Are Stadium Naming Rights an Effective Marketing Practice?

Photo found on: Ad Pulp

After the Final Four wrapped up here in Detroit, The Detroit Free Press published an article stating that as a result of the event being held at Ford Field, Ford Motor Company had won $22.5M in free advertising from media coverage. The "Freep" noted that despite the fact there were no courtside signs present, "Ford received more than a minute of clear, focused exposure time during the two nights of coverage. Ford Field was also mentioned by the CBS announcers 23 times." (For background, when Ford purchased the naming rights to the stadium (completed in 2002), it agreed to pay $40 million over 20 years).

This article inspired me to bring up the use of stadium-naming rights as a marketing tool. It's a topic on the heat of many tongues over the past few months, primarily due to public criticism of Federal-bailout-money-funded banks continuing on with naming-right plans. Although the practice isn't anything new, over the past few years as stadiums have become larger and more luxurious, naming-rights prices have skyrocketed. For example, in July of last year Ad Age reported the naming-rights for the new Giants/Jets stadium, was estimated at $800M. And on February 4 of this year, MSNBC reported (via the AP) that “Citigroup's contract with the Mets is the biggest stadium naming rights deal ever...paying the team $400 million over 20 years...” At rates this high and the economy this low, is it even worth it?

In the MSNBC report, William Madway, marketing instructor at Villanova had said in regards to purchasing naming-rights as a marketing tool, “This is not a silly thing…this is not a corporate jet.” (Although I don't think this is a very good comparison, because an asset like a corporate jet isn’t intended for marketing purposes and in many cases the jet isn’t silly because the plane is already a sunk cost and the company is only paying for operation costs to fly (instead of paying for fluxuating, booked-at-the-last-minute, high-priced commercial airline tickets). It makes business sense because the plane flys large numbers of employees (not just executives) to highly frequented company destinations multiple times a week. But I digress.). Don Sexton, a professor of marketing at Columbia, on the other hand said "You have to have the right tone. People in these times have very sensitive ears...Perceptions rule." In other words, if people are highly critical of how you're spending taxpayer money, it probably isn't a good time to continue with a high-priced, high-exposure sponsorship. He also said, "from a branding perspective, there's no hard data to prove how effective stadium naming rights are for financial services firms."

This brings us back to the Freep article. So what if the company name was mentioned on the air? Did the name make people think of cars or football (the Detroit Lions) or college basketball? What was the actual ROI for Ford Motor Company - the car company? Did more people go out there and buy or lease new cars/trucks or get a warm fuzzy feeling when they thought of the Blue Oval? Can it be compared to $22.5M of strategized, paid-for advertising when it may not have been reaching or connecting with the appropriate target audience? What has been the actual naming-rights ROI over the past few years for Ford?

In 2005, Brand Channel posted a Brand Debate asking readers whether or not corporate sponsorship (specifically stadium naming-rights) scored with consumers. There was a range of differing opinions, from those who didn't believe it made people more inclined to purchase products/use services, to those who said it may help increase or strengthen top of mind awareness if the stadium/sport has something to do with the product and brand experience. In other words, before throwing money at naming-rights a company needs to remind themselves of their brand basics. What does your brand stand for? What do you want the customer to think or experience when they're exposed to your brand? So what if a customer knows your name...do they know what the brand is about and like what it stands for? Does tying the brand name to a stadium or sports team compliment your overall brand goal? What if the sports team is a losing one or tends to get a lot of bad PR?

In my opinion, not only is it difficult to measure the ROI to justify buying naming-rights as a marketing plan, but there are an unlimited number of ways to more effectively reach your customer for far less spend. You can do a lot of marketing for $400M and do it smartly - i.e. in ways that won't anger consumers and tarnish your brand image. But, if you do decide your brand might fit with a sports team (maybe you are a maker of athletic shoes or something), just remember to go back to the brand basics before pulling the trigger.

Iconic Brand Power Proved: Snicker's Snacklish Campaign

Over the past few weeks I've been seeing billboards and buses in the Detroit-area that seem to be all about jibberish: "Get some bling with Master P-Nut," "Pledge Sigma Nougat," "Nougetaboutit." Realizing these ads were for Snickers (based on the logo and brown background), I did a Google search and discovered Snickers' new "Snickers Speak" campaign from TBWA\Chiat\Day New York. Snickers is putting on a full-court press to encourage people to learn "Snacklish."

