Cream of the crop – Gillette brand profile

This feature first appeared in the July 2010 issue of Marketing magazine. 

On masculinity, celebrities and the power of brand loyalty, Matty Soccio faces facts and admits that he’s a slave of the shave – an area Gillette has dominated for over a century.

Wake up. Fumble with alarm. Schlep out of bed while everyone else still sleeps. Stumble to the bathroom in the dark. Stub toe on bookshelf. Turn on bathroom light and jump in the shower, feeling some life and consciousness beginning to wake in your body. Get out, dry off and look into the mirror.

This little performance occurs every day in every guy’s bathroom – the moment when you realise you have to shave. For many, it’s unavoidable. The hair on your face will grow to a point where a) your parents will complain about it, b) your girlfriend/wife/boyfriend will complain about your sandpaper face, or c) it will become long enough for small children or animals to swing from it, making you wonder why you’ve been cursed with such an affliction.

Then again, you could just shave – a minor ritual that when completed instils a degree of pride in your appearance. It’s a wonder that such a mundane daily task of such insignificant importance could be the driver behind one of the most successful superbrands in the world.

For a brand to feature the prefix ‘super’, it needs to display a few set characteristics: power, awareness, wealth and influence. Over the years we’ve covered a lot of superbrands at Marketing, with varying degrees of response from our readers. Shell, IKEA, Disney, Google etc have all appealed because their characteristics matched our definition of which brands deserve this somewhat overused prefix.

Why this vague introduction? Because Gillette is the first brand that I’ve come across where, during the course of my research, I’ve had a brand researcher excitedly babble about how ‘super’ it is. His excitement (which will be revisited later in this feature) was over a collection of numbers suggesting that (according to his scale) Gillette was highest point-scoring brand he’d ever seen.

Why? Because, if its marketing campaigns are to be believed, at various times in its existence Gillette has been responsible for men getting their jobs, getting the girl, having the life and, most importantly, being men.

From his office in Singapore, Emre Olcer, marketing director, Gillette Male Grooming (AAIKJ), indicates that the male hygiene sector, or ‘male grooming’ as it’s referred to within the industry, has evolved in recent years, allowing men to not feel uncomfortable when approaching the subject.

“There is a phenomenon of what I call ‘genderisation’, whereby on the one hand, men today have a greater variety of specialised grooming products available to them and, on the other hand, men who were using female grooming products are switching to male grooming ones.

“In this latter phenomenon, we all see that there have been many male grooming products entering the market in the past one to two years, thus ensuring that there is now a greater variety of grooming products available to feed the changing needs and increasing demands of the modern 21st century man,” adds Olcer.

 

Marketing the masculine

I don’t remember learning to shave or when I started even having to entertain the thought. But once I realised the attention that well-sculpted facial art could bring, it was like a revelation. I have since dabbled in everything: the goatee, the chin strap (also known as the ‘Abe Lincoln’), the hobo growth – you name it, I’ve worn it. These days I keep a ‘salt and pepper’, neat, closely trimmed beard, bereft of the experimentation of my early days (though I am known to let loose come the Movember period, of which more later).

The stereotype of the ‘girly man’, the stigma attached to the legend of Narcissus (a man so enamoured with himself that he fell in love with his own reflection, culminating in his death by drowning) can still rear its ugly head when men are accused of excessive ‘manscaping’. The challenge for marketers such as Olcer has been to break down these misconceptions that prevent men from taking notice of their appearance and, more importantly, their hygiene.

“I used to work for a multinational company that specialises in female beauty before I moved to Gillette. Having managed only female beauty brands previously, I was interested to find out more about male consumers – then Gillette came into the picture. It is a multinational company with a global brand name that I think has the most innovative range of male grooming products out there. These factors are what attracted me to move on from managing female beauty brands to Gillette,” Olcer explains.

“Marketing to men is very different from marketing to women. The manner with which a male consumer searches for a product, shops for it and makes a decision to purchase it is very different from that of a female consumer.”

But how do you make such a regular daily function seem not only attractive and cool, but a part of weekly shopping purchases? Gillette has, over time, presented itself as a daily ‘need’, rather than being about self-indulgence. It tells its consumers that Gillette will get you the job, not just because it wants to infiltrate your daily lives, but because it wants to state the obvious – if you shave to look good, you will feel good.

Marketing masculinity in this way is what Gillette does best, and has done for the better part of 115 years. By providing men with the Gillette Grooming Guide, which gives consumers shaving directions (starting with how to perform the first shave, going right through to perceivably more difficult endeavours such as how to shave your groin) and linking to sports, the whole lifestyle of the consumer is considered when planning new products and the supporting campaigns.

“I think our commitment to product innovation and research and development is another hallmark of the Gillette heritage that remains with us today,” says Mike Abbott, marketing director of Gillette for its parent company, Proctor & Gamble. “Our goal is to deliver the ideal shave – one characterised by great closeness, combined with optimal comfort and no skin irritation. That has driven us since day one.

“In 1958 this meant producing the first adjustable razor. This allowed for an adjustment of the blade to increase the closeness of the shave. In 1971 this meant working with our R&D team to develop the world’s first two-bladed razor, the Trac II, which cut the number of strokes required and reduced skin irritation. Our R&D team studied the shaving habits of more than 10,000 men to develop Gillette’s Fusion, the world’s first five-bladed razor.”

The benchmark for the brand’s existence has been the importance placed on a solid R&D-based strategy… but it’s also its Achilles heel when it comes to the brand’s image.

Like any superbrand, Gillette isn’t immune. But rather than criticism, Gillette has been the butt of jokes related to its multiple-blade technology. Programs like The Late Show and Saturday Night Live in the US have poked fun about the gradual adding of blades to the brand’s products. Satirical magazine The Onion even printed a mock ad after Wilkinson/Schick introduced its Quattro razor in 2004 entitled ‘F**k Everything, We’re Doing Five Blades’ (which, incidentally, the brand actually did with the aforementioned Fusion three years later). These evolutions in the brand’s products have been the centre of its successful branding – but, in the end, do consumers really need five razors to shave? Absolutely, says Abbott.

“A misconception some people have is around whether five blades actually make a difference. Well, they do. The benefits of multi-blade razors were discovered in the late 1960s.

“When cutting a hair using a multi-blade razor, the hair undergoes a process called ‘hysteresis’, in which the first blade extends the hair out of the hair follicle and allows the subsequent blade to cut further down the hair shaft before the hair has fully retracted back into the hair follicle. This provides a closer, longer-lasting shave. As more blades are added to the razor, the probability of this process is increased,” asserts Abbott.

Other criticisms range from the profit margin gained by the company versus its products’ actual manufacturing costs, through to accusations of tracking consumers through its use of tiny cameras via RFID technology in its packaging (yes, seriously).

