Betfair announced on Friday they were hoping to create the world's first commercial goal celebration, offering Premiership footballers £10,000 to the first one to "do the TaiKai". Doing the TaiKai involves breaking into a martial arts inspired dance that is going to be central to to Betfairs upcoming advertising. This is a groundbreaking tactic that was met with scorn by the FA, advising referees to caution any player that took part in the celebration, but could this lead to the opening of a new domain of sports marketing?
In the middle of a Test match last summer, England cricketer Alistair Cook was caught on the stump mic mentioning the series sponsor NPower. He returned to his dressing room to find a bottle of champagne waiting for him. The England wicketkeeper Matty Prior then famously tested how effective this stealth marketing was by repeatedley saying "Porsche Carrera" with tongue planted firmly in cheek.
Will this tactic take off and what are the potential implications for PR's working in sport and the fans of the sports themselves? Plugging products is an accepted part of much of popular culture, from product placement in Bond films to the eventual return of A-Listers on Jonathan Ross' sofa. But how will we react to being ambushed with marketing communication when we aren't expecting it? Is this going to make us more susceptible to the message we are being hit round the head with, or will we reject it on mass as not playing by the rules?
Sunday 23 November 2008
Tuesday 18 November 2008
When I grow up, I want to be.....an addict , an inmate or a divorcee
This post was requested by a friend of mine, who as a police officer has witnessed first-hand the rise of anti-social behaviour in today's society. In an attempt to rein back sporting content, I am going to widen out his subject from Premiership footballers to celebrities in general. Essientially, he believes that the rise of anti-social behaviour in today's youth can, in part at least, be attributed to the chequered lifestyles that the main protagonists in our popular culture lead.
Take first the example of the national game, football. The FA launched its much heralded "Respect" in September 2008, aimed at bettering the relationship between the multi-millionairre stars and officialdom. However this week alone has seen an international footballer banned for throwing a coin into the crowd, 2 managers fined for insulting referees and a player fined for offering a gesture of support to a former team-mate jailed for causing the death of 2 young boys through drink driving.
With role models such as these is it any wonder that young lads fly in the face of authority, why should they obey their teachers, guardians and parents when the England captain had such a flagrant disregard for basic social conventions.
Yet football is not alone. In our celebrity- obsessed culture, whatever your means of escapism may be, you can be sure that the most controversial exponent of the art will attract the column inches and thus become the likliest destination for a teenager's adulation. Take pop music, Amy Winehouse is by far the most talked about female singer of the past two years, as much for her spouse's bail-dodging and her narcotic dabbling as any tune that has been released. Winehouse's brand of "heroin chic" has superseeded anything that a Leona Lewis or a Katie Melua would be able to sustain. This "heroin chic" that has had a renaissance from the early 90's even found it's way to mainstream marketing with Topshop's frankly disturbing recent campaign.
Indeed, the Lewis' and Melua's are often unfairly tarred as "boring" interviewees as they don't have a spell in rehab or a bitter divorce to talk about.
Steve Morrison, a London headteacher wrote an article in the Guardian last week suggesting that teenagers are beginning to look closer to home in the search of a role model.
Community involvement programmes can help this immeasurably and shows like Dragons Den and to a lesser extent the X Factor can cultivate a healthier level of aspirationsalism amongst today's youth. Perhaps one of the hidden blessings of reality TV is that it can empower youngsters into believing that they can achieve their dreams as themselves, as opposed to looking to replicate the behaviour of their questionable idols that they see splashed across Match of the Day and Heat magazine.
Take first the example of the national game, football. The FA launched its much heralded "Respect" in September 2008, aimed at bettering the relationship between the multi-millionairre stars and officialdom. However this week alone has seen an international footballer banned for throwing a coin into the crowd, 2 managers fined for insulting referees and a player fined for offering a gesture of support to a former team-mate jailed for causing the death of 2 young boys through drink driving.
With role models such as these is it any wonder that young lads fly in the face of authority, why should they obey their teachers, guardians and parents when the England captain had such a flagrant disregard for basic social conventions.
Yet football is not alone. In our celebrity- obsessed culture, whatever your means of escapism may be, you can be sure that the most controversial exponent of the art will attract the column inches and thus become the likliest destination for a teenager's adulation. Take pop music, Amy Winehouse is by far the most talked about female singer of the past two years, as much for her spouse's bail-dodging and her narcotic dabbling as any tune that has been released. Winehouse's brand of "heroin chic" has superseeded anything that a Leona Lewis or a Katie Melua would be able to sustain. This "heroin chic" that has had a renaissance from the early 90's even found it's way to mainstream marketing with Topshop's frankly disturbing recent campaign.