This isn't the first time Snickers has tried to get people to speak its "language." Similar ads were launched in 2006 using words like hungerectomy, peanutopolis, and nougatocity (Arnold Zwicky has a nice list of words and definitions from the 2006 campaign here). Back then, it got people talking, but not everyone was sold on the new words. For example, two commenters on Ad Freak said that "Hungerectomy" reminded them of rectom and hysterectomy rather than the intended meaning of removing hunger. Although it isn't certain Snacklish will actually work its way into conversations with friends (NWT reported "Executives at Mars and TBWA/Chiat/Day New York say the Snickers language will resonate with 'young adults who are texting each other...making up their own words, their own shorthand.'"), what this campaign proves to me is the power of Snickers' brand.

How many other brands would get away with only using a single word on a billboard and have people tie it back to the correct product? These ads prove Snickers is an iconic brand, a brand according to WPP that is "...instantly recognizable...with such powerful visual cues (it) has an intrinsic advantage over others, not least beacuse it ensures that marketing communication is linked to the right brand...Our analysis found that brands considered iconic enjoyed far higher top-of-mind awareness...(suggesting) that iconic brands are strongly associated with their specific categories."

So what are the take-aways from this campaign? First, these ads serve as a reminder to those of us with newer brands to be specific in our advertising and to be smart about what visual cues we link to our products. For example, if Dove were a new entry into the soap market, just showing the word "Clean" inside the outline of our logo probably won't make much sense to the consumer...yet. Second, for those of us working with the brand powerhouses, it reminds us to be sure we don't lose sight of what makes our brand an icon. Would a McDonald's commercial be the same without seeing golden arches? Would Energizer batteries be the same without the bunny?

If you want to see more Snickers' Snacklish ads, Ad Land has a several posted to their website. Or you can visit Snickers' website to learn more about the campaign.

Celebrity Endorsements: Do They Work?

Last week, USA Today published an article calling out favorite brands of the Obama family. In the write-up, Bruce Horovitz stated if the president-elect were to advertise the favorite brands of his family(Hart Schaffner Marx, J. Crew, Planters, Fran’s Chocolates, Honest Tea, Nicorette and Ford), these companies would most likely receive an increase in exposure and/or sales. One example he mentioned involved Michelle Obama. "During a Tonight Show with Jay Leno appearance, she [Michelle] wore — and talked about — a $330 outfit she had bought online. Shoppers snapped the look up. 'All the items were gone the next day,' says Jenna Lyons, creative chief at J. Crew." When reading this, I was brought back to an often discussed marketing/advertising question: Do celebrity endorsements really work? And even if they do, are paid celebrity endorsements a good business investment (i.e. is the ROI worth the (most times) extremely high premium)?

In early 2007, innovations report wrote about research conducted by the University of Bath (UK) and University of St. Gallen (Switzerland) on this exact topic. The article noted that research results questioned the effectiveness of using celebrities to sell products since it was discovered “...that many people were more convinced by an endorsement from a fictional fellow student… because many people feel a need to keep up with the Jones’s when they buy.” Furthermore they found that people “...like to make sure their product is fashionable and trendy among people who resemble them, rather than approved by celebrities...So they are more influenced by an endorsement from an ordinary person like them.” Besides this study, Brand Republic reported that some celebrities plugging products may actually turn off the consumer. In an article published in November of last year, survey results revealed “...that one in five mothers said the sight of Victoria and David Beckham plugging something in an ad would be more likely to put them off. Only 16 per cent were prepared to admit that celebrity endorsement would persuade them to buy a product.” Based on these reports, would you spend millions of dollars on a celebrity to advertise your products?

