Check out some of our pictures, below, and let us know: did you watch X Games this summer? If you did… did you see the Hot Wheels Double Loop Dare? It’s been getting lots of attention on social media. It was our favorite sponsorship activation by far. The stunt drew huge crowds and follow-up traffic at their X Fest booth. It was a unique and daring way to engage with X Games fans who have a penchant for the unique and daring.

As the world is ramping up for London 2012, savvy marketers everywhere are attempting to find ways to align their brand with the Olympic Games — even though they’re not official sponsors. Ambush marketing is nearly synonymous with the Games, and if any brand is famous for its Olympic ambush schemes, it’s Nike: they’ve perfected the art, from wrapping the 1996 Athens stadium in their “swoosh” to handing out branded merchandise to fans entering Olympic arenas.

But the sportswear brand is doing something completely different for the 2012 Games: instead of attempting to “trick” consumers into thinking Nike is an official sponsor, they’re taking ownership of their non-sponsor status. It’s a first in Olympic ambush marketing… and it’s compelling.

The ad campaign they revealed yesterday pushes a message no ambusher has ever attempted to sell: official doesn’t mean great. You don’t need official equipment to play a great game, you don’t need to be an official Olympic Gold medalist to be a great athlete, and you don’t need to be an official sponsor of the Olympics to be a great brand.

The 60 second ad spot opens with shots of un-famous athletes competing and training in lesser known “Londons” around the world, from Ohio to Nigeria. They’re wincing through sit-ups, throwing perfect pitches, and wrestling their hearts out. During the montage, a (British!) man voices over this message:

“Somehow we’ve come to believe that greatness is only for the chosen few, for the superstars. The truth is, greatness is for us all… Greatness is not in one special place, and it’s not in one special person. Greatness is wherever somebody is trying to find it.”

In the end, they promote #FindGreatness, encouraging athletes everywhere to join in on their conversation.

Only time will tell if it manages to drown out adiadas’ campaign (they paid a cool $60 million for their official sponsor status of London 2012). In any case, it’s a powerful ad, a powerful message — and a very interesting 180 for Olympic ambush marketing.

Check out the ad for yourself here.

The obvious reason: he’s got skills. As the nation’s top-ranked boys player in his age group, Tiafoe has the potential to become the next star in men’s tennis at a time when the game is going through a greatness drought (it’s been almost a decade since a U.S. male won a major).

But Tiafoe didn’t become a rising star in a conventional way. It’s his underdog story that will really attract sponsors and fans.

Tennis is an expensive sport. Those who play at a professional level usually come from privileged backgrounds, allowing them access to top-notch coaches, exclusive tennis clubs, and the best equipment. But Tiafoe wasn’t born with a silver spoon in his mouth. There is no Jr., III attached to his name. If it weren’t for the fact that Tiafoe’s father was employed by the Tennis Center at College Park, a private tennis club in Maryland, Francis may never have had the means or the resources to hone his talent.

Francis’ father was the Tennis Center’s janitor for more than a decade. During that time, he lived on the grounds with Francis and his twin brother, Franklin; the family slept on massage tables in a 120 sq. foot space that became their makeshift home. Mr. Tiafoe earned less than the club’s $27,000 annual membership fee, but because Francis lived on the grounds it was as if he was a member. He had access to the courts, the coaches, and the equipment.

Francis spent much of his early life watching his more privileged peers learn the game. Eventually, he would begin to practice with his brother, early in the morning, before lessons started. He quickly fell in love with tennis. After years of practice, the Tennis Center coaches noticed his talent and took him under their wings. And now he’s winning prestigious international tournaments — Les Petits As 2012, for one.

While Tiafoe’s tennis chops are impressive, it’s his inspiring rags to riches tale that has the potential to grab all Americans, who have always had a soft spot for talented athletes with Cinderella stories.

Wilson and adidas already have endorsement deals in the works. And we’re betting it doesn’t stop there.

Image source.