Something that Gillette’s marketing department does very well when facing such criticism is refer back to the science to showcase a product’s ability and popularity, even if the explanation sounds like a defence. But there’s a good reason for this – Gillette has been fighting off rivals and critics for the best part of a century, meaning it’s very good at taking on the competition.

 

Man behind the brand

King C Gillette wasn’t your average inventor. He spent much of the 1880s as a travelling businessman, attempting to pull together a living for a family whose interests had been wiped in out the 1871 ‘Great Chicago Fire’. During this period of renewal and industrialisation in the US, the emphasis on having disposable products for consumers was coming to a head, a concept not lost on the enterprising Gillette. In essence, he was able to identify a need for a product in the market that was easy to access and cheap enough to buy – in this case, a disposable razor.

Despite the fact that the idea of the disposable safety razor had been in development for some years, Gillette was able to commercialise and progress it further.

In 1903, after establishing the Gillette Safety Razor Company, Gillette sold just 51 razors and 168 blades. Thanks to low prices, good manufacturing and smart marketing, the next year that number rose to 90,884 razors and 123,648 blades.

How did he achieve these numbers you ask? Gillette was a clever guy – he realised the benefits of giving away his product or selling it at an extremely low price to introduce consumers to its ease and usefulness. He knew that once they had a razor they would continue to purchase replacement disposable blades for years, even decades – and thus ‘freebie marketing’ was born.

When I query Abbott on this, he is coy in his response (“Procter & Gamble does not share detailed information about its marketing strategies” was his response), but it doesn’t subtract from the success that has been documented about this brand of marketing.

For King Gillette, it gave birth to the concept that investing money in the company’s R&D would mean the brand would grow with its consumers. It would make sure that it didn’t become stale and always had something new to offer – a concept that has worked for the company all over the world.

Its early advertising reflects this – a man saying he didn’t get a job because of his shabby appearance, a little boy being taught by his father to shave and so on, the full ‘cause and effect’ style of advertising.

“When King C Gillette introduced his revolutionary Safety Razor in 1903, he founded a company on the time-honoured credo, ‘There is a better way to shave and we will find it’,” says Olcer, when quizzed about the brand’s heritage.

According to Olcer, the brand’s success globally is inextricably linked to the ideals its founder preached in the early part of the 20th century.

“Gillette has remained true to this spirit for the past century and continues to deliver on that promise with ground-breaking razors featuring innovative technologies from the Sensor to the Mach3, Mach3 Turbo and, of course, our latest and best razor ever, the Fusion – currently the bestselling razor in the world. Each and every one of these razor innovations was inspired by ever-changing and evolving consumer needs. The continual emphasis on consumer needs driven innovation to keep on finding a better way to shave is probably the reason why Gillette has been the leading force in male grooming for more than a hundred years.”

A big test for the company came when it succumbed to the progress that is globalisation, and was bought by Proctor & Gamble (P&G) in 2005. The question was asked: could it continue its dominance if it answered to the board of a new owner?

 

How big? 

On a busy Friday morning, I have what is arguably the fastest coffee meeting in history, lasting no more than seven minutes. The meeting is with David Evans, head of BrandAsset Consulting, who meets me to hand over some stats about how Gillette has travelled in past five years.

“In a word, this is a true ‘superbrand’. I haven’t seen statistics like this with any other brand post the GFC,” gushes Evans.

As I ponder if Evans has secretly been paid off by the brand to deliver this glowing assessment, he turns his laptop toward me and shows me why.

According to Evans, not only has the company maintained its leader position in an otherwise eroding category, it has actually gained strength and, shock horror, grown during the GFC.

Following its purchase by P&G, the company outperformed its closest (and I use that term loosely) competitors, Bic and Wilkinson (which owns Schick Razors) by around 23 percent and 61 percent respectively. The fact that Wilkinson is best known by the 35-plus age group, and very little below that, goes to show that Gillette, despite letting its guard down in the late 1980s, has dominated to the point that, generally, people under 35 have barely heard of the competition.

In fact, after going through the multiple graphs and tables, it would seem that Evans’ stats show that Gillette leads in every area of its category. And by a lot.

These statistics don’t surprise Olcer. He points out that Gillette is the only male grooming brand ranked in the top 30 of the BrandZ ‘Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands’ list.

“With over 600 million men globally trusting their faces to Gillette every day, it is clear that we know and understand men! We know what men want: a close and comfortable shave. We are always focused on finding a better way for men to shave. It is this spirit in innovation that led the founder to develop the world’s first safety razor slightly more than a century ago. This same pioneering spirit of innovation continues to be the cornerstone of every Gillette success that we have seen over the years – from the invention of the first twin-blade razor and then the three-bladed Mach3, followed by various breakthrough shaving systems in the past decade, such as the enhanced Mach3 Turbo blades, the M3 Power and the world’s first five-bladed Fusion.”

Campaign strategy and marketing techniques is, as mentioned earlier, a sore point with Abbott and Olcer. Gillette has never rested on its laurels – being at the top for so long doesn’t mean you’ll stay there, even if it means being reserved in revealing marketing techniques.

What Abbott does share is that the brand has made sure that its accessibility to consumers matches its investment in R&D.

“In January, we introduced a new addition to the successful Fusion range – Gillette Fusion Gamer. Available in manual and power, the Gillette Fusion Gamer is designed to provide total comfort, even against the grain. Both shaving systems feature five blades, with each blade spaced 30 percent closer together than Mach 3 blades, providing Gillette’s most comfortable shave ever. The razor has been designed with style in mind and has a cool, fresh look that exudes a high-tech feel. The colours and materials used have been inspired by the latest white trend used in many high-tech gadgets such as iPods and Macs. Again, our local ‘Champion’ Michael Clarke featured in this TVC and all consumer touch points.

“The reaction from consumers to both of these campaigns has been extremely positive, with the Fusion brand now bigger than our nearest competitor’s total male shaving business in only three to four years.”

When visiting the company’s online properties, it’s clear that every scenario has been covered – extending to online tutorials on head shaving, dealing with oil/acne/tight/sensitive skin, and how to shave a coarse beard. But, despite being owned by a big pharmaceutical megalith, Gillette’s marketers can have some fun.

The brand released a video on YouTube entitled ‘How to shave your groin’, which has been viewed by over 2.3 million potential consumers.

“Online is an important touch point for us,” explains Abbott. “As we all know media is becoming more fragmented and no longer are consumers just watching free-to-air TV. Having an online presence is important to us to ensure we are connecting with our consumers in the right environments at the right times. This is especially true of our younger consumers. Engaging with consumers via social media is also an important tool for us. We look at social media in terms of the opportunities that exist both above the line and below the line.”

An initiative on which Gillette may have missed the boat is the incredibly popular Movember, a charity set up to encourage awareness of men’s issues and health, and which is supported by Gillette’s rival Schick (owned by Wilkinson Sword). But neither Olcer nor Abbott are interested in commenting on what competitors are doing – their interest, again, is in their direct consumers.