Besides the obviously monetary investment, when companies use celebrities in their ads they also take on the risk of damaging their brand/company/product image. For example:

• Overexposure: If a celebrity is representing too many products or is in too many ads, that person may lose their credibility and/or lose their "turning heads" factor. Also, we may end up tying our brand/product to something we didn't particularly want to be associated. One case of celebrity endorsement over-exposure I can think of off the top of my head is Tiger Woods. Over the past few years he has represented General Motors, Titleist, General Mills, American Express, Accenture, Nike, Tag Heuer, Gatorade and Gillette. I know Tiger is popular, but honestly, do you really listen to him in an advertisement anymore since he's in so many of them?
• Credibility: If your product is not something the celeb representing you would realistically use, then a partnership is probably not the best idea. Keeping with the Tiger Woods theme, a consumer could totally see him using Nike and Titleist products, what what exactly does he have to do with management consulting (Accenture)? Some other examples of bad celeb-product matches? Do you think Jessica Simpson would be caught dead eating greasy pizza in public or could you honestly see Fran Drescher shopping at Gap's lower-end chain? Probably not so much.
• Reputation: We try to control our brand's image, but the fact is, even when a celebrity agrees to our contract terms, we can’t really control what they say or do, and a mis-step could lead to years of damage to our brand(s). For example, many companies could not have predicted the negative publicity Michael Vick would bring upon himself. About.com reported: "Just one day after Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick pleaded not guilty to federal dogfighting charges, companies began distancing themselves from the controversy. Nike suspended its contract with him, Reebok stopped selling Vick jerseys and trading card companies Donruss and Upper Deck removed Vick's card from the rest of their 2007 card pack releases. The NFL also pulled all Vick jerseys, autographed items and other memorabilia from its NFL Shop site."
• Consistent Brand Image: When we put our products out into the market place, it's important we present a consistent image to the consumer. It brings trust and recognition to our brand. However, continually swapping celebrities is one way we can take away that consistent image. One brand I can think of who constantly changes their celebrity image is the Gap. Since the late '80's, Gap has relied on the use of celebrities in their ads with a laundry list of probably 40+ including the likes of Sarah Jessica Parker, Joss Stone, Lindsay Lohan, John Mayer, Mekhi Phifer, Claudia Schiffer, Sarah Silverman, Liv and Steven Tyler, Michael Vartan, Madonna and Brittany Murphy. In August, Marketing Daily quoted marketing consultancy Brand Keys' president Robert Passikoff as saying the Gap has a "sustained problem with brand identity that isn't solved by using stars in ads."

Over the past couple of years it appears more and more companies are realizing consumers may not buy something just because a celebrity face is linked it. Brand Republic commented: “In 2001, 17 per cent of TV ads the company was testing featured a celebrity. Last year, that fell to 8 per cent, and this year it's at 6 per cent." About.com reported on Pepsi dropping celebs from their ads stating the company “...said the celebrities were too big and the Pepsi brand didn't get the promotion out of the ad campaign that the stars were getting." On a similar note, Chrysler dumped Celine Dion after signing a 3-year, $14 million dollar deal with her. "Insiders at Chrysler say the commercials featuring Dion driving a Pacifica produced great sales...for the singer, not the car.”

What's YOUR Priority?: The USPS and its conflicting messages

A few days ago I wrote an entry on customer deception - about how some brands were relying on short-sizing to keep product prices constant and help preserve their bottom line. Continuing on this theme, I came across a blog discussing how the US Postal Service is yet another brand deceiving consumers to help out their financial state. Bruce Watson from Walletpop talks about what he calls a scam by the Postal Service. He writes: “In an effort to combat its budget deficit of over $1 billion, the United States Postal Service is, allegedly, trying to upsell its premium services while hiding its less expensive options. According to an anonymous source, the USPS has instructed its employees to stop offering inexpensive shipping; whenever customers come in with anything larger than a letter, employees are supposed to ask if they want Express Mail guaranteed overnight delivery or Priority Mail. If the customer asks about cheaper options, the employee is then allowed to discuss First Class, Parcel Post, or Media Mail. The key element here is that the customer has to mention the cheaper options, as the counterperson can't.”

What I find interesting about Bruce's entry is the fact that just this week, the USPS announced their 5 year strategic plan called “Vision 2013.” Vision 2013 "rests on three major strategies: 1) Focus on what matters most to customers. 2) Leverage our strengths to create customer value and profits to invest in continued improvement. 3) Embrace change in the way we respond to emerging customer needs and a rapidly evolving business environment.” Regarding focusing on what matters to customers, the USPS plans to build on trusted relationships, communicate effectively, start with customer needs, and provide excellent customer experiences. In their words, “being "good enough" is not sufficient to increase customer loyalty and gain new business.”