It’s big news made bigger by the fact that the move comes just days before the House takes up an annual spending bill that includes language intended to prohibit military sponsorship of sports.

The language in that bill is a result of an ongoing effort on the part of Reps. Betty McCollum (D-Minn) and Jack Kingston (R-Ga) to ban the spending of defense dollars on sponsorships (they’ve targeted NASCAR sponsorship in particular). We’ve been following this political initiative with our Sponsor Eye since Rep. McCollum took up the issue in 2010, and subsequently lost a House vote to keep the military out of sport sponsorships in 2011. You can see some of our tweets about it here and here, with links to Wall Street Journal and USA Today pieces.

While we can’t be certain that the bill is the whole reason the Army made its decision to pull out of NASCAR, we have a hunch it played a not-so-insignificant role. In any case, it’s an issue worth our two cents.

Let’s look at the Reps.’ argument: they assert that the approximately $136 million sliver of the defense budget spent on sport sponsorship is wasteful, as it doesn’t garner enough return in recruitment numbers.

Before moving forward, can we take a step back and look at some math?

The 2012 Department of Defense spending budget is around $707 billion (that’s billion with a B). At $136 million allocated for sport sponsorship spending, Reps. McCollum and Kingston are making a big fuss about a %.02 savings. And at only $8.4 million going towards NASCAR sponsorship specifically, it’s an even smaller margin. With government spending at an all-time high, going to battle over such teeny savings seems pretty petty.

Decimal points aside, who are two politicians with absolutely zero background in sponsorship effectiveness to say that military sponsorship of sport — in particular, NASCAR — is ineffective on the grounds that the recruitment numbers aren’t there? The Army has exceeded its recruitment goals every year since it started its relationship with Stewart-Haas Racing. But that’s almost beside the point.

Having been on the inside of researching military sponsorships, we have seen enormous opportunities and in some cases, very strong return on objectives —but maybe the Reps aren’t focusing on the objectives that really matter.

The goal of a sponsorship is never about sales, or recruits, or numbers alone. Putting a  logo on the side of a race car isn’t going to suddenly bring a spike in sales or enlistees. Humans are more complex than that. Sponsorship is more complex than that. The Army’s relationship with NASCAR is — or at least, should be — about building national awareness and an emotional connection with fans, and not necessarily only those fans who are in their target recruit demographic of 17-24 year old males. There are older and younger siblings, parents, teachers, and coaches who love NASCAR, and who influence the life and career decisions of those they’re close to. When the Army builds an emotional connection with NASCAR fans, they’re not only reaching the people who show up at the event. We’d be interested to see if the sponsorship effectiveness report that influenced the Army’s decision took the more emotional side of the partnership into account, and looked at the Return on Relationship that NASCAR sponsorship is best at.

When government officials recently questioned the value of so-called “junk food” sponsors involved with the Olympics we were left thinking the same thing: politicians should stick to legislation, and stay out of making calls on sponsorship.

Image source.

Quick, which of the cereal brands below officially sponsors the Olympic Games?

If you said Wheaties, you’re forgiven — but mistaken.

With a quick glance, it seems as if both of the cereal giants could be sponsors of the Olympic Games. But look closer. The Kellogg’s box has the iconic Olympic rings logo emblazoned on it, along with language (“official sponsor”) that ties them directly to the Games. The Wheaties box? Not so much.

That’s because Kellogg’s is the official cereal brand of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC), and their Corn Flakes box is part of a marketing campaign driving home that official sponsorship to consumers. Wheaties, on the other hand, has no current official relationship with the USOC or the Olympic Games.

The re-release of past Wheaties boxes featuring Olympic champions at such an opportune time — leading right up to the 2012 Summer Games — could be considered ambush marketing, a tactic that can be cause for concern for those official sponsors (like Kellogg’s) who spend millions of dollars on officially associating their brand with the Olympics.

It’s a recurring issue. Olympic season after Olympic season, unofficial “supporters” of the Olympics elbow their way into the top of consumers’ minds as bon-a-fide Olympic sponsors by using ambush marketing tactics.

