting to watch, the stadiums and organizational logistics were delivered perfectly. Their slogan, ‘For the Game. For the World’ actually seemed to make sense for once. And, FIFA took decisive actions to make the tough calls on measures against Suarez, on implementing new technology (Vanishing Foam line biodegradeable spray by Aero Comex Futline and goal-line technology) and ensuring the message about being opposed to racism in football was reinforced before every match (#saynotoracism). With $2.6 billion in revenues at stake – the organization certainly brought global football to a new level and managed to even awaken interest in the United States.
4. Adidas
The ‘official’ sponsor of the FIFA World Cup since 1970, and as the provider of the Brazuka (the official football itself), the Adidas logo has always been a presence in the game. In 2014, the black and white approach to their #allinornothing campaign was consistent (if not a bit abstract?), and a platform for the launch of their boots (adizero F50, nitrocharge and battlepack 11pro and predator). However, as the world’s largest football merchandiser (representing with Nike 70% of all sportswear merchandise globally and $20bn in sales value vs Nike $25bn), Adidas was never going to ignore the importance of the FIFA World Cup as its premier marketing occasion. Sponsoring 9 competitor teams (Argentina, Germany, Spain, Russia, Nigeria, Mexico, Japan, Colombia and Bosnia-Herzegovnia), plus the core referee kit – Adidas is and has been the primary brand of the tournament. Though Nike and Puma have ambitions to usurp the Adidas position, 2014 continued to see Adidas trump them in terms of overall profile and activation in traditional marketing. With two of the four semi-final teams in its stable, Germany and Argentina (now Germany in the final), and a continuing FIFA association until 2030 agreed, Adidas is still winning.
5. Hublot
Luxury Swiss Watch maker, pronounced ‘oo-blo’, is the official timekeeper for the tournament and scored a success with the first specially re-designed referee board (for timekeeping) in the shape of a watch. Introducing for the first time, an element of brand design and product reference to what has traditionally always been a boring black digital board. Congrats Hublot – never heard of you before, but now I think innovative timekeeping. The ‘Hublot loves football’ content on the website is interesting too with special edition watches on offer, though at a price range that is rather steep!
But, what other Brands had a presence?
Let me first say, the digital perimeter board advertising certainly attracted attention and for the first time consisted of more than just the ‘familiar suspects’ of global sporting competition advertising. Even as annoying it is for a true fan, the dynamic hoardings are ‘win or lose’ opportunities for brands to gain exposure. For example, brands such as Apex-Brasil (promoting Brazil’s trade and investment) was good for the nation’s esteem although the English grammar on their international website copy did make me question whether or not they should have partnered with WiseUp.com, a Brazilian English Language school and service who advertised on the same hoardings. There were some other familiar Brazilian brands (Itau – Banking, Oi – telecoms, Liberty Seguros (Insurance), Garoto (Biscuits), Centauro (retailers) and Brahma (Beer) who for the first time may have been exposed to a global audience. There were also some surprising brands such as Listerine (Maybe Suarez could be their spokes-bite-person?), Moy Park and Marfrig (the largest meat and poultry brands) and Johnson & Johnson – all going for the umbrella approach to being associated with an event their products have no natural association with, apart from the cost and value to advertising. Yingli Solar was noted as the first ‘solar’ energy company to sponsor World Cup advertising.
The usual suspects of official partners more than made up a degree of brand ‘safety in numbers and names’ argument for many marketing directors globally. These being Visa, McDonalds, Powerade, Coca Cola, Castrol, Emirates, Continental and Kia Motors.
The Losers:
The brands that were ‘sub-optimal’ in their presence and performance were those that either failed to capitalize on their opportunity, or just failed to ‘connect’ their brand with the global audience.
1.Sony
Of the official sponsors, Sony stood out as a brand that didn’t quite hit the mark with their link between products, experience and sponsorship. The Sony ‘official partner’ status seemed to be lost amongst the ‘noise’ and only in print ads was it clear that the Xperia was the official smartphone and accessory of the FIFA World Cup. Their slogan, ‘Be Moved’ and ‘See More Detail’ and ‘4K’ on perimeter ads along with the #onestadium were all disconnected and promotions involving ‘selfies’ and ‘snapshots’ all a bit contrived. In all cases, when you try to mix corporate branding, event branding and product branding, it calls into question who the target audience is and what outcome you are looking for as a sponsor. In Sony’s case – I am not sure what that objective was?