Although it has a long and enduring brand heritage, it's no secret the United States Postal Service does not have the most sterling reputation. In January of 2006, Brand Channel wrote an article criticizing the brand ("USPS - Return to Sender") stating "presently, a country's postal service is a necessary evil." They noted that "...the brand image of the postal service is largely shaped by its customers' visits to the local post office, and occasional undelivered or late mail." And based on their documented experience (a visit to a Post Office in NYC near Columbia), the brand image was definitely not a positive one.

Since the USPS obviously needs to take some drastic measures to help improve their brand, Vision 2013, seems like it should be a way to help turn around this "brand gone bad." However, I wonder when exactly this 5-year-plan is slated to be kicked into high gear - now or later? If the rumors circulating the internet are true, being deceptive about your product offerings isn’t really a good start. Communicating effectively? Building on trusted relationships? People are going to think this is a joke. Well, then again, maybe it is...and if so, the joke's on us.

A Question in Mixology - Should you tie politics to your brand name?

The brand-impact question of the day...Is mixing politics with your brand name a good idea?

Example #1: The world’s largest producer of frozen potato products, McCain Foods, is making an attempt to steal market share in the U.S. from Heinz’s Ore Ida (the current National leader). How do they plan to accomplish this? Through a new, politically themed ad campaign: “Why McCain should be in the White House.” Although most people may be reached by the campaign through print ads, the home-base for the campaign is McCain's website. Below are some "direct-quote" snapshots:
---------------------------------------------------------------

Whether you are a democrat or republican, we hope you are hungry because we’re about to change the way you think about McCain.

McCain Deals with the Big Issues

• Defense – McCain potatoes will protect mealtime from the axis of ‘evil-doers’ –namely boredom and repetition.
• Environment – Deliciously different McCain Potatoes means a clean plate, free of leftovers that compromise the fragile ecosystem of the dining table.
• Economy - When you buy more McCain Potatoes, it creates more jobs. For us. What did you expect? Another stimulus check?
• Energy - We’re not afraid to tell big oil “enough is enough.” That’s why every variety of McCain Potatoes is 0g trans fat.
• Education - With McCain Potatoes, there will be no fry left behind. We promise.
  Democracy - McCain promises to stand up against all dic-taters and produce only good, honest potatoes.
• Ethics - McCain will stand up for right vs. wrong. And serving the same old, boring potatoes is just plain wrong.
• Faith - If you insist on waiting for some other brand of potatoes to wow you, we suggest praying.
  Immigration - Anyone who wishes to migrate from their current brand to McCain Potatoes can do so freely, and without any red tape.

Blue Vs Red: Why you should go for the blue bag

• We believe everyone has the right to better potatoes. Don’t sit idly by while the other guy keeps rehashing the same old spuds.
• We stand up against big oil. Every McCain potato product is 0g trans fat, and requires zero offshore drilling.
• We don’t believe in business as usual. With so many unique flavors and cuts, McCain is clearly the anti-establishment.
• We believe in America’s youth. With so many fun products for kids, there will be no fry left behind.
• We’ll never, ever go negative. One look at McCain Smiles and you’ll know we’re not mudslingers.
  We believe in family values.
• There’s no sense living in America if you have to pay an arm and a leg for good frozen potatoes. We believe in cuts for everyone.
• Tax cuts are great, but crinkle cuts and wedges are so much tastier.
  

Join McCain Potatoes in our campaign for change! We have a big challenge ahead of us, and we can’t do it without you. Sign up now to get the latest campaign updates delivered right to your inbox, including press coverage, fun photos, hilarious videos, new product info and more. It’s quick, it’s free and it’s easy.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Example 2: In another case of tying a brand to politics, just today, Ad Age.com ran an article about Captain Morgan entering the presidential race. Ad Age states "the Captain's economic message calls for five-day weekends, and he's ambivalent about global warming because he wants to 'ensure the party stays hot, hot, hot.'...The alcohol behemoth is the official wine and spirits company of the Republican National Convention and the preferred wine and spirits company of the Democratic National Convention." In a campaign I believe is similar to something they ran in 2000, Captain Morgan is "putting the party back in politics." Besides Captain and his "entourage" attending key events, the main points of contact are a Facebook page and YouTube videos.

Campaign Analysis:

So...back to the question of the day. Should you tie your brand to politics? And if so, which is the better execution - Captain Morgan's -or- McCain Foods?