“In the past 10 years, while remaining true to our brand heritage, we have made a conscious effort to ensure the brand still remains relevant to our current users, as well as new consumers coming into the marketplace for the first time. This means subtle changes, from the way we communicate to the mediums we use,” explains Abbott.

 

Brand by celebrity

There’s almost nothing that screams Gillette more than its legendary support of sporting events and, therefore, sportsmen. The celebrity role call is outstanding – the ‘Gillette Champions’ program boasts the likes of Roger Federer, Thierry Henry, Shoaib Malik, Derek Jeter, Kenan Sofuoglu, Ji-Sung Park and Rahul Dravid, all suited to their specific markets.

In Australia, budding Australian cricket captain Michael Clarke is the face of the brand. A recent promotion attracted consumers by promising those who entered a branded competition a chance of a training session with the cricketer.

“Gillette is one of the earliest brands, if not the very first, to venture into the area of sports marketing. Gillette had been involved with top-tier athletes and sports back in the first few decades of its existence. Over the years, Gillette’s participation in sports marketing grew from its ventures in North America to involvement in global sporting activities and events. Most recently, we launched the global Gillette Champions program, which continued the pioneering element of sports marketing in the brand’s heritage from its early days close to a century back,” explains Olcer.

But, as all marketers are aware, the celebrity track is one strewn with the dead of its PR disasters. For Gillette, choosing the right sporting ambassador isn’t as easy as it may seem, exemplified by its recent experience with golfer Tiger Woods.

The decision to rely so heavily on celebrity endorsement is wrought with danger – it’s akin to high stakes gambling where anything that ambassador does wrong could potentially damage the brand, but the projective pay-off is so big that it’s hard to resist. M&C Saatchi Cape Town chief executive partner Mike Abel pleaded in an article for Marketing (February 2010), for brands to ask themselves more questions than simply slap a celebrity face on their products.

“We’re in a world where content is about consumer engagement, but ‘fun’ doesn’t have to mean ‘tacky’ and ‘memorable’ doesn’t have to mean ‘in your face’… brands must play a role in getting us to notice and understand what’s meaningful about a product or service offering.”

But Abbott insists that a lot of what Gillette does today is based on what has worked for it on a historical basis.

“For example, Gillette has been associated with top athletes and sport since the early 1900s, when the company had the vision to see the value in connecting the brand with top-tier sports and athletes. We believe this was one of the key strategic elements that helped the company grow into a world leader in the male grooming category – and that is why we continue that tradition today,” explains Abbott.

“Appointing a celebrity as a brand ambassador isn’t a short-term strategy and it isn’t right for every brand. It has to be the right fit. It also has to be supported with a long-term strategy that works across a range of touch points to ensure relevancy and currency.

“Many of our campaigns are developed on a global basis; however, we do ensure we remain relevant to Australian consumers with the most recent example being Michael Clarke appointed as Gillette’s local ‘Champion’ building off our Global Champions program.”

To Olcer, celebrity endorsement is just one of the elements in a marketing campaign, no different to the consideration given to other facets such as TVCs or direct mail.

“Celebrities are enablers in the process – they personify what the brand stands for to the consumers. But, this is not the only important factor in the consumer’s relationship with the brand. Equally important is the consumer’s experience of the brand promise and product benefit – it is absolutely necessary for the brand that the product delivers on its promise without fail.

“Gillette has marketed its wares to men for over a century pretty successfully, thanks in part to the mix of factors like our deeply rooted understanding of men, sports celebrity endorsements and innovative products that deliver superior performance.”

In the end the success of Gillette’s strategy can be seen in the increasing revenue it consistently brings in – as the saying goes, if it ain’t broke, why fix it?

Olcer points to his personal favourite campaign, Gillette’s iconic slogan ‘The Best a Man Can Get’, as proof of this, though he insists that those with the cut-through to elicit consumer response, such as the Mach3 campaign with jet fighters and the Gillette Fusion razor launch TVC, are equally worth their weight.

“These are memorable campaigns that still remain on top of consumers’ minds even many years after their debuts!”

 

How the mighty hath grown

After 100 years, Gillette still relies on the same sales principles that King Gillette believed would create brand loyalty. This becomes clear when I ask Abbott what drew him to work for the brand.

“My father was a huge Gillette advocate and taught me to shave with Gillette Sensor 25 years ago and I have always loved performance, design and technology. The ‘Best a Man Can Get’ motto just resonated with me and when combined with the sports association it was a perfect fit – I’ve never looked back.”

Abbott indicates that part of the reason the Gillette brand has been so enduring is because it stands by its product – everything else is secondary.

“Our products, and in particular our systems’ blades and razors, are the result of years of extensive research. At Gillette, the entire innovation process is based on a deep understanding of men. We continually study men’s shaving needs, their shaving habits and their skin in great detail.”

Olcer points to Gillette’s ethos of standing for innovation, first and foremost. Its ‘new-to-the-world’ blades and razor technologies are the cornerstone of the company’s success over the past century.

“Each of these breakthrough razor technologies provides for superior product performance to men out there and this image is reinforced, partly thanks to the brand’s long-term association with top-notch sportsmen and athletes. Our most recent sports marketing campaign, the Champions program, for instance saw the personification of the brand as one for champions,” Olcer explains.

“Gillette does not innovate for the sake of innovation: every product innovation is designed to meet the needs of men out there. We believe in leveraging breakthrough technologies in our products to make a difference in consumers’ lives. And the integration of Gillette into Procter & Gamble has enabled us to touch and improve more lives, more completely, in more parts of the world.”

One could argue that the brand lost an ideal opportunity to engage with a whole new crop of young shavers by not jumping on-board the Movember charity phenomenon as Schick did, but that would be losing sight of the work it has done in talking to consumers directly about their daily lives.

Initiatives such as the Grooming Guide and ‘First Timers’ are aimed at being more honest with consumers, rather than needing to attach a gimmick to making men feel manly.

“For this reason up to 80 men come and have their daily shave with us every morning at the Gillette Technical Centre in the UK. These consumer learnings are combined with scientific insights into how blades interact with skin and hair and are continually translated into new product ideas and working prototypes via advanced engineering and high-precision manufacturing processes,” asserts Abbott.

“New product developments are always assessed on whether they provide a better shave than razors currently on the market. Gillette will only ever launch a new razor when these improvements are significant, and truly meaningful to men.”

It’s a hard formula to knock: have a product that works, that at least half the population needs and provide it to them in a way that is easy for them. Make your presence known through their interests and engage with them when they need it. This simple relationship has been the cornerstone of Gillette’s current success. Its challenge? Keep reminding everyone why it has dominated its market for so long and how much it has done to liberate men from the stereotype of former hygiene expectations… or lack thereof.