We conducted research during the 1994 and 1996 Games that lent insight into consumers’ perceptions of official Olympic sponsor brands. Often, ambush sponsors outpaced official sponsors (e.g., ambusher Nike vs. official sponsor Reebok) in terms of sponsor recall and belief that these non-Olympic companies were doing more than many official sponsors to support the Olympics.

More recently, we collected data after the 2010 Vancouver Games and found that ambush sponsorship marketing was still alive and well. In particular, Subway, who used Michael Phelps in a campaign leading up to the 2010 Games, was strongly associated with the Olympics that year even though they weren’t officially sponsoring the Games. So was Verizon, who used the U.S. Speed Skating team in ads surrounding Vancouver but had no official partnership in 2010. Full details of that report can be found here.

The topic raises a lot of questions: is spending big bucks on official Olympic sponsorship worth it? Is it ethical to lead consumers to believe your brand is associated with the Games when there is no official sponsor relationship there? We welcome your comments on this one.

Also, a challenge: keep your eyes out for all of the official and not-so-official Olympic campaigns going on this month.  Send us your pics, we’d love to see what you uncover.

Just as we’ve done since the 1992 games, we’re planning to conduct similar research for the 2014 Olympic Games.  As always, don’t hesitate to send us a message or ask us questions if you want to learn more about what we’re up to.

For decades the USOC has received the biggest slice of the Olympic dollars paid by corporate sponsors and U.S. television networks, an arrangement the rest of the Olympic community has resented, and, in turn, one that has contributed to keeping the Olympics out of the U.S. in past years. The new deal, which will begin in 2020, mends this rocky relationship by reducing USOC shares of The Olympic Partner Program (TOP) sponsorship revenues and U.S. television rights. The USOC has also agreed to contribute to the IOC’s administrative costs.

Without a Games held in the U.S. since the 2002 Winter Games, the U.S. could be in the Olympic spotlight again in the near future. As the majority of TOP sponsors come from US corporations — Procter & Gamble, McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, General Electric, Dow Chemical Company, and VISA, to name just a few — this should be considered good news for future olympic sponsorship campaigns.

Should properties only accept sponsors whose brand images align exactly with their values? Last week, the London Assembly gave their answer: when it comes to the Olympics, absolutely.

At their most recent meeting, the governmental body called for a ban on Olympic “junk food” sponsors — McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Cadbury, and Heineken were called out specifically — citing concern that food and drink sponsors who produce high calorie or perceived unhealthy food and drink products undermine the values of the Olympic Games, and could contribute to the growing problem of obesity in the UK.

While the London Assembly might have their hearts in the right place, we think they need a super-sized serving of perspective.

First, let’s talk dollars and cents (or pounds and pence). According to a study conducted by official Olympic sponsor Visa, the UK will receive a huge economic stimulus from the Games worth an estimated £5.33 billion — a number that could have been significantly lower without the sponsorship dollars paid by McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, Cadbury, and Heineken, who all contribute to the Olympic Committee’s ability to make the Games a success. The boost the Games and its sponsors contribute to the UK economy far outweigh the possibility that their ties to the Games might persuade Brits to reach for some fries or a soda. We’re surprised that a governmental organization doesn’t get that.

And frankly, we don’t buy that companies like McDonald’s and Coca-Cola, who have received the most flack from critics, don’t exhibit values that align with many Olympic ideals. The notion that McDonald’s is nothing but a coronary-inducing beef patty and french fry slinger is an antiquated one. The global restaurant chain has made serious strides in offering up healthy options on their menu. More nutritious items — grilled chicken, entree salads, fruit sides, and low-fat dairy snacks — have been a big part of McDonald’s ability to succeed in the modern marketplace, and to some extent, may even have been inspired by McDonald’s early days of serving athletes at the Olympic  village. Those options will all be available for sale at the Games.