Indeed, the Lewis' and Melua's are often unfairly tarred as "boring" interviewees as they don't have a spell in rehab or a bitter divorce to talk about.
Steve Morrison, a London headteacher wrote an article in the Guardian last week suggesting that teenagers are beginning to look closer to home in the search of a role model.
Community involvement programmes can help this immeasurably and shows like Dragons Den and to a lesser extent the X Factor can cultivate a healthier level of aspirationsalism amongst today's youth. Perhaps one of the hidden blessings of reality TV is that it can empower youngsters into believing that they can achieve their dreams as themselves, as opposed to looking to replicate the behaviour of their questionable idols that they see splashed across Match of the Day and Heat magazine.
Friday 14 November 2008
Andy Murray, not bad for a Scot is he?
Andy Murray defeated Roger Federer, arguably the greatest player to ever pick up a raquet in the Tennis Masters in Shanghai today, yet if you listen to some the jury is still out on the player and the man.
Murray has had his most successful season to date, reaching his first Grand Slam final at the US Open in New York and winning back to back Masters Series, yet he still struggles to receive the popular, mainstream acclaim of say somebody like Tim Henman, who was never the player that Murray already is.
There are two main reasons for this I believe. A.....Andy Murray is Scottish and proud of it. Murray is a tennis player first and foremost, he's not the type to obsess about his media image or whore himself to satisy his sponsors.He is clearly uncomfortable with the pyrotechnic laden, compere driven circus that the Davis Cup has descended into, which is refreshing in an age where sports stars cash in on their success so readily. Although Murray is winning over the mainstream tabloid press, for far too long the London-centric sporting tabloid press perpetuated the idea of "he's British when he wins, Scottish when he loses".
The second reason is that Murray is a WINNER. He might be surly, temperamental but above all he is a young man with an unwavering focus on where he wants to be, and where he's looking increasingly like ending up, world no.1. For far too long, the British/Scottish/English media (delete as applicable according to political orientation) have celebrated the model of the gallant sporting loser. England were brave to take and miss penalties, Tiger Tim would win Wimbledon one day etc. Andy Murray goes against this grain, and even the grain of being a tennis player. He's a kid who witnessed the Dunblane school massacre and who moved to Barcelona at 15 to develop his game such was his desire. Can't quite imagine "Tiger" Tim leaving Mummy and Daddy in leafy Surrey to do that can you?
The tide is turning and people are strating to warm to Murray and not before time. Indeed its been said that the turning point was Murray coming back from 2 sets down this summer against Richard Gasquet and winning through to his first quarter final in a match that ended at 9.30pm on summer evening in July. The first two sets were comfortably the worst Murray has played at Wimbledon, before he pulled it back round.
Isn't it ironic that the British public only started truly supporting a winner after he had done an impression of the gallant loser that they have been used to over the previous decade. Do you think we are too forgiving of the gallant loser? Look at the England's Ashes winning cricketers, years of gallant losing punctuated by the euphoria of the summer of 2005, instantly shot down with a series defeat in Pakistan. What can Lewis Hamilton expect if he doesn't win the F1 championship again next year? What is it about us and our sporting media that is infinitely more comfortable with brave failure as opposed to earned success?
B.....
Murray has had his most successful season to date, reaching his first Grand Slam final at the US Open in New York and winning back to back Masters Series, yet he still struggles to receive the popular, mainstream acclaim of say somebody like Tim Henman, who was never the player that Murray already is.
There are two main reasons for this I believe. A.....Andy Murray is Scottish and proud of it. Murray is a tennis player first and foremost, he's not the type to obsess about his media image or whore himself to satisy his sponsors.He is clearly uncomfortable with the pyrotechnic laden, compere driven circus that the Davis Cup has descended into, which is refreshing in an age where sports stars cash in on their success so readily. Although Murray is winning over the mainstream tabloid press, for far too long the London-centric sporting tabloid press perpetuated the idea of "he's British when he wins, Scottish when he loses".
The second reason is that Murray is a WINNER. He might be surly, temperamental but above all he is a young man with an unwavering focus on where he wants to be, and where he's looking increasingly like ending up, world no.1. For far too long, the British/Scottish/English media (delete as applicable according to political orientation) have celebrated the model of the gallant sporting loser. England were brave to take and miss penalties, Tiger Tim would win Wimbledon one day etc. Andy Murray goes against this grain, and even the grain of being a tennis player. He's a kid who witnessed the Dunblane school massacre and who moved to Barcelona at 15 to develop his game such was his desire. Can't quite imagine "Tiger" Tim leaving Mummy and Daddy in leafy Surrey to do that can you?