Its head in the game – FIFA brand profile

This feature first appeared in the August 2010 issue of Marketing magazine.

How do you maintain order in a sport that has more member countries than the UN and nearly as many players as the population of the US? Matty Soccio ties up his boots, pulls on his jersey and runs out onto the field of the gods to put FIFA through its paces.

There’s something about football that gets me all excited – hot and bothered in a good way. C’mon, we’re all adults here (generally), this doesn’t necessarily have to be a sexual thing… for some it may be, but in this context I’m talking about a different emotion: passion or, more precisely, passion for a game.

Passion is a word that has started wars and big companies; it has been the making and breaking of many, especially when it comes to sports.

I’m not going to trade blows with those of you who support different codes of ‘football’. I don’t really care how much you think rugby is the real footy, or if AFL is what football should be. The fact is, after 150 years (and, according to some archaeologists, even thousands of years) association football, soccer, wog ball, whatever you choose to call it… football is the world game.

What else do you call a sport that counts more countries as members than the International Olympic Committee or the United Nations?

Sitting at the helm of this world sport is the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), one of the world’s largest and oldest NGOs. Interestingly enough, FIFA began its life pretty poorly – in fact it nearly didn’t survive its first five years, due a dispute with the Football Association, the group that started the game.

The UK was the centre of the football world in the early 20th century, having hosted the first ‘international’ football match (between Scotland and England). In May 1904, six countries (France, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland) decided they wanted to get in on the action and formed FIFA as a means of organising matches between national teams. Slowly but surely more teams signed up to the Association, with Germany and England both signing up a year later, followed by the first non-European member, South Africa, then the first South American countries, Argentina and Chile, in 1912.

At this point, the Association’s founders and chairman believed that FIFA was about protecting the sanctity of the rules and becoming the main contact for the game around world.

It was up to FIFA to control all facets of the game internationally, including organisation of football matches for the 1924 Olympic Games, its early crack at organising a major tournament.

Its role as solely an association changed dramatically in 1974 when Brazil’s João Havelange took over as FIFA president. It is Havelange who is credited with turning the organisation not only into a commercial enterprise and one of the most recognisable global brands, but also into a kind of aid organisation. Previously, FIFA had taken the stance that its role was to preserve the amateur status of players, allowing even the smallest nations to participate in the Association’s events. Havelange flipped that theory on its head, claiming that by aligning the organisation’s interests with commercial enterprise, it could do more to aid developing nations through funding programs to expand the game and enrich the locals’ lives participating in it. During his reign, Havelange saw countries such as Guam, Lesotho and Montserrat become members of FIFA through its help.

This mission has continued under the presidency of Joseph ‘Sepp’ Blatter, who took over from Havelange in 1998.

“FIFA’s mission statement is ‘develop the game, touch the world and build a better future’, and this is something that is essential for the success of the strategy,” Ralph Straus, FIFA’s head of strategy and management, tells me on the phone from South Africa, as the 2010 World Cup take places around him.

“We are organised in accordance with this mission statement. For instance, the FIFA Fan Fests are part of the ‘touch the world’ concept, as is the organisation of the FIFA World Cup and all the other FIFA events. It’s not a commercial background to organise the international FIFA Fan Fest; it’s to offer the fans [the opportunity] to watch those games in a secure environment. At this point in time FIFA only invests in it, so we are not earning any money with the Fan Fest, both internationally and in South Africa. It is really part of an objective to give something to the fans, and of course there will be hopefully some positive PR from it, but the principle is to offer something nice to the fans.”

But some believe that FIFA is in fact just an organisation that capitalises on the power and popularity of the game, not the other way around – because of its position as the governing body, it treads a fine line between organisation and autocracy.

Robert Barnes heads up Dangerous Minds Consulting, a consultancy for national sporting organisations in Australia and New Zealand, and he thinks that FIFA is (or al least should be) essentially about the game, and it’s the game, not FIFA, that connects many global communities.

“Football is about the people as it continues to be the most widely played (and watched) sport in the world. Essentially, FIFA is a global federation of confederations – the peak body that constitutionally governs how the game is played around the world and has power vested in it from the confederate members to run the World Cup every four years. What FIFA perhaps has lost sight of is that it doesn’t own the game. So why does it think it does?

“The game itself is a vehicle for so much development work, community goodwill and contributes to the personal and national pride of so many… yet FIFA is seldom linked to such work. Despite its annual report perhaps accounting for significant investments in such work, it does not appear able to gain any global kudos. It is the game itself and those on the ground supporting the play.”

It’s an association that is also a branding super power – the control FIFA has over its merchandising rights and the licensing of its name is closer to the CIA than Sony, more ‘clandestine’ than ‘Coca-Cola’.

But it wasn’t always this way. Straus indicates that the Association’s marketing strategy was inconsistent and disjointed due to the complex nature of the relationship it had with its members. In fact, says Straus, for a long time FIFA didn’t even have its branding on the World Cup it had spent years organising.

“Until 1998 the word FIFA was not used in any of the official emblems. It was referred to as a World Cup. Since 2002 we started to include the word FIFA into the official emblem, so it’s known as the FIFA World Cup,” says Straus.

“The timing and how we develop the different brand assets is relatively consistent now. This, of course, totally depends on the local organising committee, because they have a very large influence on this, because it’s done in their country. It’s also important for the local organising committee to be involved and to have ownership of the event and the brand image. There are certain differences, but you see the brand development over time.”

In essence, FIFA’s board of directors doesn’t just control a sporting organisation, it has a large say in what happens in the host countries as well. It is effectively the ‘Illuminati’. It almost has more influence in more governments than just about any organisation on earth. Why? There isn’t a nation on earth that doesn’t have a football team, regardless of how good it is.

What represents nationalism better than the pride of a country’s football team flogging the closest neighbour – think Australia versus New Zealand – hence why everyone wants a crack at being the best; everyone wants to get their hands on the Holy Grail.

Quest for the Holy Grail

This year millions of bleary-eyed Australians gave in to their fierce national loyalties and were to be found in front of their televisions or their computers at ridiculous hours of the morning watching their team get bundled out of the competition for the world’s most sought after prize. Why? The ‘P’ word again. Never mind that Australians are already viewed with rolled-eyes over our obsession with sports of all kinds. We’ve been called everything from ‘sore losers’ to ‘bad winners’, but one thing we’ve never been accused of is a lack of passion.

Traditionally, Australia hasn’t been seen as much of a football playing market. This view changed when the Australian team was taken out of strange Oceanic/South American group, and added to the Asian football circuit. Facing up against nations that were at least equal in ability, the national side made it into its first World Cup in 36 years when it went to Germany in 2006. With heroes like Harry Kewell, Tim Cahill and goalkeeper Mark Schwarzer, Australians had a new sport to add to the passion list. The fact that the team made it to the final 16 meant that football in Australia was guaranteed a shot in the arm. Has this turned Australia into a football nation though? SBS head of sport Ken Shipp won’t discount the concept, but acknowledges that there has been a core group of ‘diehards’ that has supported the game for a long time.