2. McDonalds
The arches were there and ‘I’m lovin’ it’ but apart from that, do we really see a connection between the global burger chain and football? Well, if you went on to their Gol.mcd.com you would immediately understand this to be the perfect global occasion to link French Fries with an App. #Fryfutbol in which you turn boxes of French fries into – I’m not so sure. You lost me at the App stage. Their official Fantasy Football team link from the FIFA website intrigued me but again, not sure I really cared enough to play. Why not just watch the event? Ok, I am not the target audience and it seems a perfectly straightforward ‘product sales play’ for the digital natives. However, I have to say I expected more from McDonalds. Perhaps more of what Coca Cola was doing with their higher purpose driven ‘Happiness’ approach to engagement. In the UK, the Subway Ads featuring Daniel Sturridge seemed just as disingenuous and disconnected between brand and event. I am still lovin’ McDonalds and their fries but not sure they ‘hit the spot’ in this World Cup.
3. Cristiano Ronaldo
Apart from the fact that Portugal went out at the group stages, Ronaldo’s star didn’t seem to shine at this World Cup. Ok, he did get exposure in the United States thanks to the Portugal v USA match that held the attention of a nation of baseball fans, but I am not sure it will translate into sales of his CR7 range of underpants anywhere in the world. However, this does not take anything away from Ronaldo’s sporting prowess. Sadly, for him and the Portuguese team the brand didn’t live up to performance expectations.
4. BBC vs ITV
In the UK only, the BBC coverage of the event was less than stellar. Only Gary Lineker conveyed any passion or knowledge of the teams, the matches and the passion that was on display. Their rival broadcaster, ITV not only ‘won’ with a better panel of commentators, but their ‘studio’ at Copacabana beach was well designed, ‘on theme’ and their advertising signature tune was annoyingly memorable compared to the BBC. (Thanks to ITV – I now sing ‘Brassseal, Brassseal with a Samba lilt). Sorry, on this occasion the BBC’s institutional and ‘auntie’ nature was on display and lacked any of the zest of the matches or host country.
5. Nike
Adidas wins, or Nike loses? I am not sure in this global battle between two nemesis brands. Nike’s #riskeverything was more guerilla, and evident around the cities of the world. After all, they are not the ‘official’ sports goods clothing partner. However, this World Cup it seemed to fall short of the mark. High on social media and Facebook, but low on actual engagement, I think Nike considered it a win enough to be on the shirts and boots of key teams and players. (A total of 10 teams, and two of the semi-finalists: Brazil and Holland). The ubiquitous swoosh is part and parcel of key athlete sponsorship and competitive associations around ‘winning’ and ‘just doing it’! The key challenger to Nike is Puma and their challenge in Africa to recruit teams and athletes to the brand’s cause. A minnow by comparison to Nike and Adidas, it seems Puma has somehow had a greater effect on Nike’s fortunes with its more street cred and fashion approach that cuts directly to Nike’s core audience, more so than Adidas’ more technical sporting territory.
Alongside of the Olympics and the Champions League, the FIFA World Cup is a chance for brands to engage with consumers globally. Whether country brands, commercial product brands, services or athletes who want to create and ‘be’ brands – the showcase is the same and FIFA controls access and exploitation officially. However, the global association and opportunity of the occasion was exploited by many other brands and categories of goods. I encourage readers to share their best of the World Cup sponsorship and marketing with us at FutureBrand by tweeting us on @futurebrand #worldcupbranding!
So, to answer the questions posed at the start, does this event translate into purchase intent? Not directly from just awareness, but when tied to activation and incentives it increases likelihood of purchase. How does the World Cup provide a marketing platform? At best, brands create a platform by directly creating an opportunity both officially and un-officially to use the occasion of the event to connect with consumers and viewers worldwide. However, the degree of success of connecting is related to the brand’s relevance, affinity and ability to create a narrative and strategy that leverages the brand’s own unique attributes with a compelling consumer benefit. What influence does the World Cup have on socio-cultural norms or attitudes? The World Cup marketing has the power to influence and challenge perceptions (as indicated by FIFA’s #saynotoracism campaign). By using viral social media and responding to events in real time, brands can ride the wave of a meme or topic (as indicated by the Suarez ‘bite’ incident and viral hijack of his image) to create social bonding, buzz factor and content sharing.
Whatever team wins this year – it has been a great tournament and as a commercial event, understanding and watching to see what and how Brands perform is something to always be interested in!