And Coca-Cola expects that over 75% of the drinks it sells at the Olympic Games will be water (Schweppes Abbey Well Water is a Coca-Cola brand and is the official water of the Games), juice, or sugar-free beverages. Again, the idea that Coca-Cola only produces syrupy fizzy soft drinks is misinformed.

The food service giant and beverage behemoth are also showing that they value the Olympic ideals of athleticism, unity, and excellence with Games-themed initiatives aimed at boosting physical activity. McDonald’s plans on giving away 9 million activity toys with their happy meals during the Olympic Games; Coca-Cola sponsored a “free swim” program in the UK in conjunction with their sponsorship.

And therein lies the real takeaway: McDonald’s and Coca-Cola know that an Olympic sponsorship is the perfect opportunity to drive home the fact that their brands can be part of an athletic lifestyle, and that as corporations they value the spirit of the Olympic games. Sponsorship isn’t always about brands selling the masses more burgers, sneakers, or car insurance.

Bottom line?: we think the London Assembly should leave sponsorship to the experts.

Oh, and London Assembly! It looks like Mayor Johnson agrees with us: Click here to watch a video clip of Boris Johnson inviting Americans to come to London to drink “fizzy drinks.” 

Case in point: recently, we headed to our local Home Depot to pick up our spring yard work supplies and found a branded photo station, a Home Depot mascot (his name was Homer), and customers and employees dancing together to a live DJ in the sunny parking lot.

Watch a short video of the Home Depot experience here: http://youtu.be/s0DpLaSHisw

Home Depot has ties to NASCAR, ESPN, and, until recently, the USOC and the Olympic games, along with a slew of national sports arenas. National exposure is important, but Home Depot corporate — or maybe just the local store manager — understands that interacting with customers on a more local level is valuable, too. It might not have been a NASCAR event, but around here the first warm spring day is reason enough to celebrate and engage with customers. Everyone looked like they were having a great time, and customers no doubt left their shopping experience that day with a better outlook on the Home Depot brand.

It’s great to have a presence at big-ticket events, but this kind of community engagement can do wonders for the public’s perception of a brand. Our hats are off, Home Depot.

You’ve probably spotted them at a sporting event or outdoor concert — inviting, branded, roped-off VIP areas that are more often than not guarded by security personnel. It may seem like a move that makes a brand seem special or exclusive, but to us it reads as alienating and exclusionary.

Picture this: It’s a warm summer day, you’re parched, and you see an air-conditioned VIP area sponsored by a national brand you know and love, and maybe even have a relationship with — they have refreshments in there! You walk up to the door ready to sing this brand’s praises for being a part of your event experience, only to be turned away by an intimidating guard. “VIP only, you’re not allowed in here.”

We watched a similar situation unfold recently at the Volvo Ocean Race sponsor village in Miami, where The Santander Group, a Spanish banking collective with international operations, had a guard posted to their VIP area all day. It seemed like his only job was to tell people (potential customers) how unimportant they are to Santander.

We didn’t know that much about Santander at the time, but we walked away from that scene not liking them. And by the chatter we heard from other non-VIP’ers around the area, most attendees shared our distain. Where is the value in that? VIP relations can be an important facet of a marketing strategy, but it doesn’t have to be at the expense of good public relations. There are creative ways brands can execute VIP relations without alienating potential customers. We’re left wondering: why is Santander being so closed minded and frankly, just lazy?

Lacrosse fans seemed to be having a blast at all of the different fan areas and activations. It was one of the more diverse fan zones we’ve seen, with live music, a DJ, activations (AT&T, Allstate, Capital One, Buick, Powerade, and Reese’s, among others, all had exhibits), licensed merchandise vendors, and segregated Fan Fest areas, where fans of each participating team could meet and mingle. 

Check out some pictures we snapped throughout the weekend below, and head over to our Flickr page to see more of our photos from past events: http://www.flickr.com/photos/sponsoreye/. And if you hadn’t heard, Loyola came out on top!