“I’d say that mainstream Australia is a bit more familiar. I think our core audience has always been fascinated and in love with the World Cup,” he says.

FIFA’s World Cup is one of the most amazing events on the planet.

At the 2006 event, 85,185 people worked under FIFA’s organising committee. The 2006 World Cup final, a 90-minute slog between Italy and Brazil, had a cumulative audience of 715 million people.

According to Football Plus magazine, an estimated 500 million were said to have watched each 2006 World Cup match, meaning one in every 13 people on the planet were following a game at any one time.

Think of some of those numbers and then equate them to your company. Imagine trying to put on a televised event for 175 million people, in over 200 countries around the world, dealing with each country’s broadcaster and government.

But the real proof of the passion of FIFA’s ‘consumers’? The 2006 World Cup attracted 15,000 volunteers.

FIFA’s organisation of the aforementioned 1924 Olympics football tournament drew 60,000 people, showing the then head of the Association that there was a market for a sole FIFA tournament that could include all of its member nations. After six years of organisation, the first World Cup was held in 1930. Through various world economic depressions and a world war, the World Cup was the shining light that, just like the Olympics, reflected the world’s political landscape.

Considering the size of the current 2010 World Cup, organising this event is a feat that deserves more recognition for those involved. I ask Straus to describe how it is to put together such an event. In a word: ‘complex’.

“It is complex because of the significance and the magnitude,” explains Straus. “It depends a bit [on the changes] World Cup to World Cup. The development of the brand identity for a FIFA World Cup normally starts six years before the event. Four years before the event we launch the official emblem, which is the icon of that World Cup. With the official emblem, we launch the brand identity, and this is then used to build up the brand image around the FIFA World Cup over the four years.

“Of course, a time horizon of four years before starting is very long in advance, so during that time we launch additional brand assets like the official host city. We are engaged with all the member associations in the preliminary competition, which is around 850 qualifying games that are played, so there is some branding there as well – on the players’ shirts we have a badge and in most games we have a centreboard. This is all used to build up the brand awareness and equity for all the brand assets for the FIFA World Cup.”

Straus specifies that when it’s getting close to the tournament around the final draw, the awareness already has reached a certain minimum level. This ranges from a few mentions on local broadcasting to full campaigns from partners’ brands. All of this is measured carefully by FIFA, to make sure that it’s getting the most out of its strategy.

“We do a lot of brand research around the world, measuring the brand awareness of FIFA World Cup brand assets, including the recognition of the FIFA World Cup trophy (which is currently the best recognised icon in the world), against things such as the Auscar and the Champions League trophy. Based on the feedback, we then determine in which markets we need to put in additional activities. We do that either together with our commercial affiliates or, of course, use our brand assets and their promotional activities with the media licensees on TV to expose all the brand assets.”

As Straus mentioned earlier, one of the things FIFA now does to make sure that its branding remains consistent is to create a strong brand architecture – featuring the official emblems in a predefined format to ensure brand consistency across the different events. This was a simple change that has made a massive difference in the professionalism that the world has come to expect from FIFA.

“Of course, with the FIFA World Cup we go much, much further in the applications – in the host city dressing, stadium dressing, the promotional activities we’re doing and in the brand experience activities we are planning around it. For the other events, we do it a bit smaller – the same structure and the strategy, but the impact is a bit smaller. You can now see the Women’s World Cup and the Under 20 World Cup slowly developing into senior events, with high attendance figures and high TV figures, which will have an impact on the development of the brand as well.”

FIFA is well-known for its merchandising licensing, but how has that changed with its ability to have access to online retail?

According to Straus, in terms of actual sales, offline is still stronger. It established its pilot FIFA store in 2007 at Changi Airport in Singapore.

“I think so far the focus has always been on the on-site merchandising. The on-site merchandise we’re selling at the stadiums still exceeds what we sell online; however, there’s a bit of a change in strategy on this one, partially driven by brand objectives. One thing we are developing is FIFA official stores around the world with FIFA branded merchandising. This is to have an opportunity during the four years for a FIFA branded retail outlet to establish additional touch points with the fans, and to develop additional exposure for the FIFA brand in terms of merchandising.

“We have now internationalised the concept for 2010 to have event stores in a number of markets in South Africa. So you transpose a little bit of the brand identity into different markets where the people can come in and support building this South African feeling around the world – this is something which is of course very important. It’s the first FIFA World Cup on African soil and it’s very important to communicate this around the world, to offer people around the world a bit of a South African experience that is also a great promotion for the country.

“FIFA is a not for profit organisation, so any income FIFA has is reinvested into football, be it to organise the FIFA World Cup, or football development or social development projects. So this is one area,” adds Straus.

For the people 

It’s early morning of the first week of the final 16 team matches at the 2010 World Cup, and Ken Shipp is preparing for a big day in South Africa. I catch him as he’s about to head out to schmooze with some FIFA bigwigs, to further cement SBS’s 20-year relationship with FIFA, give it an extra polish.

“We were the host broadcaster in 1993 for the World Youth Championships, which were held in Australia, and that was the beginning really of our close connection. As host broadcaster we developed relationships with Sepp Blatter, who at the time was general secretary of FIFA. So the relationship we’ve had on a professional level is very strong… [SBS’s best-known football pundit] Les Murray refers to [Blatter] as one of his friends, so it’s a terrific relationship that’s just been built over a huge number of years,” explains Shipp.

“We’ve now covered the World Cup since 1990. We shared 1986 with the ABC, and since then FIFA has seen us develop football – they see and understand our passion for the game, they respect us as a credible broadcaster, and we’ve been able to compete financially on a level playing field so far. We really call it a partnership. What we struggle against now is sudden interest from the other commercial broadcasters, who suddenly have realised what a great event it is. But because FIFA has known us for so long, because they trust us and we’ve worked so well together, there’s a respect there. I think that does help us.”

Murray, in his unwavering support of the game, has himself become a branding phenomenon for SBS, with his face linked to the World Cup as readily as Bruce McAvaney is to the Olympics (though only Murray has had a song written about him by TISM, ‘What Nationality is Les Murray?’). With his co-host, ex-Socceroo Craig Foster, Murray has become the face of SBS’s partnership with FIFA in Australia. But Shipp asserts that this commitment to football is all part of a wider strategy of concentrating on the sports that the broadcaster knows best.

“We’ve made a big decision to focus on two sports (football and cycling) as our primary content verticals, and by focusing on them we can make sure that our investment in those sports is pretty sound. Then we’re not distracted by spending other pockets of money here and there on other events, which really at the end of the day don’t get the same benefit, the same audience outcomes that we get from our treatment of these other sports.”