The tide is turning and people are strating to warm to Murray and not before time. Indeed its been said that the turning point was Murray coming back from 2 sets down this summer against Richard Gasquet and winning through to his first quarter final in a match that ended at 9.30pm on summer evening in July. The first two sets were comfortably the worst Murray has played at Wimbledon, before he pulled it back round.
Isn't it ironic that the British public only started truly supporting a winner after he had done an impression of the gallant loser that they have been used to over the previous decade. Do you think we are too forgiving of the gallant loser? Look at the England's Ashes winning cricketers, years of gallant losing punctuated by the euphoria of the summer of 2005, instantly shot down with a series defeat in Pakistan. What can Lewis Hamilton expect if he doesn't win the F1 championship again next year? What is it about us and our sporting media that is infinitely more comfortable with brave failure as opposed to earned success?
B.....
Thursday 13 November 2008
BA in Computing? Would you like fries with that?
I often wonder how long it will take to get to this. Having returned to university after a near enough 18 month absence, I was staggered to see how campus based marketing has clicked through the gears. Indeed, the central canteen/recreation area is beginning to resemble the main strip in Faliraki as opposed to an area where academics can give their grey matter a well-deserved rest. Virgin Media, hotpant sporting promotional girls, even Kingsmill were pushing their brand last week. It's always been there I know and maybe I embraced it as a fresher, but now as a cynical fourth year I'm not so forgiving. However, beneath what is increasingly looking like a rant, I'm trying to make a valid point.
Where will this marketing activity end? Surely we as students sign up for university courses to further ourselves, to study areas of academia that interest us? At what point do we agree to be courted by anybody who knows how to set up a promotional stand. With online learning becoming central to may university courses, and independent learning constantly being pushed as the key to success, whose to say that campus marketing may lead to a further erosion of traditional campus teaching, with students opting out of running the promotional gauntlet. Were we ever given a box that said "Please tick here if you don't wish to receive further information about our products and services in the Bournemouth area"?.
In essence, I think times have changed and being a student in 2008 is hugely different to being a student in even 1998. Higher education is now a marketplace as opposed to being something more akin to a public service and marketisation is safely encossed within the components of the university dynamic. Anybody who signs up for a course from now on will undoubtedley have a fantastic life experience and will enjoy studying what truly interests them, but they will also be just another consumer in the marketplace, whose pound is as good as the next person's, and I really don't forsee how this can ever change now.
What I'm asking really is is this a good thing? Are you happy to receive information about the latest deals, after all as a student you'll never be worse off, you're always looking to save a few quid. Or, as in my case, is this presence a constant vex for you, do you just want to get to your lecture on time without these distractions and find it hard to engage with Dave from Virgin telling you he can "cut you a deal" on broadband or Holly from Walkabout offering you 6 shots for a pound and naming rights to her first child?
All comments welcome!
Where will this marketing activity end? Surely we as students sign up for university courses to further ourselves, to study areas of academia that interest us? At what point do we agree to be courted by anybody who knows how to set up a promotional stand. With online learning becoming central to may university courses, and independent learning constantly being pushed as the key to success, whose to say that campus marketing may lead to a further erosion of traditional campus teaching, with students opting out of running the promotional gauntlet. Were we ever given a box that said "Please tick here if you don't wish to receive further information about our products and services in the Bournemouth area"?.
In essence, I think times have changed and being a student in 2008 is hugely different to being a student in even 1998. Higher education is now a marketplace as opposed to being something more akin to a public service and marketisation is safely encossed within the components of the university dynamic. Anybody who signs up for a course from now on will undoubtedley have a fantastic life experience and will enjoy studying what truly interests them, but they will also be just another consumer in the marketplace, whose pound is as good as the next person's, and I really don't forsee how this can ever change now.
What I'm asking really is is this a good thing? Are you happy to receive information about the latest deals, after all as a student you'll never be worse off, you're always looking to save a few quid. Or, as in my case, is this presence a constant vex for you, do you just want to get to your lecture on time without these distractions and find it hard to engage with Dave from Virgin telling you he can "cut you a deal" on broadband or Holly from Walkabout offering you 6 shots for a pound and naming rights to her first child?
All comments welcome!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