McCain Foods

Let’s start with the McCain campaign. Sure, it’s a clever play on current events and an overall more creative advertising campaign. However, in my opinion, tying your brand to a political candidate is probably not the best idea for long-term brand appeal. Why? Sometimes advertising does not send the intended message. The problem here is that the brand name is too closely tied to a political figure and some ads are using an impersonator of the political figure (McCain foods plans to run video clips and a national media tour featuring professional impersonator Frank Caliendo as John McCain). Why is this an issue? Although McCain Foods is not owned by Arizona Senator John McCain, some consumers may wonder. Also, McCain could lose appeal if John McCain loses the presidential race –or- even if he becomes President. Sure there is significant name recognition that has been built up by the John McCain for President campaign. However, recognition does not mean customers will buy your product. Another reason this is a risky move for McCain Foods is due to the consumer they are intending to target. Yesterday, David Shipley from the Telegraph-Journal quoted Mike Grossman, managing partner of SCC/Grossman, the firm handling the PR portion of McCain Food’s campaign. Grossman states, "Our brand positioning is designed to surprise and delight today's active mom…She's not home watching television. She's juggling lots of things, probably a job, certainly community interests and at the same time she feels like she needs to do something special at the dinner table to surprise and delight her kids." Identifying the target customer (busy mom, probably ages 30-45), it's essential McCain Foods knows how she feels about Senator John McCain before launching this ad. According to polls by Fox News, Lifetime Television (Every Woman Counts Campaign), ABC News/Washington Post and EMILY'S List , women currently prefer Obama over McCain.

• Fox News (late July) - Reported Obama is winning among women under 40 by 13 points.
• EMILY'S List (early August) - Regarding women voters, "Obama leads Senator McCain by an incredible 30 points among Gen Y, 11 points among Seniors, 8 points among Gen X and 6 points among Boomers."
• Lifetime (early August): "More than half the female electorate (53%) hold mostly positive views of Obama...Women like Obama largely because of his personal attributes (35%), such as his intelligence, youth, speaking ability, honesty and energy....31% hold unfavorable views (of McCain)....Obama also holds an advantage among Independent women, who favor him by a twelve point margin (42% for Obama)."
• ABC News/Washington Post (late August) - Obama has a 55-37 percent lead among women .

Although on the McCain Foods website, in small, almost-camoflaged, white font they do list a disclaimer ("Disclaimer: McCain Foods is Not Affiliated with John McCain For President," the disclaimer isn't prominent enough for most readers to notice. Yet another reason the company is taking a risk of a misinterpreted message. (If the reader clicks on the disclaimer a box pops up and states: "U.S. Senator John McCain is the presumptive Republicannominee for president. We are McCain Foods, the world’s largest producer of frozen potatoes and manufacturer of other quality food products. We share the same name as Senator McCain, but the connection ends there. Founded in 1957, McCain Foods is privately-held by a Canadian family that is not connected by commerce, kinship or any other way to the U.S. senator from Arizona. If you see Senator McCain associated with our brand or products, rest assured that it is just an election year marketing spoof and nothing else. Thanks for paying attention. We’re in the business of selling potatoes, not participating in politics. And the only endorsements we’re prepared to make this election season are for the products we produce. Vote for change. Go for the blue bag: McCain Potatoes.")

Captain Morgan

Next, let's look at the Captain Morgan's campaign. Although it doesn't garner marks in creativity (repeat of previous campaign?), the brand is continuing to convey a consistant message - i.e. offering up a campaign that matches the brand image (a promise of fun times, having a "little Captain in you", etc.). Besides this, Captain Morgan's campaign doesn't tie itself to a political candidate (i.e. people won't question whether or not the company/brand is making a political statement/ recommendation), and the company knows no one will really believe "The Captain" is actually running for president. The campaign is humorous, matches the intended audience's interests (uses Facebook and YouTube, promotes partying/a good time, etc.).

Final Conclusions

After looking at these ad campaigns, we are provided with one example of how mixing politics and brand name could be fun/effective and another that could be very degrading to the brand image. On Friday, the McCain Foods campaign kicks off nationally with a print ad in USA Today. So, "Soccer Moms," who will you be voting for? Do you have a "little Captain in you?"