Shipp indicates that this strategy extends to its other media portals, which during the recent 2010 World Cup were receiving record levels of engagement.

“In terms of, let’s say, the different media channels which we are utilising, you see a bit of a shift of importance from radio to TV, then we see now an increased importance of internet; however, based on the research we’re doing, sports consumption on TV is still the biggest,” says Shipp. “Of course, we’re working very strongly with FIFA.com (the official website for FIFA and for the event). In 2006, FIFA’s was the best performing sports site, sporting event site – it had 125 million video streams during the tournament, and about 4.2 billion page views just in the four weeks of the tournament, so that was quite an achievement. Our relationship has changed as the market has become more mature and the expectations of all partners have increased and developed. As new technologies come on, at each World Cup we’re looking at new issues to deal with.”

But the public’s interaction has moved even further than Shipp indicates – Straus explains that one of FIFA’s biggest events is held online: the EA Sports FIFA World Cup for gamers.

“One additional important development in brand awareness is our focus on youth – they mostly know the Association through interacting with the EA FIFA game, so their brand experience is through this. Through this game they have a very good experience with FIFA as a brand. So about five or six years ago we started the FIFA Interactive World Cup, where we have an online competition. Last year we had the one big offline final, but we have an online competition – we had over 760,000 people participating in this tournament, which is the biggest online tournament in the world. This is a great platform to communicate with the fans and in the end the winner of the FIFA Interactive World Cup got a money-can’t-buy experience – being able to go to the FIFA World Player Gala, meet the world players and [they] really got something which is unique. This is something that we should really add to the brand exposure of FIFA.”

Shipp says that SBS’s relationship with the brand extends to FIFA’s online properties, pointing out that a deal with FIFA is a deal with destiny.

“I really love working with FIFA. I think they’re the most professional organisation I’ve ever dealt with. Sometimes they can be hard nosed in terms of if there’s a difference of opinion, but you can pick up the phone, talk to them, thrash out your issues – usually under some sort of compromise. I think they’re great,” enthuses Shipp. “They’re like God in my view. They’re the gods of the sporting world.”

Why can’t we be friends? 

If we then accept that football is the game of the gods (and who wouldn’t want to be in partnership with the gods?), Zeus aside, how does a brand best cash in on it?

Considering some of the stats mentioned earlier, you would imagine that partnerships with FIFA would be some of the most sought after in the world… and you’d be right.

The calibre of partner is reflected in the 2010 World Cup with the likes of Coca-Cola, Emirates, Hyundai-Kia Motors, Visa, Adidas and Sony counting themselves as premium partners of the event.

Ruben Lawrence, strategic partnerships manager at Sony, has been in charge of the company’s partnership with FIFA in Australia, something that he indicates has been challenging, but worth every second in terms of the brand awareness and advertising opportunities that are allowed.

“It was actually Sony’s first global sponsorship deal of this scale, and really encompasses all Sony companies around the world, as indeed football does, and that’s what FIFA represents.

“[2005] was a time when FIFA was really looking at how it interacted with its partners and its partnership structure. There was a rejig of that partnership structure, moving from sponsors and gold, silver, bronze etc, to six marque partners. We signed up third, after Adidas, which has been with FIFA for 40 odd years, and Hyundai, which was also an existing partner.

“So it was announced in April of that year that Sony would be part of that partnership structure, in addition to a larger category, so Sony’s category extends across all key technologies – all consumer electronics, audiovisual devices, games consoles, computers etc – but you class it I guess as a super category because it also covers music, Sony Music and Sony Pictures properties as well. Later there was the addition of Sony Ericsson, the official mobile phone of the World Cup 2010, which came in as a kind of sub-deal if you like.”

Lawrence indicates that Sony’s decision to partner with FIFA was one built not only on the basis of the World Cup’s guaranteed attraction of hundreds of millions of eyes – it’s also the Association’s ability to transcend its commercial side and involve itself in the social aspects of development and ethos that Sony is eager to share. And let’s not forget the spectacle of the game.

“Yes [the association] is about the 90 minutes of the game – but for FIFA, football doesn’t stop there; it’s involved with football across the board. It’s the celebration of the entertainment that is football. As a global entertainment brand it makes sense that we partner with effectively one of the biggest single sporting entertainment properties around the world. Because while football has different appeals in different territories, if you add it all up it’s right up there – it’s played from the plains of Africa all the way through to the city of Rio and the south of France. You can’t get away from it as a sport and an entertainment property, bringing people together as a sport around the celebration of football, the playing, watching with your friends, watching in a group.

“From a consumer electronics perspective, what you’re seeing through the 2010 World Cup is the emergence of three-dimensional technology. By the actual experience of watching football at home through your television, Sony is an intrinsic part of the enjoyment of the football process. Whether that’s taking pictures of you and your mates when you’re down at FIFA Fan Fest in Sydney or in the crowd actually at one of the games, or whether it’s watching little Johnny running around in the ‘under eights’ at a park on a Saturday with a Handycam, the capturing and the enjoyment of the sport from the electronics perspective is where we’re at,” adds Lawrence.

During the tournament, Sony’s technology is being used to capture 25 out of 64 games in three dimensions, he explains, which are being broadcast through its three-dimensional televisions globally, essentially incorporating the brand into the process. And, if you look at FIFA’s partners, they encapsulate every part of the consumer experience, whether it’s the food they eat at the stadiums, the flights they take to get to the event or the gear they buy while they’re there. FIFA has created an environment in the World Cup that marries partners with consumers, without fear of competitors. In a socialist kind of way, in ‘FIFAstan’ your brand is made to stand out.

“We’re inherently involved. It’s not simply a logo placement exercise; we’re actually involved, and that’s really to me what a partnership is all about,” states Lawrence.

Shipp agrees – on a global level, there is no bigger event in the world than the FIFA World Cup and, as a rights holder, he indicates that brands get access to the event beyond what anyone else would ever get.

“The breadth of content that’s available to us is unbelievable, and part of our contractual arrangement with FIFA relates to access in many levels, in terms of production, but also for our own sponsors and partners, and we’re able to use the efficient branding in ways that other people can’t. And that official status is, like you say, it really is gold; it’s very important to us, and it shows our audience just how close we are to the game, and the relationship we have with FIFA,” says Shipp.

But for those entering an agreement with FIFA, there’s a price. Barnes estimates that, despite how influential FIFA is as an organisation now, partners need to be wary that they’re really getting what they’re paying for.

“There will come a time when the cost of being involved (reportedly to be about $100 million to buy the rights to partner FIFA, plus the hundreds of millions spent telling everyone about that partnership) may be too high considering the partnership exposure that comes with being associated with FIFA’s World Cup. This is in light of the exposure available to ambush marketing brands who do as well by telling their target audiences they are not formally involved.

“However, sponsors will find value in association with the game at many levels and not formally with FIFA, which in turn affects FIFA’s ability to attract value to the game and its own members, being the confederations. So the longer confederate members of FIFA are OK with the way FIFA is managing the brand as it has done during World Cup 2010 to higher the risk they themselves will contribute to the devaluing of the brand.”

Something for the fans

On top of this coverage, FIFA also offers partners a spot at its FIFA Fan Fests, the Association’s major attempt at having a globalised event that runs in as many countries as possible alongside the World Cup. The concept, however, grew naturally through the enthusiasm of football fans. Ralph Straus elaborates: “The Fan Fest is something that has grown naturally. The first time there was a Fan Fest was at the 2002 World Cup in South Korea, which occurred spontaneously. [It was] organised when a lot of fans gathered at a big square in Seoul, and watched a match and celebrated. It was formalised in 2004 for the European Championships with one big Fan Fest in Bordeaux, France, which was a huge success. We took the concept and organised it in Germany 2006 in the 10 host cities. The principal idea was to have a premium viewing quality giant screen, free access for everybody in a secured environment with all the merchandising, food and drinks etc. Not just watching the matches, but really providing an experience.”

This was a significant success for the Association. At the 2006 World Cup, FIFA recorded over 18 million visitors to FIFA Fan Fest events – six times the number of people who went to the matches.

“The two main surprising factors were that, first, people actually travelled from other countries just to go to the Fan Fest – they didn’t have a ticket, but they just went to the Fan Fest to be part of the experience. Second was that the overall experience was very good: over 90 percent of all the people stated they would go again,” says Straus.

“However, one of the things I think we could have done a little bit better was the branding – it was not entirely clear to a lot of people who actually organised those Fan Fests. [Some] thought it was the organising committee, other people thought it was FIFA. Some people even thought it was the beer company who organised it. From a communication point of view, we needed to be a little bit better, but overall it was very good – no hooliganism and no incidents of violence. Now we have taken the concept further and have organised official FIFA Fan Fests in all the host cities in South Africa, and in Johannesburg where there are two stadia.”

With a brand this big, with so many cultures, brands and companies involved, how could there not be some hiccups along the way?

During the 1994 World Cup, held in the US, McDonald’s and Coke had to destroy products bearing the Saudi Arabian flag (on which is depicted the Islamic declaration of faith) because of consumer complaints.

In protecting its partners from occurrences such as this, FIFA has also been accused of heavy-handed tactics, in some cases using government departments of host countries to prevent ‘ambush marketing’. During this year’s South Africa World Cup, an English commentator was fired after being accused by the Association of organising a stunt that undermined its marketing policy. The stunt? He provided tickets to a group of attractive girls for a Dutch match, who stripped off disguises to reveal themselves in skimpy orange dresses, which FIFA contended were from a rival beer company to its alcohol partner Budweiser. The girls and the commentator were arrested by local police and held for a few hours, leading to the Dutch Embassy lodging an official complaint. This reaction may seem extreme, but when you consider that punters consumed 1.75 million litres of booze at the 2006 Fan Fest sites alone, you’d probably be pretty protective too.

“We have a whole program in place to protect the rights of our partners, which starts with prevention: preventing other companies from using the FIFA World Cup in an unauthorised way for ambush marketing,” explains Straus. “It’s things like checking around the stadiums, not only for signs of ambush marketing, but also counterfeit materials. In many cases, it works very well… sometimes it’s very difficult and has a bit of a negative PR effect. Where we need to put more focus is on educating people what ambush marketing actually means and why FIFA is acting against that, and it’s not about being bad or disallowing other people nice things; it’s about protecting the rights, and with this, securing investments into football and into the organisation of the FIFA World Cup, because it’s a very, very expensive event to organise. It’s pretty much impossible to organise it without the support of the sponsors, and with this comes the obligation for FIFA to protect their rights,” he concludes.

Regardless of the media reaction to FIFA’s actions, the Association’s zeal to protect its partners must make those concerned feel loved and looked after. From Shipp’s perspective at SBS, this zeal shows that the Association respects that their partners expect to get what they pay for.

“They’re very honourable all around in that way. They are very respectful of [partner] relationships, and in many ways, sponsors and broadcasters alike expect them to protect our brands from ambush marketing. FIFA understands that, because that’s why these people are paying big money, and therefore they’re very strict about ambush marketing. You’ve seen them take action here… with the Dutch girls who were wearing the branded dresses. It’s absolutely critical. It’s like a three-way partnership where everybody protects each other again to make sure that we maximise the opportunity for all the parties concerned, and frankly you wouldn’t pay big money unless you knew that you’d have that support from FIFA. I think it’s just clever business.”

According to Shipp, this three-way relationship extends to interaction between partners – the official partners contact each other to make sure that no one is standing on toes when it comes to their marketing strategies.

“Through our commercial affairs team essentially, from an advertising and sponsorship perspective, we have certain obligations, and we talk to those partners first and foremost when we take our product to market, when we first go to market to sell the event each time. We have very good relationships with them.”

 

All for the round ball

There’s little doubt that once you see a controversial decision or a goal scored through dubious means (see Maradona’s ‘Hand of God’ goal in the 1986 quarter final between England and Argentina), the word ‘colourful’ as a description of the game and its Association is an understatement. Through accusations of cash for contracts and fixed matches, including the collapse of the Association’s biggest marketing partner International Sport and Leisure (ISL), the game continues to influence every walk of life. At the time of going to print, FIFA’s Australian representative, Football Federation Australia, was facing accusations of hiding money spent on lobbyists and grants to overseas football bodies headed by well-connected FIFA officials.

“FIFA’s own reputation seems to be inextricably linked to that of president Sepp Blatter, much like the IOC’s reputation was to Juan Antonio Samaranch. Thankfully, the game’s reputation is not and I suspect that even in a crisis situation where FIFA was brought to account, the game at confederation and national federation level would continue with little disruption in terms of how the game is played for the masses,” explains Barnes.

Barnes points to the dismissive and ‘autocratic’ way FIFA has reportedly treated the nation of South Africa as an example of how its actions will leave a major percentage of the ‘masses’ that it purports to represent feeling less than happy.

“The brand will be affected as these are the same people who play the game back home, buy tickets and merchandise, and volunteer to run the game at every level below FIFA. Football transcends language, ethnic background or socio-economic status to be loved and followed by billions of people.

“FIFA’s brand is affected by the perception of the people representing it publicly, given its mass media coverage and penetration in all media markets in the world. So when its spokespeople are portrayed as dismissive and autocratic during its flagship event, brand FIFA is also portrayed as such which effects everyone connected with it.”

In many cases, FIFA accepts the failings of the game and its members being representative of humanity – flawed but ultimately there to further the FIFA cause and the game.

As Shipp puts it, “I respect FIFA’s decisions about the game. The game is beautiful, the game is human; it has its faults. I respect that.”

This sentiment is reflected in the take-up of football as a sport. According to a report undertaken by FIFA, there are now 265 million footballers, both male and female, in the world. If officials and referees are included this number increases to 270 million people actively involved in the game.

Looking toward the future is at the core of FIFA’s existence. Without this focus, it would never be able to put together an event as huge as the World Cup, help develop the players that will get there and aid the countries that dream of hosting it.

“I think you need to develop the future before you can have the history. So as soon as the 2010 FIFA World Cup is over, the things that lag are the memories, and the memories evolve into the historical value of such a tournament,” says Straus.

“I am a passionate football fan. It’s not the primary reason I work for FIFA, [but] I think it definitely is a big part of it. Football – everything within FIFA is about football, and if you don’t have any passion for the game, then it’s probably very difficult to work for an organisation like FIFA.”

While researching this article, each person I speak with spends just as much time talking about the game that has just happened in the current World Cup or why they are enamoured with the game overall, as they do answering my questions. The word ‘passion’ comes up again and again, which says everything.

For FIFA it’s about keeping these people happy, not just every four years, but every hour of the day. Then, at the end of those four years, the gods release the lions again.

Tis the season for silly photos

We’re tucking a big 2009 in under the covers and looking fearfully, excitedly and giddily toward 2010.

We’re lucky enough to be out from 18 December to 4 January, 2010. We’re well and truly ready for 5 January, armed with a few surprises for the new decade.

If youve not yet filled out our readers survey, take a look!

From the entire Marketing team, have a very Merry Christmas, an aching New Year’s Day and a fantastic 2010.

Weekly Podcast: Entertainment digital style

Marketingmag.com.au has teamed up with the guys at Love Digital to bring you this weekly podcast on all things digital.

In this weeks show:

Viral online sporting brand campaigns: real or fake?

Three weeks ago a video appeared on YouTube of what attested to be the Uzbekistani national football team training for a World Cup qualifying match against Australia – nothing as sinister or earth shattering compared to what generally appears on the video sharing site. But what drew much attention to the video was that it portrays the Uzbek players kicking incredibly at a ball target – should one player miss, he places his head in the middle for his teammates to aim at.

Was it serious? Is this really the training program for an Eastern European national sports team?

It turns out that the video was a viral produced and planted by creative agency Lowe to promote the FIFA World Cup qualifying series. According to its website, Many Aussies think that the Socceroos are sure to qualify, so we’ve adopted an unorthodox strategy: we’re promoting the opposition. They’re fierce adversaries capable of knocking Australia out.

Lowe claims that the video notched up 180,000 views within a short time of its release – it’s now up to over 300,000.

Lowe is not the first agency to use this tactic – in fact it’s been quite common in the sporting promotions industry in the US and Europe for a few years.

The now legendary Nike ad featuring soccer prodigy Ronaldinho kicking a ball into the crossbar from outside the goal square has been viewed over 25 million times.

EA sports creatively answered a YouTube video that criticised the fact that Tiger Woods in his game could play shots on water – so the company posted a video online of Woods doing just that. It was an instant hit and showed to users that EA were listening.

But not all have been as well accepted. Gatorade shelved an ad produced by Harvest Films of a baseball ‘ball girl’ catching a fly ball over the stand, however the ad leaked onto the net and has since had just shy of 700,000 views – an unexpected success considering it wasn’t supposed to see the light of day.

Some viral ‘campaigns’ haven’t been so obvious. Since late 2008, New Jersey Nets star Devon Harris has been the butt of a serving at a UK basketball training session that has been viewed over three million times, depicting Harris and young local in a impromptu one-on-one game, in which Harris, a seasoned NBA player, is ‘hustled’ by Tanner.

But there has been speculation among YouTube commentators that the whole thing could be a viral marketing stunt, especially given Tanner’s connections to the British basketball scene. The training session where the contest took place appeared to be sponsored by sports brand Adidas, but there doesn’t seem to have been any follow up or reaction from the brand.

Kobe Bryant’s effort of putting on Nike shoes and jumping over a speeding Aston Martin was also been met with scepticism. While the video has copped over 4.5 million views, the general online consensus was that it was too blatant a campaign to be taken too seriously (not that I think anyone actually did). It didn’t hurt the brand’s image but very nearly could have.

More recently, UK agency Wieden & Kennedy seeded a viral teaser for its new Nike 5 campaign, featuring a teen ‘nutmegging’ Wayne Rooney (scoring a goal through his legs).

The 30-second short film, shot as if it was captured using a mobile phone, sees Rooney and Rio Ferdinand playing a five-a-side match with some teenagers. The film acted as a teaser for the Nike 5 campaign, ends with the strap line ‘show your 5’ and drives viewers to the Nikefootball.com website, so is a little more transparent.

Is this way to produce a viral campaign without being dragged ‘naked’ through the streets (pun intended)? Maybe so.

The videos that work best are the ones that are entertaining and don’t scream ‘buy our product’ – more like, ‘here’s an entertaining video, oh and by the way if you like Ronaldinho’s shoes contact Nike at…’

This style of online viral marketing is increasingly taking a central role in major digital campaigns. To ignore this channel, it would seem, could be at your own peril.

Weekly podcast: Twitters tipping point with Laurel Papworth

Podcast

Marketingmag.com.au has teamed up with the guys at Love Digital to bring you this weekly podcast on all things digital.

In this weeks show:

Weekly Podcast: The year of the mobile?

Podcast

Marketingmag.com.au has teamed up with the guys at Love Digital to bring you this weekly podcast on all things digital.

In this weeks show:

  • It was about this time last year that Australia hit this incredible
    tipping point – that there are now more mobile phones in this country
    than people. So is this the great unused screen for marketing?  
  • News in 90: with Matty Soccio – Twitter monetisation issues and Channel 9 Underbelly smashes downloads with Catch-Up TV. 
  • Interview: Interview with Geoffrey Handley from The Hyperfactory on the emerging world of mobile marketing.

Weekly Podcast: Lies, damn lies and… virals?

Podcast

Marketingmag.com.au has teamed up with the guys at Love Digital to bring you this weekly podcast on all things digital.

In this weeks show:

  • Two
    Australian brands have been on a roller coaster ride this week with a
    couple of viral executions being exposed as hoaxes. But is there
    anything wrong with a bit of mis-truth in advertising?
  • News in 90: with Matty Soccio: Pope launches YouTube channel and political marketing.
  • Top & Flop: with Gary Jaffer, Top & Flop with Gary Jaffer. This weeks top is Whopper Virgins, and this week’s flop is the Best Job In The World campaign that couldn’t hack the volume.
  • Interview: Interview Dena Vassallo from PPR on managing social media PR fall-outs.
  • Simon Says: with Simon Small, FNUKY, three tips on viral marketing.